(2/27/08)   The Select Board met Monday, February 25th, at 6:30 p.m. at Town Hall.  Gerry Weiss, Hwei-Ling Greeney, Anne Awad, Rob Kusner and Alisa Brewer were present, as was Town Manager Larry Shaffer.  Judith Arcamo took minutes of the meeting.

Announcements

Mr. Weiss announced that this would be Mr. Kusner’s last meeting, because he will be away on sabbatical in March.  Mr. Weiss thanked Mr. Kusner for his service and hard work, and said he would be missed.  Mr. Kusner thanked the Select Board and former member Robie Hubley, from whom he said he had learned a lot.

Public Comment

Nancy Gordon talked about the history of the Gallup Poll and her experience working with that organization.  She said she learned that it was important to not let one’s survey respondents be self-selecting, and that how questions are phrased is important, though she said she didn’t know how to address that.  She said that she controlled for the self-selection by systematically choosing without bias recipient names from a voter list.   She said her survey this year had three questions, was sent to 330 people, and that she had received 55 responses thus far.  She said the effort cost her $300.  She gave the survey questions and current results to the Select Board.

Rob Crowner spoke about the Public Works Committee having received many complaints about the condition of Pelham Road.  He requested that the Select Board consider the recommendations that committee had made a year ago on this matter.  Mr. Weiss asked that Mr. Crowner send those recommendations to the Select Board again, and said that the topic would be addressed in the next couple of weeks.

Vince O’Connor said that the DPW Superintendent had been unresponsive to his requests for information about surveying and paving plans.  Mr. O’Connor said that the DPW was prioritizing its paving and drainage projects inappropriately and said that the Public Works Committee needs relevant information in order to do its job.  He said that if the current process doesn’t work, the alternative was that a Board of Public Works could be created by statute which he said would take such matters out of the Select Board’s hands.

Promotion of Police Officer Scott Livingstone  (6:45)

Police Chief Charles Scherpa said that Scott Livingstone had been on the police force for more than 25 years, and that he was recommending his promotion from Lieutenant to Captain.  Mr. Shaffer praised the officer and concurred with the recommendation.   The Town Clerk was not available for the swearing-in, so that would not occur at the meeting.  The Select Board congratulated and shook hands with Captain Livingstone. 

Global Climate Change  (6:48)

Ms. Greeney spoke of the high attendance and good discussion at the January 30th climate change forum.  She said the webcast that had been scheduled for that night was oversubscribed, and could not be viewed, so there was only discussion with officials from UMass and the Town about progress both entities had made in reducing carbon dioxide emissions.  Ms. Greeney proposed that a second such forum be held March 12th to focus on the progress made by the Amherst public schools and by Amherst and Hampshire Colleges.  She proposed that a third forum be held April 22nd to focus on efforts by citizens and businesses. 

The sense of the Select Board was that the March forum date was too soon, and would occur during a busy time for all concerned.  It was suggested that an April date, and perhaps a fall date, be pursued instead.  Ms. Greeney agreed and moved that the Select Board support holding a forum on April 16th to showcase carbon dioxide emission reduction efforts at Hampshire College, Amherst College, the Amherst Elementary Schools and the Amherst Regional Schools, and to do a fall event focusing on residents and businesses.  The vote in support was unanimous.

Taxi Licenses  (7:07)

The Select Board approved taxi driver licenses for two men to drive for Gotta Go taxi service.  The vote to approve the license was unanimous.

Tamara Rutland-Mills asked if the men were U.S. citizens, and they said yes.  The Select Board said that citizenship was not relevant to such licenses.

Special Municipal Employee Status – Water Supply Protection Committee

Lyons Witten appeared before the Board to seek Special Municipal Employee (SME) status for the Water Supply Protection Committee.  A letter had been submitted seeking the status, which Mr. Weiss and Ms. Awad both noted agreement with, and the vote to grant SME to the committee was unanimous.

Special Liquor License  (7:10)

The Select Board unanimously approved a special liquor license for a UMass event at Memorial Hall. 

