(8/29/07)  The Select Board met Monday, August 27^th at 6:30 p.m. at Town Hall.  Gerry Weiss, Hwei-Ling Greeney and Alisa Brewer were present, as was Town Manager Larry Shaffer.  Rob Kusner and Anne Awad were absent. 

Public Comment

Vince O’Connor expressed his displeasure with the lack of indoor swimming programs offered in the new LSSE catalog.  He suggested that the Select Board direct the Town Manager to negotiate an agreement with the Regional School Committee and Superintendent regarding the Town’s use of the Middle School pool.  He talked about the risk of children not learning to swim, and the loss of use of the pool that many have enjoyed, and said that such a resource should not be made unavailable without a public discussion and vote. 

Mr. Shaffer said that the Superintendent has been clear that the Town needs to fund the pool expenses incurred by the LSSE programs, and that those costs have exceeded the programs’ revenues.  He said he would seek an update from LSSE Director Linda Chalfant. 

Ms. Brewer said that the Regional School Committee had made the decision not to fund the pool last February or March, during the budget process, and that residents and the Town could have spoken up about it then.  She said it was not necessary to direct the Regional School Committee to deal with an issue that it had already resolved.

Mr. Weiss asked Mr. Shaffer to find out how far apart the Town and the Schools are on the money that would be required to make the pool available. 

Phil Jackson said he had not been able to attend the August 13th meeting when traffic calming on Lincoln Avenue was discussed.  He thanked the Board for the unanimous vote to support the traffic cushion experiment.  He said that Lincoln is only one of four streets that have been the focus of traffic concerns for the last 18 months, and that this experiment is one step toward finding a solution for all.  He said that it must be clear how to measure the effects of the traffic cushions, what would constitute success with the experiment, and what will happen as a result of the data collected.   He emphasized that this was a first small step and that additional steps will be needed, and that he and his neighbors look forward to working with the Town Manager on this.

Public Hearing – Souper Bowl

John Sobieski, owner of Souper Bowl, sought a liquors and cordials license for his restaurant.  Ms. Greeney asked if such licenses are limited to a certain number available for the whole town.  Mr. Shaffer said there is a limit, but they turn over as restaurants come and go, and he said this one was available. 

The vote to approve the license was 3 in favor, 2 absent.

Traffic Calming

The Select Board had a report in their packets that Mr. Shaffer said described the DPW’s assessment of the impact of traffic cushions once they are installed.  There was lengthy discussion about how and when the “before” data would be collected from Sunset Avenue and other streets, in order to have a baseline of the traffic volume and speed with which to compare the effects of traffic potentially diverting from Lincoln once the  cushions are in place.  Among the issues are the limited number of traffic counters the Town has available, and the timing for collecting the information once the University is back in session.  Mr. Shaffer said there was already good data for Lincoln and Fearing, and that they would try to get counters set up on Sunset as soon as possible. 

Bob Ackermann said he lives on Sunset but was there to talk about the process in general, not just its effects on his street.  He talked about Mr. Jackson’s group having gathered data to document a long-standing problem; how there had been a meeting with Town and neighborhood representatives at which the solution was to be a series of one-way streets; how Mr. Ackermann relayed that information to his neighbors; and that a planned follow-up meeting never occurred.  He said that the new traffic cushion solution was arrived at through private conversations among a small number of people, and that the neighborhood had not been informed nor had any chance to give feedback or ask questions about it.  He said the process needed more transparency and that the terms of the experiment needed to be more specifically defined.  He said that what constituted success or failure needed to be determined ahead of time, and not left to the vagaries of each person’s opinion after the fact.

Mr. Shaffer said that it seemed that another neighborhood meeting was needed to discuss these issues and what the next steps would be.  He said he would first talk to DPW Superintendent Guilford Mooring about the timeframe for data collection on Sunset and would report back. 

Ms. Greeney said that this experiment is a step toward seeking traffic calming for the whole town, and that public input is desired to help improve the process. She said that transparency and efficiency are both important, and asked that the public bear with the Select Board and Town Manager as they try to create an effective procedure. 

