(1/10/08)  The Select Board met Monday, January 7th at 6:30 p.m. at Town Hall.  Gerry Weiss, Alisa Brewer, Hwei-Ling Greeney, Anne Awad and Rob Kusner were present, as was Town Manager Larry Shaffer.  Kate Seaman took the meeting’s minutes. 

Announcements and Agenda Review

Mr. Weiss said that the agenda item about Special Municipal Employee status for the Agricultural Commission had been cancelled, and explained that the scheduled Kestrel Trust agreement topic pertained to the Haskins View property. 

Mr. Weiss announced that the Regional School Committee’s Four Towns meeting was rescheduled to Saturday, January 26th at 9:30 a.m. in the Amherst Regional Middle School auditorium.  It had originally been scheduled for Saturday, January 12th.  He announced that Amherst Brewing Company would host a benefit on Thursday, January 10th, from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. to raise money for Amherst’s 250th Anniversary Celebration.  He said that tickets are $15 each and are available at Hastings, and that people are encouraged to purchase tickets ahead of time, in case the event sells out, but that tickets may also be available at the door.

Ms. Greeney requested that two items be placed on a future meeting agenda:  street parking policy in winter and sidewalk snow plowing.  She asked to discuss authorizing a Select Board member to vote on the Town’s behalf at the upcoming meeting of the Massachusetts Municipal Association during this evening’s meeting. 

Mr. Kusner thanked Mr. Shaffer and the Public Works staff for the sidewalk plowing efforts to date.  Mr. Weiss said it is an on-going issue, and one he said that Mr. Shaffer would likely be happy to discuss further.    

Public Comment  (6:33)

Vince O’Connor asked if the Town Manager had been directed to take steps to put the creation of a revolving fund for library overdue fines on the Annual Town Meeting warrant, so that such a fund could be included in the FY09 budget.  He also asked what provisions were being made to credit the elementary schools with reimbursements of their Mass Health and Medicaid expenditures, which he said is something that is done in other towns and that he wants to make sure is pursued.  He also asked that a policy discussion on the use of the reverse-911 system be included on a future agenda.   He said that the system had the potential to be useful in a limited number of emergency circumstances, and noted many concerns he had about its use.  He called it a “potentially dangerous tool;” expressed concern that it might be misused or abused; and recommended that an “anonymous” voice be used for the recording, suggesting someone from an employees’ union, and said it should not be anyone who might gain political benefit, citing the Police and Fire Chiefs, the Town Manager, and Select Board members, among those whom he did not want to participate.  He questioned the purpose of the recent system test and what data was sought and collected, and said that all of these issues should have been discussed prior to the system being deployed. 

Ms. Greeney was unsure of what Mr. O’Connor was referring too, and asked if the Town did make such calls. 

Mr. Shaffer said that the Town had conducted a test of the reverse-911 system in order to ascertain its effectiveness for communicating with the community in the event of an emergency.  He said that the ability to do so was critical, and of use for many situations, including paving projects, water shut-offs, cases of a lost child or a lost individual with Alzheimer’s disease, and so forth.  He said it is being tied in with the Town’s Geographic Information System (GIS) to be able to target specific areas.  He said the system is a crucial tool for emergency management and other communication situations, and that he intends to pursue the system’s development “with vigor.”

Mr. Weiss said it was worth discussing how it might be used and misused.  Mr. Shaffer said that the Select Board was welcome to have such a discussion and noted that the system is already in place and will be used.

Mr. Weiss said the revolving fund for the library had been agreed on by the Select Board last spring, and said that topic would be taken up again.  He said he wasn’t certain of an agreement regarding the elementary school reimbursements. 

Mr. Shaffer said he didn’t think an agreement had been made about the reimbursements, and said that Town Meeting could appropriate that money to the elementary schools if it wanted to, and said that the Town “can’t wash revenue,” by moving it around without an appropriation.

