(5/23/07)  The Select Board met Monday, May 21st at 6:30 p.m., prior to Town Meeting.  The start of the meeting was delayed by 15 minutes due to an incident at the Middle School.  Gerry Weiss, Alisa Brewer, Hwei-Ling Greeney and Anne Awad were present, Rob Kusner was absent.  Town Manager Larry Shaffer was present as well.

Street Closing – Taste of Amherst

John Coull said that this year he wasn't requesting general free parking or relaxed enforcement for the Taste of Amherst, as he had done in the past.  He said that the free parking that was made available last year further from the Common than usual had proven to be inconsequential, and that likewise, the lack of nearby free parking also showed no effect.  This year's Taste runs from June 14th to the 17th, and he said he was only seeking free parking for vendors in spaces surrounding the Common, and also seeking the closure of Boltwood Avenue between Spring Street and Route 9 during event hours to protect the crowds going between the Common and the beer and wine tent.  He said he would take care of coordinating the details with the Police Department.  He noted that other issue to coordinate would be accommodating guest parking at the Lord Jeff, and the fact that the Farmers' Market takes precedence in the Spring Street lot on Saturday. 

The vote to approve the parking and street closure request was 4-0, one absent.

Regional Assessment & Budget situation

School Superintendent Jere Hochman said the regional situation was turning into a weekly miniseries, and said he had new information.  He said the revised statute that he had recently reported on to the Select Board and Town Meeting was now being questioned.  Where the new interpretation had been that all four towns in the region now had to approve the budget, as opposed to three out of the four as had previously been the case, an e-mail from the Deputy Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Education said the language was ambiguous and that no change in policy had been intended by the new wording.  Mr. Hochman said that the Deputy Commissioner said the original two-thirds approval was DoE's position on the matter.  Mr. Hochman said he had spoken with the DoE Commissioner, who confirmed the Deputy Commissioner's assertion that this was the department's official position. [This last sentence was corrected 5/23 to fix an error; it had stated erroneously that the Superintendent had been unable to reach the Commissioner.]

Mr. Shaffer said that Town Counsel had been involved and was seeking an opinion from the DoE Counsel.  Mr. Shaffer agreed with Mr. Hochman that the DoE's interpretation of the statue was not an obvious one, and said that the DoE must be reading it with a more nuanced eye.  He said Town Counsel would talk with the DoE's attorney and hoped to have some conclusion on this by Wednesday.

Mr. Hochman said he proposed a possible compromise that might resolve the issue for all parties before the legal opinions come in.  He said that some in Town Meeting might want to revisit Article 16, and that that might make the process chaotic.  He said that considering that three towns have approved the 3% level and that the Finance Committee had entertained the possibility of using reserves to make up Amherst's difference when that 3% level seemed inevitable, he suggested that all parties give in 1% and agree to a 2% assessment.  He said he would ask the other three towns to understand that while it might be possible for them to compel the 3% level for Amherst, this situation had grown complicated, and 2% might be the best option.  He said that if Town Meeting and the Finance Committee might consider taking the 2% from reserves, which he said would be about $150,000, that would be preferable to the 3% that the State's interpretation of the statute would require.  He said the Schools would then commit to not using their own E&D reserves, and said that that might be the best win-win scenario for all, and would avoid an extended battle.

Mr. Weiss said his concern was whether or not it was required that Article 16 be reconsidered due to the new information, and if it would be the Select Board's responsibility to do that, or if it should just be left to Town Meeting members to make that request.  Mr. Hochman said it was the Select Board's prerogative to request reconsideration themselves or not, and said the School Committee would meet about the issue on Tuesday.  Mr. Shaffer said the Moderator had advised telling Town Meeting that there would probably be action on this matter on Wednesday, and that he would get more information from Town Counsel about the legalities concerning reconsideration.

Ms. Greeney asked if the 2% were to be decided on, whether the other towns would have to reconvene their Town Meetings to approve that amount.  Mr. Hochman said they would not, because the amount is lower than what had been approved; they would need to re-vote only if the amount were higher.  Ms. Greeney asked about the recent proposal by the Regional Schools to use $150,000 from their own reserves to fund elimination of the second study hall requirement.  Mr. Hochman said the Regional School Committee had discussed it but hadn't voted to use that money, preferring to see how the budget situation progressed first.  He said the other towns in the region would be unlikely to approve using those funds in his proposed compromise scenario, and said they would probably see this as equivalent to the earlier situation for which the Finance Committee had already considered using Town reserves.

There was discussion about whether or not it would be useful to bring this issue up at Town Meeting that evening.  Ms. Brewer was reticent, saying that the topic wasn't relevant to the budget articles that would come up then, and that there was no concrete information to impart.  Ms. Awad agreed, and said they were not prepared to answer the questions people would have.  Mr. Hochman said that Finance Committee Chair Alice Carlozzi intended to reference it in her statement introducing the budget articles.

Ms. Awad said she would like Town Counsel's opinion on the possibility of making the higher assessment amount contingent on an override, and asked to have any other alternatives explored as well.

Ms. Greeney supported the contingency possibility but didn't agree with not making Town Meeting aware of the new information.  She said that people would read about it in the press coverage of the meeting, and suggested that they make a brief statement just to prepare people for Wednesday.  Mr. Weiss thought people needed to know in order to prepare for possible reconsideration of Article 16, and Ms. Greeney concurred, saying “the other side” would want time to prepare a potential challenge to the article. 

It was widely agreed that what was needed most of all was an opinion and more information from Town Counsel.

