(5/7/07)  The Select Board met Monday, April 30th.  Gerry Weiss, Anne Awad, Alisa Brewer, Hwei-Ling Greeney and Rob Kusner were all present, as was Town Manager Larry Shaffer.

Announcements

Ms. Greeney reminded voters of the election Tuesday, May 1st, and that polls would be open 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Mr. Weiss announced that Thursday, May 3rd was the monthly Art Walk downtown from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.  He encouraged people to go and enjoy the galleries, the art, the refreshments and the fun.

Public Comment Period

Bill Elsasser said there is a trash can in front of Subway that isn't getting emptied, and Mr. Shaffer said he would have that taken care of.

Mr. Kusner said that that reminded him of something a friend noted on a recent visit – that Amherst doesn't have multi-part recycling bins downtown.  He said their presence would help keep the downtown clean and would keep people aware of the need to re-use and recycle, and he encouraged the Town to pursue that.  Ms. Greeney said that she is liaison to the Solid Waste Committee and that that group had received a grant for that purpose, and that such bins are on the way.

Mr. Kusner suggested that Mr. Elsasser might lend his expertise with that project, and Ms. Greeney said she would notify Mr. Elsasser of the next meeting.  Mr. Elsasser cited a study he had read about in the newspaper, where there was found to be less litter at National Parks when there were fewer available trash cans, and more litter where receptacles were more prevalent.

Special Municipal Employee Status – Board of Assessors

Connie Kruger of the Board of Assessors spoke of that Board's desire to maintain Special Municipal Employee status, rather than revert to that of regular municipal employee status, because the change might make it more difficult to find members to serve.  She said the Board has high standards of conduct and awareness of the conflict of interest statutes, and said changing their status wouldn't affect that and might make it impossible to serve. 

Ms. Awad suggested that Ms. Kruger take that opportunity to explain what the Board of Assessors does, and perhaps attract new members.

Ms. Kruger said the Board works with the Town's professional staff in the Assessors Office, and with David Burgess, the Town Assessor.  She said they sign off on the total valuation of real estate and personal property, review and approve or deny abatement requests, and also deal with automotive excise issues.  She said their role involves oversight of the professional staff and helping the tax rate to be set and taxes to be collected.  She said the position does require some specialized training, and said that both members of the Board are trained and certified through a UMass program.  She said they take a special oath of office, promising impartiality and high ethical standard.  She said they typically meet once each month for about two hours.

The vote to grant SME status to the Board of Assessors was unanimous.

Special Municipal Employee Status – Aquifer Protection Committee

Robert Pariseau, the Town's Water Resources Director, said the Aquifer Protection Committee is composed of scientists and engineers in private practice and from UMass.  He said they have provided technical and professional knowledge about the complex Lawrence Swamp aquifer.  He said some have modeled the aquifer and helped with the South Amherst sewer project, and they provide valuable information.  He said that among the Committee's benefits to the Town is that it saves them the money of having to hire an engineer.  He said they have an aquifer sampling and monitoring program, and they present the data from that at their annual meeting.  He said it would be beneficial for committee's SME status to be renewed.

Lyons Witten, Chair of the Aquifer Protection Committee, said that the Committee has several vacancies, and he encouraged anyone who is interested in learning more about the Town's water supply and how it is protected to apply for a seat.  He said they typically meet once a year, though certain events require them to meet more often, such as an issue coming before Town Meeting that requires the Committee's attention.   He said that the status of the Town's ground water doesn't change rapidly, and noted that that was a good thing.

Mr. Weiss encouraged people to submit Citizen Activity Forms if they are interested in serving.  He said it would be a small workload on an important committee.  Mr. Kusner noted that both the Aquifer Protection Committee and Board of Assessors are Town Manager appointments.  Mr. Shaffer said he is proud of the professionals on both Boards, and said that both require a high level of expertise, and he said he appreciates the high level of performance of both groups.

The vote to grant SME status to the Aquifer Protection Committee was unanimous.

Article 24 – CPAC – Affordable Housing

Nancy Gregg, Char of the Housing Partnership – Fair Housing Committee said that the request for CPAC funds under the affordable housing category was for a mortgage subsidy program.

Ms. Greeney asked Peter Jessop, Chair of the Community Preservation Act Committee, if that committee sets priorities among its four areas of responsibility.  She said by way of example, that because she knows that the Town already has more than 30% of its land set aside for open space, she would want to concentrate on something more urgent. 

Mr. Jessop said that the four CPA areas (affordable housing, open space, recreation and historic preservation) are mandated by law.  He said the committee hasn't done any sort of a needs assessment among them, and don't use personal value judgments to make recommendations.  He said it is Town Meeting's job to set those priorities, not the committee's. 

