(11/18/07)  The Select Board met at 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, November 15th in the Middle School music room, prior to Town Meeting.  Gerry Weiss, Hwei-Ling Greeney and Rob Kusner were present, and Anne Awad and Alisa Brewer were absent.  Town Manager Larry Shaffer was also present.

Announcements

Mr. Weiss said that Mr. Shaffer had announced the day before that Finance Director and Treasurer John Musante had been made Assistant Town Manager and Finance Director, and would retain his previous responsibilities in addition to filling the Town Manager’s role in Mr. Shaffer’s absence. 

Mr. Kusner displayed a sign that read “Swift Way,” and said such signs would soon be directing people to the Swift Connector, the stretch of bike path connecting the Norwottuck Rail Trail to the UMass campus.  [Note:  The connector was recently renamed in honor of bicycling enthusiast and retired UMass professor Arthur Swift.] 

Mr. Kusner referenced the previous meeting’s discussion of a liquor license change for the UMass Faculty Club.  He said he is good friends with Club Manager Dennis Scott, and that he had recused himself from the discussion of the license because he and his department have been account holders at the club.  He said he was pleased with the outcome of the liquor license vote, and said he encourages people to take advantage of the new dining opportunities at the Faculty Club.  He said he had been amused by recent blog postings on the subject, and said that he was descended from Vulcans rather than Klingons. 

Public Comment

Sue Bonis said that she moved to the corner of Lincoln Avenue and Fearing Street a year ago, and has encountered much litter in the area, particularly on weekends.  She said rental properties are problematic for litter.  She asked why the anti-littering law isn’t enforced, and asked why apartments aren’t required to have sufficiently large bins to accommodate their residents’ trash.  She cited a property on the corner of Sunset Avenue and Fearing Street, and said that it has a small trash bin that is often overflowing, and said that the loose trash blows around. Ms. Bonis presented a large box of trash she had picked up around the area, and said it contained mostly beer and soda bottles, cups and a bag of non-recyclable garbage.  She said she was leaving the box of trash with the Town because she picked it up on Town property around the sidewalk and did not know how else to dispose of it, and she said she doesn’t have trash pick-up at her house. 

Mr. Weiss said there have been ongoing conversations with the University about issues of student impact on the surrounding neighborhoods, and that this issue would be added to those discussions. 

Ms. Greeney said that she has brought the Sunset and Fearing house’s trash issue to the Town Manager’s attention in the past, as well as to the attention of Building Inspector Bonnie Weeks.  She said there are many issues competing for attention and said that the issue of neighborhood impact has been pursued for almost 15 months and said “we have not dealt with it in an effective way.”  She said she would like to get the issue on the Select Board’s agenda after Town Meeting is over.

Mr. Shaffer said that he was happy to take care of Ms. Bonis’ box of trash, and said it was unusual to bring such a thing into a classroom.  He asked if Ms. Bonis had tried to contact his office, or the Health Department or any other Town entity about the issue, and she said she had not.  He suggested that such concerns be brought to his attention by contacting the Town Manager’s office.  He said that the Town needs to continue to educate tenants and landlords about their responsibilities on these issues. 

A man who had helped Ms. Bonis bring in the box of trash and did not identify himself said that while the students come and go, the owners of the properties they live in do not, and holding the owners responsible may make the owners ensure that the student renters follow the rules.

Mr. Kusner suggested that an additional trash bin at the property in question might be a temporary solution.

Reconsideration of Article 15 (6:45)

Mr. Weiss said this was on the agenda because motion B of Article 15 would likely be divided at Town Meeting, separating the inn proposal from that of hotels and motels.  He said the issue was likely to be raised that evening and that the Select Board had not voted such a split, but had voted on the original motion B.

Mr. Kusner said that formal reconsideration might not be necessary, and that the splitting represented a second option.  He said that inns can only be in structures that are at least 75 years old, and that hotels and motels would be new construction.  Mr. Kusner said he would support encouraging the reuse of older buildings as inns.  He said he proposed that the Select Board support rezoning for the inns, and referring the hotel and motel proposal back to the Planning Board.  Mr. Weiss said that would have to be two separate motions. 

Mr. Kusner moved to refer the hotel and motel proposal back to the Planning Board.

Mr. Weiss said he seconded the motion for the sake of discussion, but did not agree with the motion.  He said that he was concerned this would require a long discussion and that they were already behind schedule for holding a public hearing on another matter.  He said he was concerned about voting on it without time for discussion.

Mr. Kusner said that was fine and that he would withdraw his motion, and said he would like to be recognized by the Moderator to speak as a Select Board member rather than as an individual on the matter.  He said he and Mr. Weiss had spent four hours at meetings dealing with the issue the night before, and had hoped it could be dealt with at this meeting.

Mr. Weiss said that he was happy to vote on it because his mind was made up, and Mr. Kusner said he was withdrawing the motion.   Mr. Weiss said that Mr. Kusner could not be recognized to speak for the Select Board.  Mr. Kusner said “Well, that’s what I’m asking to do; that’s my new motion.” Mr. Weiss said they would have to vote to let him do that.  Mr. Kusner said he wanted to speak in addition to any other Select Board member who would be speaking on the article, because, he said, the body had only voted on the original motions. 