Strategic Partnership with UMass

Mr. Shaffer reported on the agreement signed on August 23rd by the Town, the School Committee and the University.  He explained its key points:  1) establishing a commitment to open and frequent communication among those three bodies for collaboration and cooperation; 2) having UMass pay for fire and ambulance service based on usage, and formalizing that payment, which he said netted out to $140,000 in new revenue for this fiscal year; 3) incorporating the previously-created Police Mutual Aid Agreement into this document unchanged, because it makes sense for the two to be together; 4) creating new agreements related to water and sewer usage, including: establishment of a committee to address water and sewer planning; requiring a 6-month forecast for rate increases so the University can plan and budget accordingly; and providing treated effluent water that would otherwise be pumped into the Connecticut River to the University for use in irrigation and the steam plant without charge, out of recognition for the University’s enormous conservation efforts; 5) agreeing that UMass “may consider” making payments to the Town to cover the cost of educating the school children who live in non-taxable UMass housing if the Town ever stops using UMass-owned Mark’s Meadow as an elementary school.  He said that it is a five-year agreement, and expires June 30th of 2012.  He said the one aspect that requires Select Board approval is waiving the fees for the effluent.  He explained that the contract specifies a total of $422,795.70 be paid to the Town, and that when the $101,000 payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) and $181,574 in gift money that would have been paid toward ambulance and fire services are factored out, the net benefit to the Town is about $140,000. 

The Board thanked and congratulated Mr. Shaffer for his work on this.

Ms. Greeney asked about the formula determining the UMass payment, and if it were true that a larger PILOT would mean a smaller contribution from UMass, yielding the same total.   Mr. Shaffer said that was true and said that the formula “pivots off different cells.”  He said that the point was not for the Town to be unduly enriched by the University, but rather to have taxpayers compensated for the cost of services to UMass.  He said that different elements affect the formula, and said that as the gross fire budget increases, the net cost per fire call will increase, and that that would trigger higher payments from the University.  Conversely, he said that factors that decrease the net cost per call, such as increased insurance payments or more money from other towns, would decrease the UMass payments.  Ms. Greeney said she wasn’t sure if that made the agreement a good deal or not.  Mr. Weiss said that lumping the PILOT together with the fire and ambulance services and eliminating the effluent fees gave the Town $100,000 extra this year, but that that amount should be watched as the other factors fluctuate to make sure it doesn’t dwindle away.

Mr. Shaffer noted that the Town’s fire budget has been increasing, and that a new fire station is possible in the future, both of which would lead to increased payments – the former due to an increased net cost per call, and the latter due to capital costs being included in the formula.  He said that he will be looking at opportunities to increase revenues from other large fire and ambulance service customers, such as area towns. 

Mr. Shaffer said that water and sewer issues needed to be looked at closely by the Town and that ending the effluent fees was only a small consideration.  He said that Amherst has enjoyed very low water and sewer rates compared to other towns, but that UMass’ dramatic conservation success has a significant impact on the Town’s water and sewer operations.  He said the University invested large amounts of money in conservation efforts which have resulted in a 40% reduction in water consumption in three years, and saved $1.5 million in usage costs so far.  He said that the Town needs to look at its water and sewer operations in light of these changes, and to talk and plan with UMass.

Ms. Brewer suggested that the agreement’s total payment be tracked each year and compared to the total of its component parts.  She also asked for historical information on the PILOT and fire services contributions.  She said that the fire payments had not previously been guaranteed, and that the amounts for both have been significantly lower in the past, and said it would be good for the Select Board to have that information when addressing criticism of the agreement’s value.  She also suggested tracking the number of elementary school students from North Village and other UMass housing, and said that if the numbers significantly rise or fall, the Town might need to address that topic with the University again.  She also suggested looking at the fire and ambulance services to the fraternities and sororities and asking UMass to talk to the Greek system about that. 

Mr. Shaffer said that the fraternities and sororities were not included in the agreement because they pay property tax.

Mr. Weiss mentioned Amherst and Hampshire Colleges, and Mr. Shaffer said he would be continuing conversations with both on this same topic. 