Mr. Kusner said that much of what is considered open space protection is actually protecting land that is actively farmed or used for forestry, and he said both should be viewed as a form of economic development.  He said that “open space” is a misnomer when it is referring to active and productively used land that is fostering traditional local industries.

Ms. Gregg said the mortgage subsidy program seeks to provide three $50,000 loans for mortgage down payments to those making less than 80% of the local median income, which she said would equal about $57,000 or less.  She said that at a public hearing on the topic, local people spoke of their ability to qualify for a mortgage if they had such a loan.  She said the loan would be repaid upon the future sale of the house, and that the committee would soon be discussing whether it wanted to charge interest on the loan, because the purchasing power of that $50,000 would be less when repaid in the future.

Mr. Kusner said he had been at the CPAC meeting where this request was addressed, and said that he liked the suggestion that the payback come from a percentage of the property's value, instead of, or in addition to, some amount of interest. He suggested that might allow for a revolving fund such that Town Meeting wouldn't need to reappropriate the money multiple times.

Ms. Gregg sad that the Valley Community Development Corporation (Valley CDC) would administer the fund, and hold the lottery to determine loan winners.

Roy Rosenblatt, Director of Community Services, said there was language regarding the establishment of a revolving fund in the wording of the article, and Mr. Weiss read the relevant part, which included a statement that the staff person for the Housing Partnership - Fair Housing Committee would manage the fund.  Ms. Awad said she thought that was an odd model, and suggested that it be managed by the Finance Department instead.  Mr. Shaffer said he and the Finance Department would look into that.

There was additional discussion about how the fund might best be managed and how to deal with the question of adding some kind of interest payment to the loan. 

Mr. Weiss asked if this would be an ongoing CPAC activity.  Mr. Jessop said there is no decision yet as to whether more money would be sought for this purpose next year, but that they wanted to start with a small amount and see how it works out.  Mr. Weiss said he was enthusiastic about the program, and would like to see more money for it.  Mr. Rosenblatt noted that money to cover six loans was also sought the Community Development Block Grant funds, so if it is all approved, a total of nine loans will be available. 

Ms. Gregg said that at 80% of the median income in Amherst, a family could afford a house or condo up to $176,000, with 30% of their income going toward housing costs, including condo fees. 

Discussion returned to the idea of charging interest and ensuring that the loan fund benefited so that more money was available to others.  Ms. Gregg said that the committee also wants the homeowners to be able to benefit from the equity. 

Frank Wells, another committee member, said that if Valley CDC is selected as the management group, they would create the proposals for how money flows into and out of the fund, however interest is dealt with, and how to keep the details in compliance with the legalities of affordability.

Ms. Gregg said that the loans would go to first-time homebuyers, and that that could include displaced homemakers.  Ms. Greeney asked if they would be people who live or work in Amherst, which she said would be her preference.  Ms. Gregg said no such qualifiers had been created.  Mr. Jessop said that one of the reasons to have a group like Valley CDC manage the program is to ensure that it is legally defensible.  He said that would keep the Town from being embarrassed by including or excluding applicants in any way.  He said there was $5,000 assigned to pay those management costs, which he said included starting up the program and marketing it as well as keeping it running.  He said such fees are typically about 3% of the loan amount.  Ms. Awad agreed about the complexity of State law and how it can affect the ability to include or exclude people, but said there might be a way to encourage people from Amherst.

The vote to recommend this article was unanimous.

Article 25 – CPAC – Historic Preservation

Mr. Jessop noted that Town Planner Jonathan Tucker learned about this article being on the agenda too late to be able to attend the meeting.  The Select Board decided to postpone its consideration.

Mr. Weiss asked about a report from January that indicated that out of $414,000 appropriated for Historic Preservation, $293,000 hadn't yet been spent.  He said that given that backlog, he wondered if appropriations to that category should be slowed down.  Mr. Jessop said that he didn't know and Mr. Tucker could probably answer the question, but suggested that it is common for towns to do this.  He said that if next year the situation were still the same, it might be worth reconsidering. 

Ms. Awad said that she understood that 10% of CPAC funds needed to go to Historical Preservation, and that some years it could be more, and she wondered if this was one of those “more” years.  Mr. Jessop said all the categories are seeking more than 10% this year, and that the committee is still able to set aside $50,000 in unspent money to build up a small reserve.  Ms. Awad suggested a graph be presented at Town Meeting, showing the allocations, and Mr. Jessop said there would be a full status report that would include allocations to the different areas.