Parking at St. Brigid’s  (7:12)

Mr. Kusner spoke about a letter the Select Board had received regarding concerns about selective enforcement of parking and traffic laws, citing cars parked on Cowls Lane during Sunday Mass at St. Brigid’s church.  Mr. Shaffer said it concerned cars being parked in the wrong direction, and said it is apparently a long-term practice.  Mr. Shaffer said he would ask the Police Chief to have notices put under the windshield wipers of the offending vehicles, letting the owners know that such a parking practice puts them at risk for a ticket.  He said he would also seek to have the priest make an announcement at Mass.  Mr. Kusner said he didn’t intend to get into the specifics of this case, but hoped the Town Manager and the Select Board would be vigilant in general with such issues to ensure fairness, and not be vulnerable to concerns about selective enforcement practices.  Ms. Greeney said that it was important to track such complaints and actions so that the concerns were not being neglected.

Chapter 61A Release – 1011 Bay Road  (7:15)

Attorney John Edwards was present to represent the sellers of the property at 1011 Bay Road.  Mr. Weiss said that the Select Board had questions about the dates of the purchase and sale agreement, and had asked Town Counsel for advice.  Mr. Edwards said that was a waste of expensive Town Counsel service.  He said that there were three lots involved, and two under State protection had been released, and the assumption had been that the one under town protection had been released as well, but that that was not the case.  He said it had been a long process to get this addressed.

Mr. Weiss said that all such documents are run by Town Counsel to ensure that they are proper and legal.  Mr. Kusner said that the Chapter 61A law allows the town 120 day notice for exercising right of first refusal.  He said that 61A is a privilege to the owners who get a substantial tax break, and he expressed concern about the necessary back taxes having been dated and paid for the appropriate time.  Mr. Edwards said that the Town Assessor ensures that the taxes are paid at the closing date. 

Ms. Greeney moved to not exercise the Town’s right of first refusal on the property and Mr. Weiss seconded, and said that the Planning Board and Conservation Commission had recommended not exercising the right.

Ms. Brewer asked if ways might be found to streamline this process, such as creating a check list.  Mr. Shaffer said he would like to streamline the process if possible. 

The vote to support not exercising the right of first refusal was 3 in favor, 2 abstaining, with Mr. Kusner and Ms. Awad choosing to abstain.  Mr. Kusner said that he has noted before that more time and information is needed to deal with such cases, because the first-refusal right is valuable to the Town.

Town Manager’s Report – Ambulance Service Update  (7:27)

Mr. Shaffer gave a presentation about the history and status of his pursuit of higher ambulance fee reimbursements from the neighboring towns.  He said it began with efforts at improving reimbursement from UMass and the colleges, which led to the 5-year Strategic Partnership Agreement with UMass and the recent unrestricted gift from Amherst College. He said that the subsidy to the other towns by Amherst taxpayers became apparent while doing the cost analysis for UMass.  He said that the revenues realized through ambulance services need to increase, and that increased and predictable revenues were necessary if a new fire station is to be pursued. 

He provided the following numbers:

In FY07, there were 5131 fire and ambulance calls combined.  It cost about $4.8 million to support those calls.  Ambulance calls made up 3780 calls, or 75% of the total.  There were 1351 fire calls. He said that he is using the premise that every call is equal, and said that is a debatable point, but with it, that averages out to $937 per call. 

There were 972 calls outside of Amherst, nearly 15% of the total calls and 20% of the total ambulance calls.  He said that if you accept the $937 figure, that equals $910,000 in cost. 

Revenues from insurance proceeds totaled $385,000 for those calls, and $112,000 from the towns.  He said that the $496,000 reimbursement against the $910,000 expense implies a $413,000 deficit.

He said he began negotiations with Sunderland, Leverett, Pelham, Shutesbury and Hadley.  He said he has agreements-in-principal with Pelham, Shutesbury and Leverett, and is still in talks with Hadley.  He said that Sunderland has dropped out of the talks, because their model of service received from Amherst was very different than the others, and that this was not worth their while. 

