tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-222137952024-03-13T23:57:05.218-04:00Stephanie's Town Meeting ExperienceI established this blog when I sought and won election to Town Meeting in spring of 2006, in an effort to inform the people of Precinct 9 about my views, and to keep them apprised of how I vote on the issues and why. My goal has been to make the Town Meeting process more accountable, more accessible and less anonymous, and to engage more citizen participation. Comments and e-mail are encouraged.Stephanie O'Keeffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139345960579356043noreply@blogger.comBlogger91125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-27058595132522300422008-04-29T20:04:00.005-04:002008-04-29T22:46:09.716-04:00ex officioWell, that was different.<br /><br />Instead of wondering where to sit, my seat was assigned.<br /><br />And I spoke to more articles last night than I spoke to in all the sessions of the previous two years combined.<br /><br />And my hand wasn’t all cramped up at the end.<br /><span id="fullpost" class="fold"><br />Very different indeed. Unfortunately, the peculiar way I have spent all my previous meetings has left me frighteningly unprepared for this. I barely looked up before. What do the people at the front tables do? What is the etiquette of facing the audience?<br /><br />I was afraid to look at my friends, lest I grin and wave. Do I scan the crowd? Stare at the folks in the first couple rows? Gaze blankly into some non-specific spot in the distance? Looking at the person speaking is fine, unless he or she is at the podium or at the other table, neither of which I could really see.<br /><br />And most of all, what do I do with my hands?? No wonder people knit. Sitting there for a few hours with my pen and notebook retired was a fidgety torture.<br /><br />Then there’s the whole posture and body language thing. Sit up straight. Try not to cross my arms in a manner that seems hostile or bored. Try to keep my feet flat on the floor. Like, sit up straight! Stop fussing with my scarf. Resist the urge to froof my hair.<br /><br />So the bad news is, I just can’t blog these meetings anymore, and I’m sorry about that. I really enjoyed doing it, and I felt good about providing that kind of a record of what we did and how we did it.<br /><br />And I learned SO MUCH. Taking those kind of notes, and turning them into (mostly) coherent summaries forced me to understand the articles and the arguments in a way I probably would not have otherwise. And though I never would have imagined it two years ago, this was a major factor in landing me at the Select Board table now.<br /><br />You probably know that I am now writing about Select Board stuff <a href="http://www.stephanieokeeffe.com/"><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">here</span></a>, and trying to maintain <a href="http://www.inamherst.com/"><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">inAmherst.com</span></a> in some form.<br /><br />Which means there’s a great big opening in the TM blog/coverage department that is just begging to be filled.<br /><br />Whaddya think? It’s fun. It’s free. It’s helpful. People appreciate it. And you just never know what kind of new experiences it might lead to…<br /></span>Stephanie O'Keeffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139345960579356043noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-10987387575443760632007-11-28T10:52:00.000-05:002007-11-28T14:26:04.175-05:00I didn't forget<p class="MsoNormal">Apparently holidays and meeting recaps don’t mix well, so let’s hope Town Meeting finishes up before Christmas.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Here's a scaled-down account of last week’s session, lest I end up two meetings behind.</p><span id="fullpost" class="fold"> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><i style="">Bad start:</i></b><span style=""> </span>I could hear the gavel bang and the meeting come to order while I was still at the Select Board meeting in the music room.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><i style="">Gets better:</i></b><span style=""> </span>Once I was checked in and settled, a dashing fellow from the Planning Board was speaking to the dismissal of articles 13 and 14 – which proposed changes to the allowed uses in the <st1:place st="on"><st1:placename st="on">Professional</st1:placename> <st1:placename st="on">Research</st1:placename> <st1:placetype st="on">Park</st1:placetype></st1:place> zone – due to the new compromise Article 1 of the 11/28 Special Town Meeting.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><i style="">Gets worse:</i></b><span style=""> </span>Gerry Weiss offers an “apology” for saying at the previous meeting that banks are more inclined to finance a project with Site Plan Review approval rather than Special Permit.<span style=""> </span>He’s called a couple of people who disagree with that.<span style=""> </span>Let the equivocation begin.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><i style="">Dismissed:</i></b><span style=""> </span>With Vince O’Connor of the “Coalition for Sustainable Neighborhoods” praising the spirit of cooperation of the Planning Board, its Zoning Subcommittee, and the Planning Department staff, 13 and 14 were unanimously dismissed.