Ms. Greeney asked about the possibility of using CPAC historical preservation money for the Town Hall repairs, which she said was a $675,000 item in the capital plan.  She said this had been brought up last year also.  Mr. Jessop said it depends on the work being proposed, and that if it is deemed to be ongoing maintenance, it would not be permitted, but he said that there are blurry lines with capital repairs, and this might qualify, so he said he would seek a ruling from the Department of Revenue before making such a request.  Mr. Weiss said that the JCPC intended to meet with the Historical Commission about the possibility of funding the interest on the borrowing for this project with CPAC funds.  Mr. Jessop again said he would seek a ruling about that from the Department of Revenue first.

Ms Greeney said she didn't want to sidestep the law but wondered f the Town could “fudge it” a little.  She said that preserving the historic Town Hall should be equally worthy as preserving historic tomb stones, and that it was all taxpayer money.  Mr. Shaffer said there is no doubt that this would be a capital improvement, and that the nature of repointing the masonry of the old soft bricks with special soft mortar, and how it is cleaned and maintained should qualify as historic preservation.   He said that he expects at least a portion of the work to be eligible, with no fudging of the guidelines necessary. 

CPAC – Conservation Commission Requests

David Ziomek, the Town's Director of Conservation and Planning, said that the Conservation Commission had five CPAC projects to propose, and had ranked them in their order of priority for FY08.  He said the top priority was continued support for appraisals and surveys; second was North Amherst community farm land off of Meadow Street: third was property in South Amherst; fourth was property known as Haskins View, and fifth was the Levi-Nielsen land on South East Street.  Mr. Ziomek said the CPC couldn't recommend the priorities four and five, and that they would be the subject of a Special Town Meeting to be considered later in the evening. 

Mr. Ziomek said the $15,000 request for appraisals and surveys was pretty standard, and that it would cover two appraisals.

He said the North Amherst farm land was 50 acres of APR land off Meadow Street and owned by Cowls.  He said that Cinda Jones is excluding two acres of the property around the auction barn to keep it available for current or future uses.  He said it is a complex property surrounded by APRs in Amherst and Hadley, and that much of it is in the Flood Prone Conservancy Zone.  He said that there is RLD land to the north and that the strip in the middle is zoned as Light Industrial. He said this was part of the original Cowls sawmill property which was cut in half when Route 116 was put in, and said the family is in its 9th generation as farmers and mill owners.  He said he hopes that much of the adjacent Mill River land can be protected.  He said the Agricultural Commission would be taking up the article Tuesday and that the Conservation Commission supported it.

Ms. Greeney said she was concerned that she couldn't make a decision on the article tonight because of the late availability of the information, and she didn't like the fact that the parcels weren't mentioned in the article.  She wanted to know if the prioritized list of land to be acquired for conservation was available, and if the two parcels to be considered for a Special Town Meeting were on that list, or if they were being sought for political reasons.

Mr. Ziomek said this article wasn't expected to come up in Town Meeting for a while, and that he would be happy to come back to the Select Board if they weren't prepared to make a decision tonight.  He said that the Open Space and Recreation plan that Ms. Greeney referred to is being revised, and that the Meadow Street and South Amherst properties have long been identified as priority parcels, and have been on earlier versions of that list and he wouldn't expect that they would come off of it.  He said that neither the Haskins View property nor the Levi-Nielsen property have been on the Open Space and Recreation Plan. 

Ms. Awad said she was feeling overwhelmed by the complicated information.  She asked if CPAC didn't get as far as the number 4 and 5 priorities in their funding.  Mr. Ziomek said 4 and 5 could not be recommended because there was not adequate funding available. 

Mr. Kusner said that the two acres excluded from the Cowls property could allow for the marketing of farm products, and said it made sense to combine the building with farming activity, and said that while it would be nice to protect that part of the land as well, it also made sense to keep it as it is.  He said that property has been a high priority for a long time and that he felt it was the best farm land in Amherst.

Ms. Awad said this was a time to review the articles and that she thought it was premature for members to make advocacy statements.  She spoke to the lateness of the material arriving, and Mr. Ziomek said it hadn't been known that this would be on their agenda until Friday afternoon.  Ms. Awad cited the date on the memo being mid-March, and Mr. Ziomek said that was when it went to the CPAC.  Mr. Kusner apologized for showing his enthusiasm for the parcel. 

Ms. Greeney asked about the discussion regarding active farming and forestry being economic development, and what that meant for generating tax dollars.  Mr. Ziomek said that under various protections, the land is still taxable but at a much reduced rate.  He said that when it goes from a Chapter status to APR, the rate is nearly the same, and that what's lost when a parcel comes out of Chapter status and goes into a permanently-protected status such as APR or non-profit ownership is the potential future development and those potential tax dollars.  He said this parcel wasn't expected to result in a loss of money to the Town, and said that the two-acre strip could be developed for something agriculture-related, or something else.