Ms. Greeney said that the Select Board had already voted on the article, and expressed confusion regarding the division and how that was known to the others.  Mr. Weiss explained that their previous vote had been on the original motions A and B, and how there had been discussion at the ZBA and Planning Board meetings the night before about the ZBA’s intent to divide motion B.  Mr. Weiss said that he is the Select Board member speaking to the article, and that Mr. Kusner would not be able to speak to the Select Board’s position on the new division because the Select Board did not have a position on that.  Mr. Kusner said he was “prepared to support the second part, but it’s contingent on how the first part is dealt with.”

Public Hearing – Tax Classification (6:52)

Mr. Weiss noted that Ms. Awad and Ms. Brewer could not be at the meeting, and that Ms. Brewer had asked that a vote on the tax rate not be taken at this time.  There was a suggestion that there was some urgency to the vote.

David Burgess, Principal Assessor, introduced the members of the Board of Assessors.  He said the Select Board’s vote is the final step in setting the new tax rate.  He said the Select Board’s options were to maintain a single tax rate, to adopt a split tax rate for commercial versus residential properties; to grant a small commercial exemption, or to grant a residential exemption. 

Mr. Burgess said that a residential exemption raises the residential property tax rate and shifts the taxes from the lower valued exemption-eligible properties to those properties with higher values.  He said that he had provided the Select Board with spreadsheets and summaries of how different exemption amounts would impact properties of different values. 

Mr. Burgess said that for a split tax between the Commercial/Industrial/Personal classes and Residential class, the Select Board could authorize up to a 50% increase for the former.  He said he was estimating a tax rate of $16.02, but used $16.01 for this calculation.  He said that the Commercial tax rate would rise from $16.01 to $24.02 per thousand, while the Residential rate would fall to $15.17.  He said that would be an 85 cent decrease for residences and $8 increase for the Commercial/Industrial/Personal sectors.     

Mr. Burgess said that the small commercial exemption could be for up to 10% for qualifying businesses, and said those businesses had to employ no more than 10 people on average per year, and be certified as such by the Department of Employment and Training.  Mr. Kusner asked if that includes farms as well, and Mr. Burgess said it would affect farm property but not vacant land.

Mr. Burgess said that the Board of Assessors was recommending that the Select Board not accept any of these options.  Mr. Weiss asked him to expand on why they decided to not recommend them.

Board of Assessors member Connie Kruger said that they review the options anew each year.  Per the small commercial property exemption, she said that most small business owners don’t own their business property, and that giving the exemption benefit to the property owner did not seem to yield much benefit.  Per the split tax rate, she said that only 10% of the real estate value comes from commercial property now, which she said was down from 16% 20 years ago.  She said that the Town is looking to support businesses, and not discourage their growth and development, and said that was why the Board of Assessors did not recommend the split rate.  She said the residential exemption was most complicated and suggested that her colleague Donald Wise speak to that, because she said he had articulated the Board’s position well.

Mr. Wise said that the Board of Assessors had had much discussion about the problem of it becoming increasingly difficult for lower-income people to afford to live in Amherst, and that in the interest of making the situation more equitable, exemptions were considered.  He said they seem like a good idea, but that the Board was concerned about potential unintended consequences.  He said:  that older people with valuable family properties might be further pressured to sell; that raising rates on rental properties would lead to higher rent costs for tenants; and that if such an option is implemented, it would be difficult to undo the change if so desired.  He said that while the residential exemption seemed like a good idea, it represented a slippery slope that made the Board of Assessors “reluctantly” recommend keeping a constant tax value. 

There was some discussion about whether rental property was considered commercial.  Ms. Kruger said that although it is a commercial endeavor, it has a residential tax classification.  She said that 60% of the Town’s housing is rental units.

On the subject of unintended consequences, Ms. Kruger emphasized the concern about  seniors on fixed-incomes who may live in high-value homes, and said that there is no way to know the financial situations of those who would face higher tax bills due to their having to absorb the exemption of the lower-valued homes.  She said that another concern was that because vacant land would not be eligible for the exemption, the tax cost of holding such land would increase and might encourage people to sell that land for development. 

There was some discussion about how the larger commercial tax base in some of the communities with split tax rates make them different from Amherst’s situation, and about possible public policy reasons for exempting a minimal level of housing. 

Ms. Kruger said that what is being considered is shifting taxes from one property value to another, and not targeting the relief to those who need it.  She said that there are a range of incomes and need levels across all property values.  She said that in resort communities like Nantucket, the residential exemption shifts more of the burden to owners of second homes and away from the locals.  She said that in Amherst, it would have the effect of shifting it more to the rental sector, and said that it is “hard to get enthusiastic about that.”

Mr. Weiss said that all the ripple effects of the unintended consequences could not be known, and said that increases might eventually not be able to be passed on to rental tenants because the units would then be priced out of the market, and said that that could lead to a deterioration in upkeep as the owners absorb the higher costs, and that the deteriorating property would then have a lower value and pay lower taxes. 