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><i style="">Recused:</i></b><span style=""> </span>Harrison Gregg recused himself as Moderator for Article 15 which dealt with property owned by his employer, <st1:place st="on"><st1:placename st="on">Amherst</st1:placename> <st1:placetype st="on">College</st1:placetype></st1:place>.<span style=""> </span>Jim Pistrang was the sole nominee to fill that interim role, and was elected by unanimous vote of the body.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><i style="">The gist:</i></b><span style=""> </span>Article 15 was originally two parts.<span style=""> </span>The first part sought to expand the General Business district a block to the east, to include Spring Street up to <st1:street st="on"><st1:address st="on">Churchill Street</st1:address></st1:street>.<span style=""> </span>The second part sought to allow inns, hotels and motels by Site Plan Review in the General Business district, instead of by Special Permit.<span style=""> </span>The proposed expansion the business district would be a tiny and reasonable change and might help to save an historic house owned by the Masonic Lodge for which the most attractive use to that organization under the residential zoning is to demolish it and make a parking lot.<span style=""> </span>The inn/hotel/motel change would make it easier for Amherst College to proceed with planned expansion of the Lord Jeff, and would be a step toward encouraging lodging downtown by making it a “by right” use, rather than an exception, in that district.<span style=""> </span>Planning Board member Jonathan Shefftz presented this article and spoke to these points.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><i style="">Motion A:</i></b><span style=""> </span>Expanding the General Business district seems simple enough and is endorsed by the Select Board, the Finance Committee and the Zoning Board of Appeals.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><i style="">Not so fast:</i></b><span style=""> </span>Vince O’Connor moved to divide the motion into three parts, separating the different affected parcels.<span style=""> </span>OK then.<span style=""> </span>He said he supported Motion 1 – rezoning the Masons’ house, and opposed Motion 2 – rezoning a house with rental apartments.<span style=""> </span>What about Motion 3?<span style=""> </span>Stay tuned.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><i style="">Best points:</i></b><span style=""> </span>Frank Wells said Town Meeting would be overstepping its knowledge base to make new zoning proposals from the floor.<span style=""> </span>Jonathan Shefftz spoke to the Spring Street expansion being proposed as a cohesive unit, and said that no consideration or public input had been given to idea of rezoning some but not all of the parcels in question.<span style=""> </span>Gavin Andresen said that while TM is often uneasy about zoning changes, he was optimistic about the potential for Spring Street, and spoke of the recent pleasant surprise of an auto parts store becoming a hot tub place, noting also that such an enterprise isn’t vulnerable to Internet competition.<span style=""> </span><span style=""> </span><span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><i style="">Results:</i></b><span style=""> </span>Motions A1 and A2 pass easily, which means that one side of the Spring Street block is rezoned to General Business. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><i style="">Here we go:</i></b><span style=""> </span>Vince then sought to have the proposed rezoning of the four parcels on the other side of the street – the Lord Jeff and three other buildings owned by <st1:place st="on"><st1:placename st="on">Amherst</st1:placename> <st1:placetype st="on">College</st1:placetype></st1:place> – referred to the Planning Board, Select Board and Town Manager.<span style=""> </span>He wants to use them as leverage to pressure <st1:place st="on"><st1:placename st="on">Amherst</st1:placename> <st1:placetype st="on">College</st1:placetype></st1:place> into giving the Town money.<span style=""> </span>Nothing says Town-Gown partnership like applying the big squeeze.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><i style="">Voices of reason:</i></b><span style=""> </span>Jim Brassord from <st1:place st="on"><st1:placename st="on">Amherst</st1:placename> <st1:placetype st="on">College</st1:placetype></st1:place> spoke to the fortunes of the college and the downtown rising and falling together.<span style=""> </span>Isaac BenEzra spoke to the folly of approving the first two parts of this now-divided motion without approving the third, saying one can’t be “half pregnant,” and emphasizing the need to work with the colleges on efforts that expand the tax base and provide jobs.<span style=""> </span>Larry Kelley said that encouraging expansion of the Lord Jeff makes sense both because it will increase its assessed value and because it will increase the opportunity to collect lodging taxes.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><i style="">Results:</i></b><span style=""> </span>The motion to refer failed.