Mr. Kusner said although the property has frontage on Route 116, it has no access, and that the river runs between the highway and the parcel.  He said silt from the river made it particularly good farm land.

Mr. Ziomek spoke about the previous discussion on unspent allocations.  He said that there is $40,000 of unspent open space money that represented two $20,000 allocations from a while back, and could now be released.  Mr. Weiss said he had suspected that that represented a legal issue, and was different than the unspent historical preservation money. 

Mr. Ziomek spoke about the property in South Amherst, which he said it is about 38 acres owned by the Tietjen family who had lived in Amherst in the 1960s, and always wanted to preserve the land. He said the land is currently RLD-zoned with an aquifer recharge overlay.  He said the goal is to preserve farmland and secondarily to have some aquifer protection.  He said it is prime farmland and is being used by Andrew's Greenhouse.  He said the goal was to get the land protected with an APR and then sold to the Andrew family.  He said the land had frontage available for other purposes and that it might be possible that the Tietjens would elect to carve out one or two flag lots from the parcel and retain those.  He said that both properties had been nominated by the APR program. 

Mr. Weiss asked if this article would come to Town Meeting without the flag lot possibility decided.  Mr. Ziomek said that historically, articles like this are worded in ways that allow families to make such decisions.  He said that when a property comes out of chapter, back taxes must be paid on the value of the piece that is carved out, and that that value is subtracted from the value of the full parcel. 

Mr. Kusner and Mr. Ziomek discussed the frontage issues and requirements of the property as they pertain to the State.  Mr. Ziomek said that the APR wouldn't be allowed without appropriate frontage, and that those issues would be worked out.

There was discussion about the open space articles that would be part of a Special Town Meeting, and whether they should or should not be part of the same warrant as the Olympia Drive article, for timing considerations. 

Mr. Jessop praised Sonia Aldrich for her assistance with finance issues while Finance Director John Musante had been tied up with the budget. 

Mr. Shaffer said he sensed some discomfort from the Select Board regarding lack of specificity of the land acquisition proposals and said he would continue to press Mr. Ziomek to lock up options to the point of encouraging and executing them, so that they are more specific and can be more easily explained. 

The Board thanked Mr. Ziomek for his presentation and he left the meeting, as they were prepared to move on to other issues.  Mr. Kusner then raised a point of order, asking if the Board had intended to not take a position on Article 26, the appropriation of $15,000 for appraisals and surveys, suggesting and then moving that they do so.  Ms. Greeney said she didn't understand the nature of the article and asked that it be explained.  Mr. Shaffer said that all properties the Town is considering purchasing or selling require recent appraisals, as do APRs.  Ms. Greeney asked if there were specific parcels being considered that prompted this spending.  Ms. Awad suggested they postpone the article and consider it with the other conservation articles.  Mr. Kusner withdrew his motion.  Ms. Greeney said she didn't think the language of the article was specific enough.  Ms. Brewer said that the Conservation Department doesn't have a line item for appraisals and surveys that this appropriation is requested for when such needs arise.  Ms. Awad suggested that the appraisals and surveys article be defined and explained to the Select Board in order to address Ms. Greeney's concerns prior to Town Meeting 

Article 18 – Retirement Assessment

Mr. Musante said that Article 18 appropriates money for the Town's share of the assessment to the Hampshire County retirement system, to fund payments for current and future retirees.  He said this is a stand-alone article each year and its language are each year, and said that the retirement system covers employees of the Town, libraries and elementary schools, except for teachers, who he said are covered under a different system.  He said that the FY08 appropriation is for $2,920,979, and said that that was a 3% increase over last year. 

Mr. Weiss noted that the percentage increase was good, and Mr. Musante said that last year's increase was more than 13%.  Mr. Musante said there is an actuarial update every two years, that the system had better returns on its investments, that Amherst's payroll had grown less than other towns in the retirement system, and that all those elements made the system's reallocation beneficial to Amherst.

Ms. Awad noted that when the county government system was dismantled, the retirement system remained.  She asked if there was discussion about incorporating it into the State's system. Mr. Musante said there is a proposal in the Governor's Municipal Partnership Act to look into the investment portions of each system, and said if a system's investment returns and benchmarks weren't measuring up, and if its liabilities were less than 80% funded, it would be required that those investment portions be folded into the State system.  He said that would impact the Hampshire County system, explaining that the retirement system would remain and would continue to hear retirement cases and grievances, but the investment portion would be rolled into the State system.  In response to questions from Ms. Awad, Mr. Musante explained that the retirement system is an independent unit that is separate from the Council of Governments, and that he believes it has an independent annual audit and oversight by a State agency.