Ms. Greeney asked about the Select Board needing to endorse the fee waiver for the effluent water and what would happen if they declined to so.  Mr. Shaffer said that would fundamentally void the whole agreement because UMass couldn’t be expected to honor it if the Town were picking and choosing the parts it would honor.  He said the issues with water and sewer are much more serious than waiving the effluent fees.  He expected to have the language of the waiver prepared for the next meeting.

Local Purchasing Initiative

Ms. Greeney said that she and Ms. Brewer had been working for several months on an initiative to encourage more local purchasing by the Town and the Schools.  She said she had requested information from the Town Manager about the Town’s purchasing habits and needs, and that she was seeking the Select Board’ endorsement of these efforts.  She talked about a guide put out by the Chamber of Commerce highlighting local buying opportunities, and said that buying locally can help to stabilize and broaden the tax base.  She said she wants to hear from the Chamber and from citizens about opportunities and challenges in local purchasing. 

Joan Temkin, of the Chamber of Commerce, said she was delighted that the topic was being considered by the Select Board and said that local tax dollars should be reinvested in the local economy.  She referenced data from research on the topic of local purchasing called the Andersonville Study of Retail Economics, and said that for every $100 spent with chain stores, $43 remains in the local economy, while for every $100 spent with local businesses, $68 remains in the local economy.  She also said that every square foot of space occupied by a local firm has a $179 impact on the local economy, compared to $105 of impact by chains.  She said both measurements show a “substantial local premium” which she said could translate to more money spent on home improvements, or given as charitable donations, or yielding other benefits, and suggested that purchasing procedures and bidding processes include local firms as often as possible. 

Daniel Finn, who identified himself as a 12-year resident of Amherst, cited other numbers from the Andersonville Study and noted that the first three letters of “economy” come from the Latin word for “home.”

Mr. Weiss thanked both for the information and cited other benefits of local purchasing, including the vitality of downtown and the ease of getting donations from local businesses versus the complicated bureaucracy of corporate chains.   He said that many books and studies have shown that downtown economies last a long time, while “big box” economies ultimately fail to thrive.  He said he appreciated Ms. Greeney’s and Ms. Brewer’s work on this, and hoped the Town could improve its local spending.

Mr. Shaffer said he had met with the Chamber about this, and that Town Finance Director John Musante had already started to analyze where Town money gets spent, and that once that analysis is available, opportunities can be found for increasing local purchasing.  He said that he had talked with Chamber Director Patty Brandts about holding purchasing fairs and finding other ways of getting local vendors tied into the Town’s purchasing procedures.  He said that much of those procedures are regulated by the State and can be daunting, but that opportunities existed and he was looking forward to participating.

Ms. Greeney said she had talked with the School Committee Chairs, and that they will look for such opportunities once they receive the lists of spending categories that Mr. Musante is creating, and that both the Select Board and the School Committees were looking for that information first before requesting that other staff time be spent on this effort.

Ms. Brewer suggested that the project be called the “Shop Local First” initiative, to acknowledge that buying local isn’t always an option, and that was supported. 

There was discussion about the various strictures of the purchasing process, the requirements of different dollar thresholds, and the possibility of shaping Requests for Proposals (RFPs) toward the outcome that is sought.  The Board voted 3 in favor, 2 absent, to support the Shop Local First initiative, and to formally appoint Ms. Greeney and Ms. Brewer as liaisons to that effort. Mr. Shaffer said he would try to have the spending category analysis for the September 18th meeting.

Economic Development Strategies Update

Mr. Weiss asked Mr. Shaffer for an update on economic development efforts.  Mr. Shaffer said that economic development typically is sought for three reasons:  Job creation and preservation, tax base preservation and enhancement, and blight removal and neighborhood preservation.  He said that Amherst’s focus is on the tax base.  He talked about the different areas he has been focusing on:  developing partnerships with UMass, the other colleges and the Chamber of Commerce; seeking zoning changes for fall Town Meeting; becoming active in regional efforts, such as seeking and winning appointment to the Western Mass Regional Economic Development Agency, engaging in discussions with leaders from Franklin County, and the ongoing efforts with Hadley. 