Mr. Shaffer said he seeks an increased reimbursement rate and a five-year agreement from each town, so that the revenue can be predicted. 

He talked about the $937 cost-per-call premise.  He said that with these FY07 figures, the first call costs $4.8 million, and each subsequent one is cheaper as the expenses are divided among a larger pool of calls.   He said that to end the service to the other towns would result in a larger loss of incremental revenue than the savings of the incremental costs.  He said that if $500,000 in revenues were lost, that amount of cost could not be cut, and that current levels of fire and ambulance protection could not be provided to Amherst with the layoffs such a loss of revenue would require.  He said that the force has 45 people, and they work in four shifts of ten.  He said that minimum staffing requires 7 people per shift, so the number beyond that is needed to absorb those who are sick, on vacation, or in training.  He said that a $500,000 revenue loss would mean laying off 7 or 8 people and would reduce shifts to 8, and with the sick/vacation/training absences figured in, it would mean 5 people per shift, which he said was insufficient. 

Ms. Awad said that the Fire Chief has said that Amherst is thinly-covered due to out-of-town calls, and said that was a little contradictory but that she understood Mr. Shaffer’s example.  She suggested pursuing regionalization of the system so that all would pay their fair share. 

Mr. Kusner asked what private providers charge as a per-call rate for ambulance service and if their costs are lower because they provide less service.  He talked about emergency personnel not being available because they were at a hospital, as opposed to being in a neighboring town.

Mr. Shaffer talked about the different average call times depending on the town being served, but said he felt the $937 figure was fair.  He said his goal is to bring revenue from its current levels of 42% to 43% of expenses to 65% in 2010, and said it is moving in the right direction.

Mr. Weiss requested that there be a flow chart demonstrating how many personnel were needed for fire coverage in Amherst, the effect of having the personnel also be EMTs to do ambulance calls in non-fire times, and how the equation gets disrupted if there are too many or not enough ambulance calls.  

Ms. Greeney asked that the gap in Amherst’s subsidy to the other towns be closed by FY13, at which time the towns would pay the full cost of the services received.  She also asked about the increase in calls from FY04 to FY07. 

Mr. Shaffer said he is trying to increase the revenues as rapidly as he can, and said that if he thought even a single dollar could be saved through ending service to another town, he would do that. 

Mr. Weiss suggested that Mr. Shaffer run a scenario based on not providing service or receiving revenue from Hadley, to see what that would look like for Amherst taxpayers.  Mr. Shaffer said that that analysis had been done, and that he could present it at another time. 

Mr. Kusner reiterated is desire to know the per-call cost of private ambulance companies in order to provide context.  Ms. Awad praised Mr. Shaffer for identifying and pursuing this problem, and reiterated her point about the necessity of regionalizing the force. 

Mr. Shaffer said he did not know what private services charge.  He said that the question of whether it is still best to have all firefighters be EMTs needs to be looked at.  He said such issues should not be pursued rashly, and said that Amherst has high-quality fire and ambulance service and is prudent to be seeking higher reimbursement for that.

Ms. Greeney reiterated her call for setting a deadline for ending any subsidy, and suggested that that would help to motivate Mr. Shaffer to think creatively.  She moved that the Select Board endorse FY13 as an end-date for less-than-full reimbursement for emergency costs from towns and UMass and the colleges.  Mr. Kusner said that the motion might preclude her goal of regionalizing the force, and she amended it to include exploration of regionalizing ambulance service.  There was no second.

Mr. Shaffer said he would return at a future meeting to make a presentation with the Fire Chief regarding what the budget and coverage scenario would look like if it did not include calls to Hadley. 

Town Manager’s Report – Recent Budget Developments  (8:19)

Mr. Shaffer said that he was still in negotiations for all the collective bargaining agreements, and that the budget line item representing that eventual amount was still unresolved.  He said the Health Insurance Trust Fund trends were being tracked, and that the estimated 12% increase was high, and would not amount to that much, and that there could be good news there. 