Ms. Greeney asked about early retirement incentives and if it is true that they positively impact the Town's budget by reducing salaries, but transfer the burden to the State to pay retirement costs.  Mr. Musante said the retirements of Town employees are funded through this appropriation to the Hampshire County Retirement System.  He said that every fund has scheduled updates every few years, and that Amherst hopes to pay up its unfunded liability share by 2028, which resulted from the Town formerly using a pay-as-you-go system.  He said that the Town has offered early retirement a couple of times during economic downturns, most recently in 2004, and said that the county system does a calculation each year and adjusts Amherst's share of the liability accordingly, and he said the burden is not shifted to the State.

There was more discussion about how early retirement works, and how savings can occur if the position is left unfilled once a senior staff person leaves, or the person is replaced with a lower-paid worker, but that the latter results in paying both the retiree and the new worker.  Mr. Shaffer spoke to the demographic shift of not having enough workers to replace retiring baby-boomers, and of the productivity curve as new workers get up to speed.  Both he and Mr. Musante said they were not proponents of offering early retirement.

The vote to recommend the Town's appropriation into the County retirement system was unanimous.

Article 19 – Reserve Fund

Mr. Musante said that the reserve fund is an account overseen by the Finance Committee as directed by State law.  He said transfers can be made by the Finance Committee to cover extraordinary and unexpected expenses, according to the statute.  He said the recommendation is for a $100,000 appropriation, as is the typical request, except for in FY07 when the amount was reduced to $50,000.  Mr. Weiss asked if that $50,000 had been spent yet.  Mr. Musante said the reserves are typically spent at the end of the fiscal year, and that it is anticipated that the full $50,000 will be needed. 

It was moved and seconded to recommend this article, and then the motion was withdrawn so that it could be reconsidered after the override vote.

Article 20 – Capital Program – Chapter 90

Mr. Musante said Article 20 was an authorization to spend $500,000 in Chapter 90 funds.  He said Chapter 90 funds are collected through the State's gas tax and can be used for road work, and to a lesser degree, equipment related to road maintenance.  He said this $500,000 was being requested for road repaving. 

Ms. Greeney asked how this number was determined and if it will meet the repair needs this year.  Mr. Musante said the request is typically $500,000 - $600,000, and that the amount fluctuates depending what is on the project list and how much funding is expected from the State.  He said that the Governor will increase these funds, so we can expect more next year.  He said the DPW has a pavement management system with which they have rated every street in town.  He said $600,000 isn't adequate to keep pace with the paving needs and that the town is not gaining ground on the situation.  In response to a question from Ms. Greeney, Mr. Musante said that although the Town might receive $600,000, the request was only for $500,000, and said more could be requested at future Town Meeting.  He also said that sidewalk repairs could be done with Chapter 90 funds if the repairs were directly related to street repairs.  Ms. Brewer suggested for next time that such questions could be answered by Select Board representatives to the Joint Capital Planning Committee prior to the meeting where the Board's Town Meeting recommendations were being considered.

The vote to recommend the $500,000 allocation for repaving roads was unanimous.

Article 21 – Capital Program – Equipment

Mr. Musante said this request for $1,405,878 was to fund a list of capital equipment needs which are summarized in the JCPC report in the appendix of the Finance Committee report.  He said the kinds of things on this list typically include items such as computer infrastructure and equipment, vehicles, school busses and DPW equipment.  He said the Town has made it a practice to allocate a portion of the levy for capital replacement, and that the JCPC prioritizes the requests within the spending caps.  He said this year's recommendation amounts to 8.2% of the levy, which is the same as last year's percentage request.  He said that if the override were to pass, it wasn't recommended to allocate any money from the new portion of the levy, and if the override were to fail, the allocation recommendation would be reduced by $400,000.  He said the list of cuts could also be found in the back of the JCPC report. 

Mr. Kusner said the amount Mr. Musante was talking about was not the same as what was listed on the motion sheet.  Mr. Musante said that some of the money is grant funded, but the $1,405,000 amount is the part funded through taxation. 

There was procedural discussion about updated motion sheets and how the Board might vote a contingent higher amount.  Ms. Awad wanted to postpone the decision on this article because she was having trouble isolating the relevant numbers from the Finance Committee report, and said she would have preferred a written report from the JCPC, to which Ms. Greeney concurred.  It was pointed out that all the information she was looking for was in the Finance Committee report, but Ms. Awad said that she also wanted a paragraph explaining the rationale for each item that the JCPC wanted to fund.