Ms. Greeney said that his efforts help to meet the goals of a petition request from the 2006 spring Town Meeting seeking economic development strategies.  She asked how benchmarks might be established to chart progress in these areas, and suggested dollar amounts, percentage increase to the tax base, number of jobs created or decreases in empty store fronts as possible ways of doing so.

Mr. Shaffer said that having mutually agreed upon benchmarks is a standard approach and involves identifying resources available to meet them.  He noted that he has advocated strongly for an Economic Development Director position, and said that it will become increasingly difficult for economic development efforts to be occurring at the Town Manager level.  He said that the goals for what economic development seeks to accomplish should come from the Master Plan, and talked about what various percentage increases to the tax base mean in terms of dollar figures and the scale of growth required. 

Ms. Brewer said that once the Master Plan is in place, the Select Board can determine what is appropriate for it to take on, and establish benchmarks from there.  Mr. Weiss talked about the difficulty in maintaining steady tax base growth, versus having spikes of new development, and wondered what kind of industry Amherst might be capable of hosting and attracting.  Mr. Shaffer mentioned the long-term nature of economic development, and the various structural issues that affect it, including transportation and land use. 

Mr. Finn talked about sharing ideas for improvements that could help to attract and grow businesses, such as having the Chamber host a shopping cart system on its web site which could then be used by other participating businesses.  He talked about maintaining a vibrant local economy as an important economic development investment.  He said that buying beer made locally at Amherst Brewing Company, as opposed to buying national brands, was a way of supporting local enterprise. 

Ms. Temkin thanked the Select Board and Town Manager for their recognition of economic development as a key to the future vitality of the area.  She noted that the local business community is already healthy, and didn’t want anyone to get the impression that it is “moribund.”  She emphasized the Chamber’s desire to partner in these efforts with the Town.

Ms. Greeney talked about Mr. Shaffer’s point regarding lack of resources, and said she wanted to make funding the Economic Development Director’s position a priority. She said she had suggested at the Hadley meeting that the two towns might jointly fund and share such a position.

Plum Brook Soccer Fields

Mr. Weiss raised concerns about the state of the grass at the Plum Brook soccer fields, and said he had contacted Town staff and a local landscaper about it.  He noted that the plan was for the fields to be ready for play next spring.

Mr. Shaffer acknowledged the problem and described issues of equipment and weather affecting the site.  He said that an irrigation system has been installed, but the cistern to hold the water had just arrived but not yet been installed, and that the pump needed to get the water from the cistern to the irrigation system requires a utility pole to power it, and that is pending.  He said that the hope is to have the system functioning in mid-September. 

There was lengthy discussion about how and when to re-seed and how best to deal with the weeds, and the various issues in the past that have contributed to the current problem.  Ms. Greeney asked if the delays are costing extra money, and Mr. Shaffer said they are not, but that the field may not be ready for spring.  Ms. Greeney requested that the Select Board be updated by Ms. Chalfant about how the soccer programs will be accommodated if the field won’t be available.

Select Board Meeting Structure

There was some follow-up discussion to the topic raised at the August 1st meeting about providing a more defined structure for citizen input at the meetings, in order to better allow the Select Board to do its work and to try to keep the meeting from running excessively long. 

Ms. Brewer referenced material she had provided to the Select Board about the procedures used by the School Committee, and how they are explained and implemented. She said that if the Select Board were to follow a similar model, public acceptance of it might be aided by the precedent of such a system existing elsewhere within the Town’s committee meeting structure.  Mr. Weiss said that he liked the idea of having a policy spelled out and available, so that it doesn’t feel like it is aimed at anyone specific. 

There was discussion about different Select Board discussions possibly needing different approaches, such as public hearings, or when a large group wants to be heard on a topic, and the difference between the public comment period and people offering opinions or knowledge during deliberation of agenda items.  Among the suggestions were:  that groups appoint individuals to speak on their behalf to avoid repetition; to have staff in the Select Board office contact people who are scheduled to present warrant article information to brief them on the expectations; and to encourage people to submit as much information about their topic as possible ahead of time.  Mr. Weiss said that he would try to draft a procedure for the Select Board to consider. 

The meeting took a short recess.