Mr. O’Connor said that other owns have a warrant article redirecting the money to the schools.  He said he hopes that a discussion of the reverse-911 system can occur in time for the creation of a warrant article allowing Town Meeting to vote on the limits of its use. 

Mr. Kusner asked what data had been collected from the test, what the purpose of collecting it was, and for what it would be used.

Mr. Shaffer cautioned that his numbers were from memory and said that 7700 calls had been made within one minute, with 6,000 “hits” comprising 4500 calls that were answered, and 1500 that went to answering machines or other systems.  He said the rest were numbers that didn’t work, or were fax machines, et cetera.  He said the test demonstrated that the system would work if were needed.

Massachusetts Municipal Association Meeting  (6:46)

Ms. Greeney talked about the annual meeting of the Massachusetts Municipal Association (MMA) being held Friday and Saturday, January 11th and 12th.  She pointed out an article in the MMA newsletter which talked about the business meeting portion of the annual meeting, and how Select Board Chairs who would not be in attendance should designate a colleague to vote on behalf of the town.  Ms. Greeney said that one of the issues that would be voted on was a proposal to lobby for 40% of State revenue to be earmarked for local aid to cities and towns, and 10% to be put aside for unanticipated future needs.  Both Ms. Greeney and Ms. Brewer plan to attend the meeting. 

There was discussion about the current percentage of revenue being allocated to State aid, and how it fluctuates within the 30-40% range.  Ms. Greeney said that the fluctuation adds to instability.

Mr. Kusner said that by locking in a percentage, it appeared that the MMA was trying to elevate municipal aid to the category of “entitlement” instead of “discretionary.”  He said that as a Select Board member, he could appreciate the usefulness of that, but that he could also understand that the legislature would want to maintain as much discretion as possible.  He said that as a faculty member at UMass, he has seen many similar lobbying efforts to try to prevent fluctuation in funding to the University, to no effect. 

Ms. Brewer said that 40% is the number that Senator Stan Rosenberg has been talking about as a goal, and said that (MMA Executive Director) Geoff Beckwith has said that the percentage has ranged from 32% in 2002 to 26% in 2007, which she said amounted to a $600 million reduction, when adjusted for inflation.  She said that was why stability is sought.

Mr. Kusner said that along with reductions in municipal aid, the State had reduced income taxes, corporate taxes and taxes on dividends.  He said that he would support the 40/10 proposal if it were coupled with efforts to create more equitable and responsible tax policy in the state overall.   He said he didn’t want to shortchange the other State funding responsibilities, such as higher education.

Ms. Awad said she is in favor of the MMA’s proposal and thinks the State will pursue more equitable tax policy by necessity.  She said that the vote on this effort would not make policy but would be asking the MMA to lobby for 40%.  She suggested that the message and efforts must be kept simple, or risk not being able to accomplish anything.

Mr. Kusner said he agreed with Ms. Awad’s point about simplicity.  He said that because Amherst is home to the flagship campus of the State university system, it needs to think beyond the direct municipal aid angle.  He said that all municipalities would benefit from the proposed 40/10 arrangement, but that if its effect was to “devastate” funding for higher ed, he said that Amherst would suffer disproportionately. 

Mr. Weiss said that he was certain MMA wouldn’t be risking that outcome.  Mr. Kusner said that there are only 5 communities hosting the State’s schools.  Mr. Weiss said that tax reform would also be part of the lobbying effort. 

Ms. Brewer explained for the audience’s benefit that it would have been nice for the Select Board to have more than a few days notice about this situation, but that the situation was rather “generic” and that Amherst’s vote either way would have little effect on the outcome, and that there was no guarantee that Amherst would be recognized to speak.  She said that she and Ms. Greeney should report back on what happened and how the vote went, and that in the future, the Select Board would seek to be better prepared.