Ms. Greeney said that if the 12% figure were reduced to 6%, that would save $100,000, which she suggested be combined with the revenues from the UMass Strategic Partnership Agreement and the Amherst College gift, and given to the elementary schools to address their budget shortfall.  She said she hoped that could be discussed at the March 3rd meeting, and sought to make that a motion, but was convinced not to for various reasons, including that sufficient school budget info would not be available by then.

Mr. Kusner reiterated his request from previous meetings that funding for the human service agencies and the War Memorial Pool be restored in the budget. 

Ms. Brewer said that every meeting agenda should include discussion of the budget.  She noted that the gift from Amherst College was to address reimbursement costs for emergency services, even though it was technically given as “unrestricted.”  She asked if there could be an update on the analysis of merging Town and School departments and other findings of the “blue ribbon” panel.

Mr. Shaffer said that his budget proposal contains a bottom-line figure and a restore list.  He said he isn’t willing to change the bottom line, but said that if expenses were reduced in one area, those funds could be applied somewhere else.  He cautioned that there would more changes as new information becomes available going forward.

Mr. Kusner moved that funding for the human service agencies and the pool be put at the top of the restoration list.  Carol Gray and Ellie Manire-Gatti spoke to the importance of having this funding in the budget.  Ms. Greeney said she could not support the motion, but would recuse herself from the vote.  Mr. Weiss said he would support it.  Mr. Kusner said that although other information might become available, this was a responsible motion for him to make at this meeting, with the facts currently available. 

The vote on the motion to move this funding to the top of the list was 4 in favor, 1 abstention.  [Note:  Ms. Greeney said she was recusing herself, but remained at the table, so I am not certain if this vote is considered an abstention or a recusal.]

There was a five minute recess in the meeting.

Report on the Community Development Block Grant Application  (8:52)

Mr. Shaffer said that the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application had been submitted for February 15th and requested $480,000 for repairs to the North Amherst School; $85,000 for an outreach worker for the homeless through Center for Human Development; $75,000 for childcare tuition reimbursement, and the balance for administration. 

Ms. Greeney talked about Select Board votes taken and public support expressed in favor of funding a feasibility study for a Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) housing facility.  She asked why that wasn’t included in the application and said she questioned the handling of the issue by the Town Manager.

Mr. Shaffer said that he was sorry if he hadn’t been clear on this point before and would try again.  He said that salaries in the Community Services office were being transitioned to primarily being funded through CDBG.  He said that two feasibility studies were discussed – one for assessing the adequacy of the Survival Center’s space, and the other for the SRO.  He said that the SRO study doesn’t have to be funded by the CDBG mini-entitlement grant, and that the funding could be made available now, but that it required more consideration of what the study would entail and what its purpose would be.  He said that the various committees dealing with homelessness and housing should get together to determine goals for the study.

Community Services Director Roy Rosenblatt said the SRO proposal was rejected by the Community Development Committee because it felt that a larger policy study was needed on different elements of low-income housing.  He said he expects extra money to be available from the North Amherst School project, because he expects the project to receive a variance for the accessible ramp requirement, but that the money needed to be applied for in case the variance isn’t granted. 

There was discussion about whether the Committee on Homelessness should be in charge of this issue, or whether it should work together with the Community Development Committee and the Housing Partnership/Fair Housing Committee.  Ms. Greeney and Ms. Awad both expressed their strong desire for the Committee on Homelessness to have the primary role.

Audience members spoke about the necessity of affordable housing and the difficulty in identifying people who are homeless, how many there are currently, and the long-term need for an SRO. 

CPA Surcharge Increase on Annual Town Meeting Warrant  (9:19)

Mr. Kusner moved that the Select Board place an article on the Annual Town Meeting Warrant to increase the Community Preservation Act (CPA) surcharge to 3%.  He said there would still be several steps before the voters might vote on this issue, and that he was proposing this now because Monday is the deadline for petition articles. 