Meeting for Four Towns

Ms. Greeney said that several years ago, the Select Boards, Finance Committees and Regional School Committee for Leverett, Shutesbury, Pelham and Amherst would meet early in the budget process to discuss their prospects for the coming year, and that she would like for that to happen again.   Mr. Weiss agreed that it was a good idea, but was concerned about timing.  Ms. Brewer suggested waiting for the dates the Select Board expects to receive at its next meeting, regarding the meetings associated with the Town Manager’s new budget process. 

After some discussion, it was decided that Mr. Shaffer would try to coordinate all the parties for a couple of hours on Saturday, September 29th or Saturday, October 6th.  Mr. Shaffer emphasized the importance of being in touch with the Regional School Committee to create an agenda with clear goals of what such a meeting is intended to accomplish.  Mr. Weiss suggested checking with the Finance Committees and Finance Directors of each town to see if they expect to have enough information to make such a meeting worthwhile at that point.

Street Closing – Hills Road

With a vote of 3 in favor, 2 absent, the Select Board approved a request to close Hills Road on September 2nd, with a September 3rd rain date, for that neighborhood’s 29th annual block party.  

Liaison Assignments

It was determined that the liaison assignment discussion could not take place until Ms. Greeney and Mr. Kusner complete their work of identifying inactive committees.  Ms. Greeney said she has completed her part, and that Mr. Kusner was away.

Committee Appointments

Ms. Brewer recommended approving the Town Manager’s appointment of David Ahlfeld to the Board of Health.  His appointment was approved in a vote of 3 in favor, 2 absent.

Ms. Brewer recommended the approval of Andrew Churchill as the School Committee’s representative to the Comprehensive Planning Committee.  His appointment was approved in a vote of 3 in favor, 2 absent.

Meeting Minutes

There was discussion of how much detail is and should be included in minutes of Select Board meetings and executive sessions.  There was information from Town Counsel suggesting that executive session minutes were not sufficiently detailed, as well as the suggestion from him that the Select Board periodically consider releasing those minutes.  Mr. Shaffer said that the Town Counsel’s suggestions should be adopted immediately.  Ms. Brewer volunteered to draft a suggested model for how the minutes could be done by adding to the draft minutes of the August 13th Select Board meeting and the August 15th joint meeting with the Hadley Board of Selectmen. 

With some discussion, it was decided that for meetings of other bodies which get posted as Select Board meetings because a quorum’s worth of Select Board members are in attendance, the minutes of the host board or committee will serve as the Select Board’s minutes, and may be amended by them. 

Town Manager’s Report

Mr. Shaffer reported that the Town had initiated action against David Keenan, seeking his eviction from 26 Shays Street for unpaid property taxes.  He said that a hearing had been held in Housing Court earlier in the day, and that the court had ordered Mr. Keenan to fully pay the taxes, penalties and fees in two payments: one on September 4th, and the balance on September 28th.  Mr. Shaffer said that it had been an unfortunate set of circumstances, and that this was a reasonable solution, and he hoped Mr. Keenan would be able to take advantage of it.

STAR and Valley Vision

Mr. Weiss explained that STAR stands for “Stand Together and Act Responsibly,” and said the group is the “driving force” behind the PILOTs for communities with State-owned land.  He said they have helped to boost the reimbursement rate from the State to 75% of the land’s undeveloped assessed value – developed value is not considered – from 29% in FY04.  Dues for STAR membership are $25.  It was agreed that the Town wants to continue to be a STAR member, and that the $25 could be paid without requiring a motion. 

There was discussion of the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission’s Valley Visions project, and a recap of why the Select Board had declined to endorse it several months ago.  Mr. Shaffer recalled that the Select Board had supported many of its goals and strategies, but because there were some they didn’t agree with and there was no opportunity to alter them, the Select Board had not been comfortable endorsing the full plan.  He said that he had sent a letter to that effect to PVPC, and Ms. Brewer suggested sending a copy to the Comprehensive Planning Committee as well.

The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.  The next Select Board meeting is scheduled for Monday, September 10th at 6:30 p.m. at Town Hall.      

-- Stephanie O’Keeffe