(5/9/07)  The Select Board met Monday, May 7th at 5:30 p.m.  Gerry Weiss, Alisa Brewer, Hwei-Ling Greeney, Rob Kusner and Anne Awad were all present, as was Town Manager Larry Shaffer.

Mr. Weiss opened the meeting explaining that this was the Select Board's first opportunity to discuss the implications of the failed override vote and to determine what the next steps would be.  He said that members of the public who wish to offer suggestions and ideas should do so by writing to the Select Board at Town Hall, or by sending them e-mail.

Public Comment

No one spoke during this time.

Budget/Override Discussion

Mr. Weiss said he had sent several questions to the Select Bard members to think about.  He said they concerned what budget or budgets the body wanted to present to Town Meeting, whether they supported a 1% budget as defined by the Town Manager and the Finance Director, or some other variation of a 1% budget, and did they also want to propose a budget with higher percentage increase.  He said that he had made the executive decision regarding holding a joint meeting of the Select Board, School Committee, Library Trustees and Finance Committee on May 14th and that the members should first decide if they agree with that decision. 

Mr. Kusner asked about relevant timing issues affecting their decisions going forward.  Mr. Weiss said that if the budget increase were to be larger than 1%, they needed to decide that fast. 

Ms. Awad said she thought that the election had shown that the voters don't want a larger budget and want the Town to use the resources it has and eke through this year with a 1% budget.  She said that if Town Meeting wants to spend more, then that body will have to approve two budgets, with one balanced and the other a wish list contingent on voters supporting the items outside of the 1%.

Mr. Weiss said he wasn't sure that the voters had rejected any override, and said they may have just rejected a $2.5 million override.  Ms. Awad agreed and said they might have supported a smaller amount.

Mr. Kusner returned to the question of timing and the issues of when Town Meeting starts and finishes the budget, and when a potential override vote could occur.

There was discussion about people's beliefs that it was either tradition or law that Amherst not hold elections in the summer when the students are gone, the possibilities of a September vote and the need to know how that would affect the Schools and others to not know their budgets until then.

Ms. Greeney said that considering overrides and using reserves had been the preferred way of dealing with shortfalls over the last few years, and that they don't address the structural deficit.  She said she wanted to do things differently and go in new directions, and didn't want to let things drag on for a few more months waiting for another election.  She said she wanted to pursue new alternatives now.

Mr. Weiss said that using reserves contributes to a structural deficit, but that overrides do not.  He said that with no override this year, there will still be a $1.4 million shortfall next year, and the structural deficit will remain, with or without an override.

Mr. Weiss asked if the Board was in agreement that members wanted to bring a 1% budget to Town Meeting.  Mr. Kusner asked whether steps need to be taken now in case Town Meeting wants more than 1%.  He asked if there would be enough time to seek an override election if necessary, whether they would have to wait until the conclusion of Town Meeting to do so, and other logistical questions which he said he had e-mailed to Mr. Shaffer.

Mr. Shaffer said he had spoken with Town Counsel Gary Brackett about the topic, and that Mr. Brackett said the decisions of either body did not encumber the other.  He said that Town Meeting can appropriate at any level, but must identify its revenue source, and without another option identified, that source would have to be reserves.  He said that the Select Board could set any election date for an override and at any amount.  He said that Town Meeting action doesn't require Select Board action, and vice-versa, and that establishing the levy and its appropriation are separate and discrete functions.

Finance Director John Musante said that Town Meeting could also vote a contingent appropriation, contingent on an override, and that there is a September 15th referendum deadline for such a contingent appropriation.  He said that if the vote were not held by that date, it would be null and void.

Mr. Shaffer said that on the expenditure side, they would be forced to work with a worst-case scenario assumption, instituting a hiring freeze and not opening the pool because its season spans two fiscal years, and they wouldn't open it if they weren't sure it could be supported after July 1st.  He said they are already working to ensure that they have the administrative capability to meet the appropriation amount as of July 1st. 

Mr. Kusner said that it would not make sense for the Select Board to act without knowing Town Meeting's decision, and Mr. Weiss said the sooner Town Meeting starts the budget, the sooner the outcome will be known.

Mr. Shaffer said the process has many variables, and brought up the issue of the other three towns in the school region approving a 3% regional budget.  He said that that represents a $238,000 increase to Amherst's share of the regional assessment that has not been anticipated in the 1% budget. 