The Board deferred any action on Article 21.

Article 22 – Capital Program – Buildings and Facilities

Mr. Musante said this article requested $231,000 for buildings and facilities, and said the Board had the list of proposed spending.  He said $77,000 of that total was contingent on the override passing; the request would be reduced by that amount without the override. 

Mr. Weiss asked Ms. Awad if she would prefer to defer that article as well, but she said that because the amount was much smaller than that of the previous article, she was comfortable moving ahead with it.

The vote to recommend Article 22 was unanimous.

Article 23 – Capital Program – Bond Authorization

Mr. Musante said that Article 23 was a bond authorization requesting $755,000, the bulk of which would be used for exterior repairs to Town Hall, including repointing and repair of the masonry, and work on the clock tower and gutters.  He said that $80,000 of the total would be used for completing handicap access improvements at the East Street School.  He said that such repairs are funded through a combination of grants, taxation, ambulance fees and so forth, as well as through borrowing.  He said that they try to keep the debt service portion of the budget constant, and that FY08 completes the pay off on the 20 year bond for the Police Station.  He said these two projects were deemed appropriate for borrowing, and that there was not sufficient cash available to fund them that way. 

Mr. Weiss asked if Town Hall repairs were to be funded through a bond authorization, might it be possible to use CPA money for that debt next year.  Mr. Musante said that would be up to the CPA Committee, but that he thought it would be possible.  Ms. Greeney said she would like to revisit the issue after it was known what percent CPAC might fund, and said that she was uncomfortable recommending a bond authorization without knowing if CPAC might fund 100% of the Town Hall repairs.

Mr. Shaffer said that borrowing doesn't occur as soon as it is authorized.  He explained that the project would be bid out and that short-term financing would be acquired for the actual construction and that the permanent financing isn't actually sought until the project is completed.  He said that the bond authorization is the beginning of a long process.

Mr. Musante said that short-term borrowing is used while projects are being completed, and then financing for different projects can be bundled together into a single long-term bond.  He said that JCPC considers the Town Hall work to be of such a priority that they recommend it even without the potential CPAC money, though they are interested in pursuing that option also. 

Ms. Greeney asked what the percentage is of debt service to the full levy.  Mr. Musante said it is well below 2% and said that credit agencies consider Amherst's debt burden as a percentage of assessed valuation to be relatively low.  He said they are more focused on the bond rating, and he said that they complimented Amherst on devoting a fixed share of the levy for the capital plan. 

Vince O'Connor said that he is a member of the CPA committee, and that they had invited the Town to propose projects, but the Town had not done so.  He said that since this project was never brought to the committee, he warned against assuming they would approve funding it. He emphasized Mr. Musante's point about it being recommended even without CPA funding, and said that it was an appropriate project for borrowing because it would benefit residents far into the future, and that today's residents shouldn't have to forego today's tax money being used in other ways in order to fund this project instead.  He also suggested that if CPA opts to fund this in the future, a historic preservation restriction should be placed on the exterior of Town Hall, and said that has not been pursued in the past.  Mr. Weiss said that topic wouldn't be addressed at this meeting, and that he had only wanted to be certain that it was permissible by law to use CPA money after borrowing has occurred.

The vote to recommend the $755,000 bond authorization was 4 in favor, 1 abstaining, with Ms. Greeney abstaining from the vote.

Article 36 – Petition – Village Park Apartments

Ms. Marianne Jakus was the petitioner for a warrant article regarding second-hand smoke protection at Village Park apartments.  Before she spoke to the article, Mr. Weiss read from a memo from Town Counsel stating that Town Meeting doesn't have the authority to establish public health rules.  Mr. Kusner suggested that making it advisory to the Board of Health would be considered within the scope of the article.  Mr. Shaffer said that he had spoken with Town Counsel on the subject, and that his recommendation was that a comprehensive approach to dealing with smoking in apartment complexes was advised, rather than singling out one complex. 

Lengthy discussion followed regarding Ms. Jakus' research on the subject and her past attempts to pursue the issue with the Board of Health, and what her best course of action might be at this point.  There was discussion of related health, fire safety and legal issues, discussion of how such issues are dealt with in other communities, and discussion about the vast legal complexity involved in pursuing such a ban. 

The Select Board spent considerable time trying to create an option for Ms. Jakus to pursue at Town Meeting that would be satisfying to her and move the process forward.  It was ultimately decided that the Board would recommend referring the article back to the Board of Health, with the request that there be a progress report made to Town Meeting in the fall.  The vote on that recommendation was 4 in favor, 1 opposed, with Ms. Awad voting in opposition. 