Ms. Greeney expressed concern about not knowing how the money would be used.  Mr. Weiss said there was still much to discuss and consider, but that the first step would be to have an article on the warrant.  Mr. Kusner said he wasn’t seeking the Board’s support for the proposal, but rather, asked the Board to “do its duty” to let Town Meeting consider the issue.  Ms. Greeney said that was not the same standard the Board used when considering whether to put the override question on the ballot. 

Ms. Brewer said that if the Select Bard puts it on the warrant, then it is identified as the sponsor.  She said that the ten signature threshold was low enough to ask that the petitioners go that route instead.  Mr. Kusner said that he agreed, and suggested that both the Select Board and the petitioners submit the articles, and then let one be dismissed at Town Meeting.  He said this was one of his last actions as a Select Board member, and said that it was part of that body’s leadership role to put issues to Town Meeting for consideration. 

The vote on the motion to have the Select Board put a CPA surcharge increase article on the Town Meeting warrant was 3 in favor, 2 opposed, with Ms. Brewer and Ms. Greeney voting to oppose.  Mr. Weiss said that the Select Board might end up opposing its own article.

Town Meeting Childcare Funding  (9:28)

Frank Gatti spoke about a past Town Meeting resolution to fund childcare for Town Meeting members who need it in order to participate.  He said that two or three people ask about it each year.  He said that among the reasons people opposed the Town Meeting form of government during charter debates was because it was seen as not representative of Amherst’s population, skewing older, more well-off, and without children.  He said a childcare stipend was intended to address that. 

Mr. Shaffer said that his understanding was that the original intent was to fund child care to be provided at the Middle School during the meetings, but that that was not practical, and reimbursement for private care was sought instead. He said he thought the amount would total hundreds of dollars, rather than thousands, and said he thought that was logical and said he was happy to do it. 

Mr. Gatti noted that it could cover elder care or care for a sick relative, as well as covering childcare. 

Mr. Shaffer said he could write up the policy and notify Town Meeting members.  Ms. Brewer suggested a press release. 

Mr. Gatti said the stipend was intended to be $20 per session, and for the total Town expenditure to be capped at $4,000 per year.  Some felt this might not be enough money, particularly for elder care.

Mr. Shaffer said that departments had been very frugal with their budgets, and mentioned saving $7,500 by not renting garage space for the creation of sets for plays.  He said such funds could be used for this purpose.

Parking Policy Proposal  (9:39)

While Mr. Weiss was seeking to prioritize the remaining unaddressed agenda items, Mr. Kusner moved that a parking fee policy be approved that would adjust the rates and enforcement periods, to ensure additional revenues and be equitable to all and mindful of the environment. 

Ms. Brewer asked if this would be a Select Board policy, to help guide the actions of other more relevant bodies.  Mr. Kusner said it addressed the fact that the Transportation Fund was typically viewed as parking-oriented, while this incorporated the public transportation aspect.  Ms. Greeney said it might discourage people coming downtown to shop, and said that encouraging more public transportation could be done in other ways.  Mr. Weiss said he wouldn’t want to discourage downtown shoppers, but said that this shows that the Select Board is serious about public transportation as a key element of the Transportation Enterprise Fund. 

Mr. Kusner talked about parking theories and costs.  The vote on the motion was 4 in favor and 1 opposed, with Ms. Greeney voting to oppose. 

Signing the Town Election Warrant  (9:51)

The Select Board approved a motion to sign the Town Election Warrant. 

Ms. Brewer sought clarification about the status of the Market Hill Road property for which the Town’s right of first refusal had been considered at the February 11th meeting.  There was confusion as to whether or not a vote had been taken on that issue. 

The Select Board then adjourned to Executive Session, not to return to open session, for the purpose of discussing land acquisition and pending litigation. 

The meeting’s open session ended at 9:54.  The next Select Board meeting is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. Monday, March 3rd at Town Hall.

-- Stephanie O’Keeffe