There was discussion about how to craft the motion that would allow Mr. Weiss to have a letter created to authorize Ms. Greeney to vote, and whether it should be both she and Ms. Brewer, depending on their relative knowledge of the voting topic.  Ultimately, there was a unanimous vote authorizing Ms. Greeney to vote at the MMA meeting.  It was agreed that she and Ms. Brewer would work together to represent the interests and values of the Town and Select Board, in voting and in discussions with representatives from other communities, and that they would report back to the Select Board.

Business Improvement District Feasibility Study  (7:03)

Mr. Weiss explained that with the support of Promoting Downtown Amherst (PDA,) the Chamber of Commerce and UMass, the Town would be applying for assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to conduct a feasibility study regarding the formation of a Business Improvement District downtown.

Mr. Shaffer said the application had been filed, and that he hopes to know within 30 days if the request is successful.

Mr. Kusner asked what the implications would be of a Business Improvement District:  for the public, for the Zoning Bylaw, for Town Meeting and the Select Board. 

Mr. Shaffer said that it would create a district in which benefits to the area such as signage, sidewalk and street maintenance, flowers, and so forth would be paid for by those within the district.  He said these would be a higher level of group services needed to enhance the downtown, but not available through standard Department of Public Works service.  He said the feasibility study would assess the level of interest and receptivity among downtown businesses. 

Mr. Kusner asked how decision-making would occur.  Mr. Shaffer said he wasn’t sure how it works in Massachusetts, but that typically a Board of Directors would be formed and a budget would be created through assessments charged to property owners as surcharges on their property taxes.  He said that all would give input as to how the money is spent.  Mr. Weiss said there would be significant public input on projects as well, but that this was just a feasibility study of the concept, and that the potential formation of such a district was still many steps away. 

Ms. Greeney asked about the cost of the feasibility study and any obligation on behalf of the Town.  Mr. Shaffer said the study would cost $17,000, and that the Town would bear no financial obligation, but would be invited to be part of information gathering and would probably provide some administrative assistance. 

Change of License – The Laundry Club  (7:11)

Peter Colt of True North Enterprises explained that he had recently purchased The Laundry Club, and needed Select Board approval of his business license.  With brief discussion, the vote to approve the transfer of the license to Mr. Colt was unanimous.

Kestrel Trust Agreement  (7:13)

Mr. Shaffer explained that as part of the approval for the Town to acquire the Haskins View property via Article 11 at the Special Fall Town Meeting, it included the acceptance of $60,000 from the Kestrel Trust to apply toward the land purchase.  He said that Town Counsel had considered there to be some ambiguity regarding the authorization for the Town Manager to accept that money, and requested that the Select Board authorize him to accept it and apply it toward closing costs for the property. 

The vote to do so was unanimous.

Budget Coordinating Group Charge  (7:18)

Ms. Greeney said that her intent in requesting this agenda item was to understand the public engagement project and the Blue Ribbon Panel.  She said that she has been reading the minutes of the Budget Coordinating Group’s (BCG’s) minutes from July through December, and said she was uncomfortable that the group seemed aimed at how to achieve public acceptance of an override.  She read various words and phrases from the minutes talking about the “threshold” amount the public could “tolerate,” and how the past override failure showed the need to do outreach to the public to convince people of the need to support it, the need to do market research to determine how to “sell” the concept, the need for a “bullet-proof plan,” and so forth.  She talked about the approximate costs of having five Town staff members among the participants at these meetings, and said that it amounted to $750-1000 each time.  She said she was concerned about whether the BCG was serving the function that was intended when it was created as the Joint Financial Planning Group three years ago, or whether it had overstepped its bounds. 

Ms Greeney said that for the group to recommend a course of action to the public was “very politically driven,” and she said that they should instead be bringing recommendations back to their home committees.  She cited parts of the Amherst Town Government Act that talk about the Select Board being the body to encourage joint financial planning, and to set policy and provide guidelines and recommendations to the Town Manager.  She characterized the actions of the BCG as “a citizens’ group with staff leading the charge” on a matter that she said should be left to the Select Board to decide.  She reiterated her references in the BCG meeting minutes to market research and campaigning, and the citation of staff expenses, and asked if this was how the Select Board wanted staff time and limited resources to be utilized.