<span style=""> </span>Rezoning of the <st1:place st="on"><st1:placename st="on">Amherst</st1:placename> <st1:placetype st="on">College</st1:placetype></st1:place> properties passed.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><i style="">Hotels, motels and inns, oh my:</i></b><span style=""> </span>The ZBA moved to divide this motion, separating inns from hotels and motels.<span style=""> </span>The Select Board supported allowing inns by special permit but moved to refer the hotels and motels part back to the Planning Board.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><i style="">Throwing spaghetti at the wall:</i></b><span style=""> </span>Everyone supported the inn part because inns can only be in buildings that are at least 75 years old, while hotels and motels would require the dreaded “new construction.”<span style=""> </span>It was suggested that Site Plan Review shows less concern for abutters and other opponents.<span style=""> </span>Various scary hotel situations were invoked:<span style=""> </span>Look at Route 9!<span style=""> </span>Look what happened with the new hotel proposal in <st1:city st="on"><st1:place st="on">Northampton</st1:place></st1:city>!<span style=""> </span>Hotels and motels are chains!<span style=""> </span>We also had pictures of pretty downtown buildings that are now gone, to make room for such outrages as the fire station and the post office.<span style=""> </span>(Imagine what horrors lurk if we don’t keep everything as-is – the gas station could become something charming.<span style=""> </span>The CVS or Brueggers buildings might be improved.<span style=""> </span>And heaven forefend – the big Bank of <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region> building…<span style=""> </span>no, no – change is just too dangerous.)<span style=""> </span><span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><i style="">Oh the irony:</i></b><span style=""> </span>Select Board member Hwei-Ling Greeney gave every impression of being confused by and mistaken about the details of the proposed change to Site Plan Review, saying that she found in the fine print of the Zoning Bylaw that it would apply to the Limited Business, Commercial, and Business-Village Center districts as well.<span style=""> </span>While she described her concerns about that, her colleagues Gerry Weiss and Rob Kusner displayed overt frustration which I found to be incredibly disrespectful and inappropriate.<span style=""> </span>We are all allowed to be wrong, for goodness sake.<span style=""> </span>Except that Hwei-Ling wasn’t even wrong.<span style=""> </span>Through another oversight on the part of the Planning Board, language about confining the change to the General Business district somehow didn’t make it into the final version of the article, though it had been included other places and had been the clear intent throughout the process of the article’s creation.<span style=""> </span>Egads.<span style=""> </span>These errors aren’t doing the Planning Board any favors in the “you can trust us because we’re thorough and rigorous” department.<span style=""> </span><span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><i style="">Motion to refer:</i></b><span style=""> </span>This motion failed in a close tally vote – <a href="http://www.amherstma.gov/departments/Town_Clerk/town_meeting/warrantsandresults/110507_Tally_Vote_Art_15_Motion_B-1.pdf"><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">76 in favor, 81 opposed</span></a>.<span style=""> </span>I voted to oppose. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><i style="">Fixed:</i></b><span style=""> </span>We voted to amend the article to add the language about the General Business district to both the hotels/motels part and the inns part. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><i style="">Back to the Hotels/Motels:</i></b> At this point and previously throughout the evening, people spoke in favor of the change from Special Permit to Site Plan Review:<span style=""> </span>Lodging can be new, small and nice.<span style=""> </span>There is plenty of protection in the Zoning Bylaw, the SPR process and the Design Review Board to prevent something awful or huge.<span style=""> </span>Wouldn’t it be nice if guests could stay in downtown <st1:city st="on"><st1:place st="on">Amherst</st1:place></st1:city> and walk to shops and restaurants?<span style=""> </span>Years ago, the Carriage Shops was a motel (who knew?) and that didn’t spell doom for <st1:city st="on"><st1:place st="on">Amherst</st1:place></st1:city>.<span style=""> </span>The theme of the zoning proposals is encouraging economic development, and this would be a simple, logical low-risk way to do that.<span style=""> </span>We are trying to change the Special Permit message that says:<span style=""> </span>no, we don’t really want that.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><i style="">Another tally:</i></b><span style=""> </span>The change to allow hotels and motels in the General Business district by Site Plan Review failed to meet the 2/3 requirement, with <a href="http://www.amherstma.gov/departments/Town_Clerk/town_meeting/warrantsandresults/110507_Tally_Vote_Art_15_Motion_B-1.pdf"><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">100 Yes votes and 54 No votes</span></a>.