Special Town Meeting – June 6th

Mr. Weiss said they had to decide if they would sign the June 6th Special Town Meeting warrant or put that off another week.  He said that Mr. Kusner continued to have questions about Articles 1 and 2, and had contacted Mr. Weiss by e-mail about that.  Ms. Awad wondered if they might accept the warrant at this meeting and get Mr. Kusner's questions answered before June 6th.  Mr. Weiss said he didn't understand Mr. Kusner's questions, and said that once signed, the articles would be on the warrant and it was unclear if sufficient changes could be made to them with motions, if necessary. 

Ms. Brewer said the only information she had on Articles 1 and 2 was brief statements from the Conservation Director at a previous meeting, and the article text itself.  Mr. Weiss agreed that there was little background information.  Mr. Shaffer said that the e-mail from Town Counsel about borrowing authorizations requiring specified amounts was additional information that he could provide copies of to the members. 

Mr. Shaffer said that the new language removes that which had been suggested by Mr. Kusner, which he said that the Town Counsel and Mr. Shaffer himself both believe to be illegal. He said that in his own and Town Counsel's experiences, an amount to be borrowed is required, because he said otherwise the interpretation could be that the Select Board's approval was all that was needed too borrow any amount, and he said that was impossible.  He said that the last thing he would do would be to borrow in anticipation of grant funds.   He said that there were legal and practical issues involved, and that the stricken language didn't meet the standards of either.

Mr. Shaffer said that Mr. Kusner had referenced a past situation that he considered similar.  Mr. Shaffer said he had asked Mr. Kusner how the interest costs of borrowing would be included in such a transaction, and Mr. Kusner had added language to the article to address that, but Mr. Shaffer called it “too nebulous” and said that Town Counsel had rejected it as well.

Ms. Awad said that she would love to see one of the parcels in question protected but didn't care about the other, and said that she had been alarmed by the language in the motion because it didn't specify an amount.  She said that Mr. Kusner might have been referring to an article from around 2002, which Town Meeting passed regarding borrowing for the purchase of the Andrews-LaVerdiere land.  She said that that article did specify an amount and contained lots of “ifs.” She said the purchase hadn't been anticipated to advance, and called it more of a “feel-good” action, but said that the article did cover all the legal requirements.

Mr. Weiss asked if there were to be a grant but the timing was off, would the deal fall through?  Mr. Shaffer said the first necessary step would be to obtain an appraisal of the property to establish its value, and to then get a purchase and sale agreement that ties the property up and supports the process for a specific amount of time.  He said that the articles were trying to take two steps at once and skipping the intermediate steps of the appraisal and purchase and sale agreement.  He said the purchase and sale agreement would have to be at a price agreeable to the grantors, but that there was no purchase and sale agreement nor even a tacit understanding with the property owners.  He said the articles, if passed, would establish that Town Meeting and the Select Board may have a genuine interest in the properties, but that that would be the initial step in a lengthy process. 

Ms. Greeney asked if, without a purchase and sale agreement, they could even be sure the owners wanted to sell.  Mr. Weiss said the assumption is that they would and that the Town wouldn't purchase land from someone who didn't want to sell it.  Ms. Greeney said it was strange that the owner had not indicated a desire to sell the property, and yet the Town was considering this process.  Ms. Awad said that the discussion was approaching that which should take place in executive session. 

Mr. Weiss said the articles could be dismissed, but was concerned about respecting the Conservation Commission's efforts to get them on the warrant.  Mr. Shaffer said the articles would start the process of seeking grants, without dealing with specific agreements or purchase prices.  He said that the borrowing question was a small issue at this point, and that the first step was establishing if the Town wants to be party to this acquisition.  He said the question of how to fund that would come later. 

There was discussion about whether or not the Select Board has the ability to remove the articles from the warrant.  Because they were not petition articles, Mr. Shaffer believed removal was at the Select Board's option. 

Ms. Greeney said that there is much controversy around the Levi-Nielsen property in Article 1, and that she didn't want to send the message that the Town was trying to stop its development in this way, and that she was uncomfortable taking a public stand on this without hearing the Conservation Commission express a motive for it. Mr. Weiss said that the decision to put the articles on the warrant, and what position the Select Board would take, were separate issues. Ms. Greeney said that having either or both of the articles on the warrant sent a message that made her uncomfortable.  Mr. Weiss noted that they might want to honor the Conservation Commission's request to have them on there.

Ms. Brewer said that she was concerned that at such a late date they had no report about these proposals from the Conservation Commission, and said the process felt rushed.  She said she was sure the Commission's intent was to do something good, but that she shared Ms. Greeney's concerns about the message that might be sent.  She said that without background information, they didn't have any evidence to show that this was not a move intended to prevent development. 

They discussed the various timing ramifications of putting off the signing of this warrant, versus setting the date for another Special Town Meeting.  Some options mandated a late June meeting, after the Annual Town Meeting may have concluded. 

Mr. Shaffer recommended putting the articles on the warrant out of respect for Mr. Kusner, whom he said had worked hard on them and had to be absent on this evening to attend a conference.  Mr. Weiss said he wasn't keen on pushing Town Meeting to go another week to accommodate these articles, and said that even if Mr. Kusner were present, he might have two votes to support having the articles on the warrant, but might not have the necessary three.  Ms. Brewer said they were unlikely to have new information on the subject by Wednesday, and suggested that they sign the warrant without those articles now, and that perhaps those might come back in the fall.  Ms. Greeney agreed.  The motion to sign the warrant with only Articles 3 and 4 was approved 4-0, one absent. 

Consent Calendar

The Select Board opted to remove the minutes from the Consent Calendar and then unanimously approved its five special liquor license requests.

The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.  It is this reporter's belief that the next meeting is scheduled for 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 23rd, in the music room at the Middle School.

 -- Stephanie O'Keeffe