Mr. Weiss said that he disagreed with Ms. Greeney’s analysis of the BCG’s intent for consideration of public engagement.  He said that such public engagement might involve the feasibility of an override and what amount might be feasible.  He said the larger goal is to learn the public’s priorities for the services it wants from the Town and the schools, and to inform the public about how government works and what the expenses are.  He said that Ms. Greeney’s characterization of the group as trying to sell an override was “just not accurate.”  He said that considering the cost of staff time was only one way to look at the situation.

Ms. Awad said she too is concerned by the amount of override planning and strategizing in the BCG minutes.  She said there might not be enough information coming back to the Select Board in order for its members feel engaged.  She said the BCG was modeled on the success of the Joint Capital Planning Committee (JCPC) and said that that group does not report to the public, but reports back to its home boards and committees.  She said she did not think BCG’s role was to plan an override campaign.  She said she was surprised by wording in the committee’s charge about making recommendations and disseminating information to the public, and wondered if the Select Board had ever actually approved that charge.

Mr. Weiss agreed that the wording was odd, and said that it did not reflect what the BCG does.  He said the public engagement process is focused on how best to do long-term financial planning, and is based on a Government Finance Officers Association model supplied by Finance Director John Musante.  Mr. Weiss said that the goal is not to sell an override, and that it is not his impression as an attendee that the meetings focus on overrides. 

Mr. Kusner said that describing the BCG’s discussions as an override campaign was a “caricature of the process.”  He said the goal is to develop a common understanding of issues and recommendations for a course of action.  He said that he thinks the staff and volunteers’ time on the committee is well spent, and that he sees such as part of the staff’s responsibilities.

Mr. Weiss and Mr. Kusner both expressed concern that there is a perception that the BCG is working to sell an override.  Ms. Greeney said the perception has some “factual basis,” and talked about more market research points from the meeting minutes, including having a facilitator create a “bullet-proof plan,” and doing a phone survey to determine “what sells,” and that hiring consultants to conduct such research was quoted at upwards of $80,000 to $100,000.  She said that a menu override would be a better way to determine the public’s priorities.  Mr. Weiss and Mr. Kusner said that much of what she was citing were ideas that had been rejected.  Mr. Weiss said that Ms. Greeney was “cherry-picking,” and said that was “not helpful.”

Ms. Awad said that there are already rumors of a possible override this year and that she is ready to discuss the topic. 

Mr. Weiss said that the Select Board, Library Trustees and School committee would all have discussions about this, and that the Select Board’s discussion is scheduled for February 2nd, after receiving recommendations from the BCG. 

Ms. Brewer suggested that a BCG update be a regular agenda item for Select Board meetings.  She said the BCG was formed because the different bodies had not been talking to each other effectively, and said that it is experiencing “growing pains” as it works to coordinate.

There was more discussion of the committee’s charge and if the Select Board had approved it.    Ms. Greeney said she doesn’t think the BCG believes that its charge requires Select Board approval, and that it has been allowed to evolve over time. 

Brian Morton, Finance Committee Chair and BCG Co-Chair, said that the BCG did develop the charge that was read, and said that the committee had no charge when it was created.  He said the Select Board representatives at the time, who were believed to be Ms. Greeney and Robie Hubley, had not objected to the charge. 

It was agreed that the wording of the charge did not accurately reflect the BCG’s work, and would be looked at at its next meeting.  Ms. Awad said that once they change it, it should come to the Select Board for approval, she said not because the Select Board has power over the committee, but because its approval of the charge would make BCG an “official” committee. 

Increasing CPA Surcharge  (7:52)

Mr. Weiss explained that a discussion of increasing the Community Preservation Act (CPA) surcharge was requested so that a Special Town Meeting might be called to vote on whether such a proposal should be put on the ballot for the April 1st election. 