Article 11—Petition Zoning Bylaw – Subsidized Housing Inventory

Mr. O'Connor was the petitioner of this article to add language to the section of the zoning bylaw dealing with the number of affordable units required for residential development that needs a special permit.  The language he seeks to add is:  “countable for the purposes of the Commonwealth's 40B Subsidized Housing Inventory or its successor.”  He said he began trying to pursue this change by writing to various committees because he said the current bylaw allows the board granting the special permit to determine the level of affordability of the units.  He said the permitting authority decides whether those units must be affordable to those making 80% of the median income or below, or whether they must be affordable to those making 80-120% of the median income, which he called “moderate.”  He said that units priced for the lower income threshold are countable under 40B, while the moderate ones are not.  He said that allows the Board to make a policy decision as well as a permitting decision, and said that was too much latitude to grant them for a decision that he said should be in the hands of Town Meeting.   He said that builders and property owners will continue to seek housing permits based on where they believe they will make the most money, whether that is with condominiums or single-family dwellings, regardless of the zoning bylaw, and he said that no action by the Town will direct their activities in a way that goes against their economic self-interest.  He cited the Mill Valley Estates complex as a building project that was insufficiently regulated and that the builders had promised certain things but needed to relax their standards in order to fill the units, and he said the complex now frequently appears in the police reports.   He spoke of a six-page memo written by Mr. Tucker in opposition to the article, but the Select Board members had not seen the memo and noted that Mr. Tucker was not present to speak about it.  Mr. O'Connor said the memo advocated that the Town act in ways counter to its own interests.

Mr. Weiss requested that Mr. O'Connor summarize the proposed article without speaking to anticipated arguments.  Mr. Weiss said that Mr. O'Connor believes the affordable housing inventory will be in danger of falling below the 10% threshold by 2012, and that this proposal might address that.

Mr. O'Connor said that sometimes builders are allowed to build extra units when they are being required to include affordable units, and he said that practice pushes the Town closer to the brink of falling below 10%.  He said that if 9.99% of Amherst's housing units are deemed affordable, then a builder could propose a 500 unit project anywhere in town.  He said it should be a Town body and not a permitting body that makes decisions affecting that outcome.

Ms. Greeney asked how many moderate income units could be made into low-income units.  She also asked how likely it would be for the State to be strict with Amherst if the Town's affordable inventory were to fall to 9.8%, when so few communities have achieved the 10% mark.

Mr. O'Connor said that moderate income housing would be in the $185,000 – 205,000 range, while low-income housing would be $125,000 – 130,000.  He said that when a builder has ten units and is getting $200 per square foot for 2,000 square-foot and larger units, he said that diminishing the builder's profit by $60,000 would be inconsequential.  He said that the normal range of expected cost and contingency is 5-8%, and said that this is 1-2%.  Ms. Greeney asked that Mr. O'Connor only answer questions without advocating for his position.

Mr. Kusner said that he thought it was unfortunate that the article doesn't increase the number of affordable units required per number of market-rate units, leaving that part of the bylaw as-is.  He said it would be easier to increase the affordable inventory by making that change and asked why that wasn't proposed.

Mr. O'Connor said that it is easier to change one thing at a time.  He said he is aware of the cost involved, and that is why he kept the current bylaw requirements.  He said that in regard to Ms. Greeney's second question, Amherst is a highly desirable place to build, and that a developer would look forward to the Town dropping below 10% so that they could build a 500 unit complex.  He said that speaks to the weakness of the zoning bylaw.

Ms. Gregg said the Housing Partnership – Fair Housing Committee did not support the article, but that one of its members had requested that it be revisited at an upcoming meeting.  She said that Mr. Tucker's memo was very informative and that it might be possible for the committee and Mr. O'Connor to work together on this issue if he is willing.  Mr. O'Connor said he would be at the continuation of the Planning Board's public hearing on the issue on Wednesday.

The Board determined that they needed to receive and read Mr. Tucker's memo, and needed to hear the opinions of the Planning Board and Housing Partnership – Fair Housing Committee before determining its own recommendation, so action on the article was postponed.

Article 29 – Petition – Social Outreach Worker

Jonathan Nelms said that the situation at the Amherst Survival Center had not improved sufficiently in the wake of recent changes, and said the organization was still not fulfilling its mission of connecting people to needed services.  He said the Center's Board and staff were not being held accountable for past wrongs, and that he called upon them to resign.  He said the Center needs support and oversight in order to assist the new Board President and new Executive Director.  He said his petition article seeks to fund a Social Outreach Worker to provide oversight and assist with serving the poor through the Survival Center, and that he proposed that it be a Town staff position in order to provide better accountability.