Ms. Kruger said that if this change were tried and found to be problematic in the future, it would be difficult to switch back to the current system, because it would mean that the exemption-eligible properties would then require a big tax increase. 

Ms. Greeney said that she had spoken with Mr. Burgess about the issue and determined that Amherst’s situation is unlike that of the communities for which the shift goes to second-home owners, and said she does not believe Amherst would benefit from the split tax rate.

Mr. Burgess compared residential exemptions to the land bank concept, which he said became the Community Preservation Act.  He said that both ideas started on Cape Cod in response to the effect of high-priced summer homes driving up housing costs, and that both resulted from a desire to find a way to help the year-round population.  He said that other communities then followed suit. 

Mr. Kusner said that a more fair system of taxation needs to be found. 

The public hearing was closed and Ms. Greeney moved to adopt an equal tax rate for all tax property classes and that no open space discount be granted, and the vote to approve that motion was 3 to 0 with 2 absent.  She moved that no residential exemption be adopted, and the vote to approve that motion was 3 to 0 with 2 absent.  She moved that no small commercial exemption be adopted, and the vote to approve that motion was 3 to 0 with 2 absent.  

Mr. Weiss asked if it would be possible to re-vote the decision if the absent members so desired, and that was confirmed.  Mr. Weiss asked why there was some rush this year, and said that last year the rate was determined in mid-December.

Mr. Burgess said that the Town is part of a pilot program with the State whereby all the tax information will be relayed to the State without paper and via the Internet.  He said the vendors doing the bills haven’t tested the system with a split tax rate, and that such a change would require six to eight weeks of new system changes and testing.  He said that that situation was not relevant to the Select Board’s tax decision.  Ms. Kruger said that it represented an administrative reason why they were seeking to have the decision made now.

Dismissal of Articles 13 and 14 (7:21)

Mr. Weiss said that Article 13 and Article 14 both deal with technical and professional research parks, and are offered by the Planning Board and Coalition for Sustainable Neighborhoods respectively.  He said that Article 1 of the November 28th Special Town Meeting was a composite compromise article, and that the Planning Board unanimously supports dismissal of articles 13 and 14. 

Planning Director Jonathan Tucker said that it was his understanding that the Coalition accepts dismissal also.

Mr. Kusner moved to recommend dismiss article 13.  Ms. Greeney asked for some explanation of Article 1 before the dismissal vote.

Mr. Tucker said he would try to represent the differences, and invited anyone present to correct him. He said that articles 13 and 14 agreed in their establishment of a new office use category and its regulation – technical and professional offices that see clients or customers primarily by appointment – and said that 14 had suggested site design criteria to protect adjacent neighborhoods.  He said that Article 1 is in the form of three motions.  He said the increased protections to neighborhoods regarding screening, parking, lighting, driveways and so forth would be incorporated into the zoning bylaw where they occur, and not as part of a specific separate use category, and that they would now affect development anywhere in town using those categories.  He said that adoption of motion A would establish and put those new protections into place even if the other motions fail, and he said that was done on purpose.  He said motion B was largely a technical requirement, dealing with dimensional requirements for side and rear setbacks.  He said that motion C is the main details of what had had been in articles 13 and 14, and takes one of the two office use categories in the bylaw currently and puts three office uses into that category – the existing busy office category, the existing no-visitation category, and the proposed new by-appointment category.  He said the regulations of all would be kept the same as that for busy offices in all the districts in town, except that it is proposed to make the by-appointment and no-visitation uses in Village Center-Residence districts require a Special Permit, and in Professional Research Parks to require a Site Plan Review. He said there are also limiting regulations for those two uses in those two districts regarding setbacks and buffers and other details. 

Mr. Kusner then separately moved to recommend dismissal of articles 13 and 14, and both were approved in votes of 3 to 0 with 2 absent.

Mr. Shaffer praised and congratulated Mr. Tucker and the Planning Board and the Coalition for Sustainable Neighborhoods for their willingness to work together on the effort for Article 1.

Special Liquor License (7:30)

The Select Board approved a special liquor license for an event at the Common School in a vote of 3 to 0 with 2 absent.  Ms. Greeney disclosed prior to the vote that the headmaster of the Common School is on the board of Not Bread Alone, the non-profit for which she works.  All felt that because the fundraiser has nothing to do with Not Bread Alone, Ms. Greeney’s verbal disclosure was sufficient.

Committee Appointments

Mr. Kusner recommended the appointment of Liv Baker to the Community Preservation Act Committee, as a representative from the Conservation Commission, to fill the unexpired term of Nicki Robb.  The appointment was approved in a vote of 3 to 0 with 2 absent.

Mr. Kusner recommended the reappointment of Gladys Rodriguez to the Registrar of Voters.  The reappointment was approved in a vote of 3 to 0 with 2 absent.

Ms. Greeney recommended the reappointment of Denise Boyd to the Kanegasaki Sister City Committee.  The reappointment was approved in a vote of 3 to 0 with 2 absent. 

The meeting adjourned at 7:33 p.m.  The next meeting is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. on Monday, November 19th in the Middle School music room, prior to Town Meeting.

-- Stephanie O’Keeffe