Carol Gray said that the Town’s budget crisis makes consideration of increasing the CPA surcharge more important, because local CPA money is matched with State funds.  She said that Amherst currently has a 1.5% CPA surcharge, and that increasing that to 3% would bring in an extra $300,000 per year in “free money” from the State.  She said that neighboring towns such as Hadley, Northampton, Leverett and Easthampton have adopted the 3% surcharge, and she said that if State matching funds run low, communities at the 3% level will be prioritized.  She said that the Town Hall repairs represent the kind of “creative funding” that is possible with CPA funds, and said that using CPA money that way reduces pressure on the budget’s general fund, which she said might defray the need for an override.  She said that while it is mandated that 10% of the CPA money is expended each year on open space, affordable housing, and historic preservation, it is possible to save the remaining 70% to use toward a larger project in a subsequent year.  She talked about Amherst being in danger of falling below the 10% affordable housing threshold with the next census, and how CPA money could be used toward creating new housing.  She said that there is an exemption on the first $100,000 of a property’s value, and that that would mitigate the effect of the tax on those with low and fixed incomes.  She said that the public should be given the opportunity to decide whether or not it wants to increase the surcharge to the 3% level, and said that the Master Plan results show that the public values the kinds of things for which CPA money can be used.  She asked that the Select Board call a Special Town Meeting, and said she hopes Town Meeting would decide to put the question on the ballot.

Mr. Kusner said that Town Counsel said that CPA surcharge questions can be put on the ballot of any regularly-scheduled election, but not a special election. 

There was discussion about the lead time necessary for signing a warrant and calling a Special Town Meeting, and doing so in time to get a question on the April 1st ballot.  It was determined that the Select Board would have to sign a warrant by the end of January to meet the related deadlines.

There was talk about the value of putting the question on the ballot in order to let the voters decide.  Mr. Weiss said he had some concern about gathering Town Meeting members together in February to discuss this.  Ms. Greeney said that if the proposed increase specified putting a larger percentage of the CPA money toward affordable housing, she would support it, but otherwise would be reluctant.

Leo Maley said that State statute doesn’t allow the money to be earmarked as Ms. Greeney proposed, and said that the CPA committee (CPAC) must make recommendations to Town Meeting for how the money is allocated for spending among the four CPA areas:  open space, affordable housing, historic preservation and recreation, and that Town Meeting makes the decision.  He said that Amherst was one of the first to adopt the CPA surcharge, and did so at 1% in 2001.  He called that proposal “cautious,” which he said was because there was not a track record for its acceptance by other communities at that point.  He said that another “cautious” increase was approved last year, of half a percent.  He said he doesn’t know why Amherst is being so cautious about this, and said that it is an important way to get more revenue to use toward capital spending, an area he said has in recent years fallen well below the Finance Committee’s goals of putting 10% of the tax levy toward it.  He said that the money couldn’t go toward all capital items and wouldn’t cover the top priorities, but could still be funding capital in ways that reflect “the values of the community.”

Mr. Weiss said that “very little” of the capital budget could be supported by CPA funds.  He said that the Town Hall renovations had been a good use, “but that’s it.”  Mr. Kusner mentioned recreation land, and Mr. Weiss said that was not the same as capital spending.  Mr. Maley said that CPA recreation funds had been used for signage in the past, and said that while such were not top capital priorities, they are still viewed as capital investments by the community. 

Ms. Awad said she was in favor of letting voters decide, and thought Town Meeting would support doing that.  She questioned whether it would be wise to have the CPA question on the ballot if an override question might also be needed.   Mr. Weiss said that this does not require a Special Town Meeting, but rather could be on the Annual Town Meeting warrant, and then put on the November ballot, if approved. 