Lengthy discussion ensued about the changes the Survival Center has gone through lately, the new contractual terms the Town has imposed in order for the Center to continue to receive Town funding, what more might reasonably be expected in the wake of dramatic cuts to those funds, and whether a Town staff position was more or less feasible than directing the money to the Center.  Community Services Director Roy Rosenblatt spoke to the progress the Center has made and how no new issues have brought to his attention.  Mr. Shaffer spoke to the Center being an independent organization and outside of the Town's control, and also emphasized how much progress it had made. 

There was much discussion of various recommendations that the Survival Center employ a clinical social worker, whether $9,000 of the Town's funding to them could be required to fund such a position, and whether that was feasible at that amount of money. 

Members of the Community Development Committee spoke to their need to consider and prioritize the additional funds proposed by the Select Board above the Committee's original recommendation, and their desire to spread financial support among other worthy agencies.  Committee members also spoke of the increased expectations and decreased funding facing the Survival Center. 

Isaac Ben Ezra spoke to his desire for the entire Human Services budget to be treated like other Town budgets, receiving a 1% or 3% increase, rather than the proposed significant cuts, and said that he would advocate for such at Town Meeting. 

After much discussion on these topics, and discussion with Mr. Nelms about how the notion of a clinical social worker did or did not align with his intentions for a social outreach worker, it was decided that action on this article would be postponed pending more work and gathering of information.

Signing the Special Town Meeting Warrant for May 16th

There was discussion of the pros and cons of having multiple articles on the May 16th Special Town Meeting warrant along with he Olympia Drive article.  It was determined that article should stand alone. 

The vote to sign the single-warrant article for the May 16th Town Meeting was unanimous.

Mr. O'Connor said he urged the Board to propose creation of a revolving fund for library fines as part of a Special Town Meeting warrant and spoke to his sense of why this was necessary.  Mr. Shaffer said that such an article has to be on the warrant of an Annual Town Meeting, rather than that of a Special Town Meeting.

The Select Board then took care of its related motions on the Olympia Drive article – reconsidering its original vote from the Annual Town Meeting warrant, recommending dismissal of that original article, and recommending it as the single article on the May 16th Special Town Meeting warrant.

New Select Board and Town Meeting dates

The Select Board discussed additional dates for scheduling Town Meeting and Select Board meetings.  Mr. Kusner said that he had long ago made plans to speak at a conference in Canada the week of May 21st, and that he preferred cancelling that date and adding the unscheduled May 14th date.  Ms. Greeney said the schedule had already been set, and it would be worse to disrupt 240 people than to disrupt the five-member Select Board.  Ultimately, no scheduled nights were removed and five additional dates for Town Meeting were added, with Select Board meetings scheduled for 6:30 p.m. in the Middle School music room prior to each one:  May 14th, June 18th, June 20th, June 25th and June 27th.  The vote to approve those additional dates was unanimous.

Proclamation – Support for Dedicating the UMass Bike Connector

Mr. Kusner announced that in advance of Bike Commute Week, the connector between UMass and the Rail Trail would be dedicated to Arthur Swift, a retired UMass Physics Professor, an avid bicyclist and advocate for the rail trail link, whom Mr. Kusner cited as his mentor.  The vote to support the proclamation naming the connector for Mr. Swift was unanimous.

Consent Calendar

The Consent Calendar was described as comprising the minutes of the April 9th meeting, the minutes of the April 23rd meeting, and approval of a special liquor license for The Harp.  The minutes of April 9th were then corrected.   Those corrections and the other Consent Calendar items were then unanimously approved.

Committee Appointments

Mr. Shaffer recommended the appointment of Jonathan Shefftz to the Planning Board to fill the two months remaining in Mary Scipioni's unexpired term, and for a subsequent regular three-year term.  After some discussion about that being non-standard procedure but practical within the circumstances, the vote to approve the appointment of Mr. Shefftz was unanimous.

Town Meeting Assignment Sheet – Select Board Positions

The Select Board determined which member would speak at Town Meeting to the Board's position on each warrant article covered so far.

Mr. Kusner said he wanted to discuss a Special Town Meeting for June 6th regarding two versions of a proposed article, one of which authorizes borrowing, while the other does not.  He asked if this could be explained in open session, but Mr. Weiss said that would not be addressed at this meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m.  The next Select Board meeting will be held at 5:30 p.m. in the music room at the Middle School, prior to the first night of Town Meeting.

 -- Stephanie O'Keeffe