This led to discussion about what the implications would be of Town Meeting failing to approve Article 16, which approves the regional assessment formula, and whether Amherst is legally bound to approve it.  Mr. Shaffer joked that not doing so would put Amherst into another level of Dante's hell.  Mr. Musante said that the article requires approval from all four towns, and that failure of all four to do so would mean that the regional assessment formula was not in effect and the State's funding formula would be used instead. 

Ms. Brewer said that Amherst is stuck with a 3% Regional School budget because of the votes of the other towns.  She said that Article 16 accepts the agreement that determines how that budget will be divided and what each town will pay.  She said that if Article 16 were rejected, we would still need to come up with our share of the 3% budget, but that share would be determined differently.

Mr. Kusner asked if failing to pass Article 16 would mean that the Regional School Committee members would have to renegotiate among themselves or call new Town Meetings.  Ms. Brewer said that the State formula is the default, and with it, the other towns couldn't afford the 3%, and would have to then go back to their Town Meetings. 

Ms. Greeney asked what the difference would be in the regional assessment amount versus the State formula amount for Amherst, and said that under the circumstances, she would want to go with the lower of the two.

Andy Churchill, Chair of the Amherst School Committee and member of the Regional School Committee,  said he believed that under the State formula, Amherst's assessment would go down 5%, while Pelham's would go up 48%, Leverett's would go up 20% and Shutesbury's would go up 2%.  He stressed the many months that were spent considering the different assessment options and determining the one that was most fair to all.  He said that the State formula has been widely disavowed and doesn't work well for regions, and that to reject the agreed-upon regional assessment would require starting over.  He said the agreement is based on a per-pupil assessment and is the most fair system.

Mr. Weiss suggested dealing with Article 16 quickly and then scheduling a $238,000 override.  Mr. Churchill said that once the article is dealt with, we'll know how much we're going to pay.  He said that he couldn't overemphasize the chaos that would be caused if the article isn't passed, and said it would create a ripple effect among the other towns.  Mr. Kusner said he had raised the issue of the political aspect of the scheduling of articles, which he said also had to consider when Town Meeting was prepared to deal with the articles.

Mr. Weiss said he was inclined to move consideration of Article 16 to Thursday night, and asked if Mr. Churchill would consider that to be favorable.  Mr. Churchill said that it seemed like a good idea to him, and that it would be useful to have that clarity.

Ms. Greeney said that she understood it would be chaotic for the other towns, but said that the decreased fee for Amherst would not be insignificant, saying the Town could save $200,000.  Mr. Weiss said he didn't want the discussion to be on whether or not members would support it, but on whether the article should be moved up to Thursday night. 

The vote to recommend moving Article 16 to Thursday at 7:30 p.m. was unanimous. 

There was procedural discussion about dealing with the zoning articles that had been intended for that time slot, and discussion of the BCG meeting on the 9th and whether or not Select Board reps spoke for the Board at that meeting or relayed information between the two bodies. 

Mr. Kusner recommended starting discussions with a preliminary 1% budget and then moving elements around.  Mr. Weiss said that the Board had had no part in the “Shaffer/Musante budget ... for better or for worse,” and that they owe it to themselves and the voters to have a hand in it.  Ms. Awad said she was not content with the Shaffer/Musante budget because she had issues with its priorities, and suggested that the Board take quick and serious votes about its priorities in order to recommend them to Town Meeting.  They discussed whether or not that should happen at this meeting, or at or before the joint Board meeting. 

Mr. Weiss sought clarification from Mr. Musante and Mr. Shaffer about their previously altered allocation of no longer using $87,000 from ambulance funds to pay for firefighters, and instead taking $95,000 from the employee benefits funds to pay for those positions.  Mr. Weiss asked if that was part of the 1% budget or the 3% budget, and was told it is in both.  He asked where the $95,000 was now in the 1% budget, and was told it is in the public safety budget to restore most of the firefighter cuts – almost 4 of the 5 positions, according to Mr. Shaffer. 

It was decided that the Select Board would meet at 5:30 on May 14th to determine budget priorities, and that suggestions from the public should be received by noon on Friday the 11th in order to be included in the Select Board packets. 

Ms. Greeney said that she welcomed the opportunity to consider the budget details, and suggested comparing the internal budget structure with those of Northampton and South Hadley, because she said they were near by and of similar size to Amherst.  She said that the Board should not limit itself to moving money around within a 1% budget, and suggested a more holistic approach that considered restructuring and reorganization.  She suggested considering the merging of Town departments and urged the body to think outside the box.