Stan Gawle of the Amherst Taxpayers for Responsible Change said that he would support the CPA increase if Amherst had a lower tax rate, but said that Amherst has one of the highest tax rate in Western Massachusetts.  He said there is no such thing as getting free money from the State, and said that the State’s CPA matching funds come from deed fees charged when property is sold.  He said he would be in favor of having both questions on the ballot, saying that that would make the voting decision easier for those with fixed incomes.  He said that with the high price of gas and the economy in recession that “restraint” is needed in taxation.

Mary Streeter said she is on the CPAC, which she said has not discussed the proposal to increase the tax, and said she was not speaking for that committee.  She said she is in favor of the 3%, and said she expects there to be more applications for CPAC projects than there will be money to pay for them.  She said she would like to put the question to a vote as soon as possible because the money would be received sooner than if it is put off until the November election.  She said that even without calling a Special Town Meeting, she would like discussion to continue about CPA money as “one of the tools that you have to alleviate some pressure on the operating budget.”   

Mr. Weiss said the topic would be considered again soon.

Webcast “The 2% Solution”  (8:21)

Ms. Greeney talked about a webcast of a film called “The 2% Solution” that calls for all nations to reduce emission levels by 2% per year by 2050 in order to prevent global temperature increases beyond three or four degrees.  She said the film makes suggestions for how to accomplish that goal.  She proposed holding a public screening of the webcast at Town Hall on Wednesday, January 30th at 8:00 p.m., preceded by an hour-long discussion with representatives of Amherst and Hampshire Colleges, UMass, and the Town’s Energy Task Force, about accomplishments made toward the 2005 goal of achieving a 35% reduction in CO2 emissions from 1997 levels by 2009.  She asked that the Select Board endorse the idea, host the event and help her to put it together. 

Mr. Weiss said he would be willing to help.  Mr. Kusner said attendees should consider walking, bicycling, car pooling or taking the bus to the event. 

The Select Board voted unanimously to support the event.

Town Manager’s Report  (8:30)

Mr. Shaffer said that the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) was conducting a parking study of Amherst’s central business district, including all public and private parking lots.  He said that Town staff will be making recommendations about how to facilitate parking needs, including ideas such as valet parking and leasing private land for public parking use, and said that it is a topic that would be discussed more in the near future, as the PVPC report is nearing completion.

Mr. Shaffer talked about a draft charge for the committee to be formed for considering future uses of Kendrick Park.  He said that it is crucial to have “adequate public input” about what will occur on that land.  He said he wants the committee charge to be “as expansive as possible,” and for the committee to include representatives from Design Review Board, the Disability Access Committee, Promoting Downtown Amherst, neighborhood groups, and more. 

Ms. Awad said it was “crucial” to engage people who live on the streets to the west of the property, and said that neighborhood has a monthly brunch with a large turnout, and that one such brunch could perhaps be dedicated to this topic.

Mr. Kusner talked about including the Public Transportation and Bicycling Committee, and the Public Works Committee, and said that because Tan Brook runs under the property, the Conservation Director and Conservation Commission should also take part.  He said that Kendrick Park is also near a brownfield site, and said the Amherst redevelopment Authority might want to be involved.

Ms. Greeney said her neighborhood’s brunch gathering has taken place monthly for ten years, and that 20-50 people participate each time.  She said that she will assist the Town Manager in getting input from these neighbors by informing and recruiting them, to the extent that she does not face a conflict of interest.

Ms. Awad said that Mr. Shaffer didn’t receive enough support for handling the situation with the park’s use by the Boy Scouts, and said she respects his instincts for wanting to keep all future usage options open.  She said her desire is that Tan Brook be uncovered, and said it would flow through the area of the Christmas tree sale.  She said that having the Boy Scouts use the land for “eight weeks” was much different than having a group use Town land for a day, or for a series of Saturdays.

Ms. Greeney said the Boy Scouts use the land for only four weeks, and that they clean it up well when they are done. 

Ms. Awad said she didn’t want to talk about the “merits or demerits” of the park’s use by different groups, but only wanted to note that she thought Mr. Shaffer was right to negotiate how the use might occur.  She said it is not known if the Boy Scouts’ sale will be “appropriate” to continue at that location, and said that legal and public counsel on the matter was needed.  She said that this was the first year of the Christmas tree sale since the Town acquired ownership of the land.

Ms. Brewer said she hoped that a decision would be made with sufficient time for the Boy Scouts to make alternative plans if necessary. 

Mr. Shaffer said he would be meeting with the Boy Scouts the next day.  He said his first priority is to prevent the park’s usage from being “unduly encumbered,” and said he would suggest that the Boy Scouts start seeking a new location.  He said the strong public reaction to the situation this year suggested a “degree of entitlement” regarding the Boy Scouts’ use of the land.  He said he supports the Boy Scouts and is happy to help them find another location.

Ms. Brewer asked if it is true that at this point Mr. Shaffer has no intention of having the Boy Scouts use the property next winter.  Mr. Shaffer said that that is correct.

Mr. Shaffer talked about the BCG’s Blue Ribbon Task Force, established to analyze and make recommendations about potential efficiencies in combining Town and School functions.  He said the concept originated with School Superintendent Jere Hochman, who had utilized such a concept in the schools.  Mr. Shaffer said that the three members of the panel are Dr. Agha Iqbal from the Isenberg School of Management at UMass; Bruce McInnis, former Chief Financial Officer of Continental Airlines; and Peter Shea, Treasurer of Amherst College.  Mr. Shaffer said the group was up and running and had identified data required to do its work.  He said the group would be interested in “benchmarking,” and that such would be included in their results.  He said there was not a firm timeline for the group’s work. 

Ms. Greeney read through various sections of minutes from BCG meetings where the Blue Ribbon Task Force’s mission and goals were discussed, and she pointed out areas with which she did and did not agree.  She said she hoped the results would be outcome-oriented and applicable to the next fiscal year, and emphasized the Select Board’s oversight of the Town Manager’s Town concerns.  She said the School Committee would have its own area of emphasis.

Graffiti Issues  (8:58)

Ms. Greeney talked about a number of specific instances of graffiti downtown.  She praised the Town Manager for being diligent about the issue so far, and said she hoped the rest of the graffiti could be dealt with before the local graduations this spring.  She noted that former UMass Chancellor John Lombardi had a policy of making sure all graffiti was removed within 24 hours of its appearance.  She said she hope that there could be cooperation with the business community in this effort.

Mr. Kusner said that some graffiti in town is “art,” and “becomes iconic,” citing “Free Willy – Save the Drake.”  He said he wasn’t sure that Select Board members should be telling property owners what graffiti they should remove and what could remain.  He said the Select Board’s role might be to just express its interest in maintaining a beautiful town. 

Ms. Greeney said she didn’t want to stifle creativity and talked about a rock at Oberlin College that groups are able to paint and decorate for a month at a time, and suggested Amherst might consider providing such an option.  Mr. Weiss joked that there could be a graffiti wall in Kendrick Park. 

Mr. Shaffer said that graffiti is a difficult to issue to manage, and said there needs to be some standards on how to handle it.  He said that the Chancellor had ownership and control over all the UMass buildings, while the Town is dealing with private property owners.  He said the issue is well-suited to a discussion about a possible Business Improvement District, and said he would work with the Town’s business partners on the graffiti issue.

Approval of Past Minutes  (9:06)

It was determined that no minutes could be approved at this meeting.

Goals for the Town Manager for the New Year  (9:09)

Not all the Select Board members had submitted to Mr. Weiss their lists of goals for the Town Manager for the new year, so that discussion was postponed.

The meeting adjourned at 9:12.  The next Select Board meeting is scheduled for Monday, January 14th at 6:30 p.m. at Town Hall.

-- Stephanie O’Keeffe