Mr. Musante suggested that the Board determine whether its goals for Monday night are to reach consensus about a budget recommendation for Town Meeting, or to reorganize the structure of the Town and the schools. 

Mr. Kusner said that Town government might be compared to a cow with four stomachs, of which two are not used, and said that while he agrees efficiencies might be found, he said that such evolutions are gradual and urged being careful.

Mr. Shaffer said that he applauded Ms. Greeney's efforts to push the organization in search of new activities that make sense, and said that these things take time.  He said the Town is facing a situation of immediacy, and that its options decrease with each passing hour.  He said that he is happy to look into the topics Ms. Greeney has brought up, but that this was not the time to deal with them. 

Ms. Greeney said that she was sorry to hear that, and said that she had first brought the notion to Mr. Shaffer in February about merging the Town's Information Technology department, Human Resources and Business departments with those counterparts on the school side, and that she was told then that it would be too difficult.  She said that now is the best time to do that because of the current motivation for savings and efficiency.  She said the structural deficit continues and that too much time had been focused on how to spend the funds of a 3% budget which is no longer an option, and said they were now back to square one.

Mr. Shaffer said that he apologized if he hadn't been clear in February that reorganization is not an easy fix and would be difficult to achieve.  He said that chance of reorganizing with any level of efficiency and to maintain effectiveness is a pipe dream at best.  He said he would be happy to take a look at that in a less-heated environment. He said that he had told her in February and repeated now that the idea was easier said than done.  He said that it would not happen for this year.

Board update to Town Meeting on last year's Article 41

Ms. Awad said she had drafted a response to last year's Article 41 regarding five-year planning.  She asked that each member e-mail their edit suggestions to her, and she would prepare a final version for them to sign at Monday's meeting. 

Article 10 – Zoning Bylaw – Flood Prone Conservancy

The Select Board, the Town Manager, and Town Planning Director Jonathan Tucker rehashed bits of the original discussion on this article from the April 23rd Select Board meeting.  As there was still no opinion from Town Counsel regarding whether he agreed with former Town Counsel's opinion that an additional by-right use was necessary to avoid legal challenge to the FPC section of the zoning bylaw, and if so, whether Article 10 accomplishes that, the Select Board was still not able to make a recommendation.  It was requested through the Town Manager that Town Counsel provide his opinion to them by Thursday.

Article 8 – Farmstand Amendment

Again, the Select Board and Mr. Tucker rehashed the lengthier discussion about this article from April 23rd Select Board meeting.  New information included the fact that the Agricultural Commission had since voted unanimously to approve it. 

Ms. Greeney and Andrew Melnechuk from the audience both complained that zoning reports were being made available too late for the Select Board and Town Meeting to consider properly.  Mr. Tucker said that the public comment process has stretched out for months on these articles, and that to accommodate that, public hearings didn't conclude until Wednesday, making tonight the earliest the reports could be finished and made available. 

The vote to recommend Article 8 was 4 in favor, 1 abstaining, with Ms. Greeney choosing to abstain.

Article 9 – Accessory Farmstands

Having also been discussed at the April 23rd meeting, this article was now recommended to be referred back to the Planning Board and the Agricultural Commission in a unanimous vote.

Article 12 – Bylaw Amendment – Public Shade Trees

Mr. Kusner said he had liked this article and had voted to recommend it at the April 23rd meeting, but had since spoken with Nancy Gordon, who he said was an experienced forester, and he now wanted to reconsider the article.  The Board voted to do so.

Ms. Gordon addressed her concerns with the article:  that the definition of what constituted a hazard tree was not clear, that the Tree Warden had too much authority in the process and might make decisions capriciously, and that a regulation would better address the issue without giving it the force of law. 

After much discussion among the Board members, the Town Manager, Alan Snow of the Public Shade Tree Committee and Ms. Gordon, it was determined that questions could be better answered and some points of concern could be better addressed if this article were referred back to the Public Shade Tree Committee for further consideration, so that they might bring it forward again in the fall.  The vote to refer it back was unanimous.

Street Closing – Cushman – May Day Festivities

The Select Board was asked to approve this street closing retroactively.  It was explained that Mr. Shaffer had asked each of the members about this separately before the closure, and that they had each given independent opinions.

The vote to approve this closing after the fact was unanimous.

Special Liquor Licenses

Special liquor license were proposed for events at UMass and at Hampshire College, and both were approved by unanimous vote.

The meeting adjourned at 7:27 p.m.  The next meeting will be held at 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 10th, in the music room at the Middle School.

-- Stephanie O'Keeffe