<span style=""> </span>I voted Yes.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><i style="">Inns are OK:</i></b><span style=""> </span>The vote to approve allowing inns in the General Business district by Site Plan Review passed overwhelmingly, with just a handful of Nos.<span style=""> </span>And I voted Yes for that as well.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The meeting adjourned just after 10:30, after considering one article.<span style=""> </span>We meet again Wednesday, November 28<sup>th</sup> for the “Special Special.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> </span>Stephanie O'Keeffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139345960579356043noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-50620718056640271672007-11-16T19:55:00.000-05:002007-11-16T20:46:27.192-05:00Perpetual motions<p class="MsoNormal">Every now and then a meeting is so grueling that I curse this whole blog thing.<span style=""> </span>This was one of those meetings.</p><span id="fullpost" class="fold"> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Things started well enough – the quorum was announced at 7:40 and the meeting began about a minute later.<span style=""> </span>The Moderator said that he would be recusing himself for Article 15 – Spring Street – (because much of the land in question is owned by his employer, <st1:place st="on"><st1:placename st="on">Amherst</st1:placename> <st1:placetype st="on">College</st1:placetype></st1:place>) and that Jim Pistrang is willing to serve, should we elect him.<span style=""> </span><i style="">As if</i> we would get to Article 15 last night.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The Moderator and Eva Schiffer offered high praise of outgoing Senior Planner for the Town, Niels la Cour, who has taken a planning position at UMass.<span style=""> </span>Eva talked about his decade-long work on the Comprehensive Plan process and his creation of the Town’s tremendous <b style=""><i style=""><a href="http://gis.amherstma.gov/">Geographic Information System</a></i></b> (GIS,) as well as his overall enthusiasm, patience and expertise.<span style=""> </span>Town Meeting applauded.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Larry Shaffer also congratulated Niels and wished him well.<span style=""> </span>Then he spoke about the zoning articles, and the on-going discussions about Special Permit versus Site Plan Review.<span style=""> </span>He then asked the Moderator and Town Meeting to let Allan Blair, head of the Western Mass Economic Development Council, speak about how those two options are viewed by the outside world.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Because Mr. Blair is not a member of Town Meeting or a registered voter in <st1:city st="on"><st1:place st="on">Amherst</st1:place></st1:city>, he can only speak with majority consent of the body.<span style=""> </span>In my experience, the vote to approve such a speaker is a mere formality.<span style=""> </span>Not so this time – there were more than a few loud Nos.<span style=""> </span>I was ashamed of us.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Mr. Blair said that he has been working on economic development issues for 25 years in Hampshire, Hampden and Franklin counties, and has observed that communities that have been successful in diversifying their tax base are those which have expedited their permitting to provide developers and interested businesses with “certainty” about the process.<span style=""> </span>He said that uncertainty of time and effort required to go through the process, and the uncertainty of the final outcome – whether meeting all the criteria will actually lead to an approved permit – causes companies to avoid such communities if they can.<span style=""> </span>He said that certainty of process and timeline is an encouragement and uncertainty is a discouragement, and that Site Plan Review represents certainty because it means the use is by right after all conditions are met. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Mr. Blair spoke only briefly, but it was not brief enough for some.<span style=""> </span>One member interrupted with a point of order to ask if he was being timed.<span style=""> </span>When Mr. Blair was done, another member called it “outrageous” that he had been allowed to speak and that an opposing view was not being presented.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Town Meeting keeps finding new ways to discourage and depress me.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">So I can’t take full credit (blame?) for this, because it may have been in the works anyway, but I had suggested to Mr. Shaffer that he get Mr. Blair or someone with such expertise to address Town Meeting to provide an external professional perspective. <span style=""> </span>Why?<span style=""> </span>Because many have noticed that various e-mails, discussions and TM objections have questioned what evidence there is that Special Permit is considered a deterrent and that businesses are really not settling in <st1:city st="on"><st1:place st="on">Amherst</st1:place></st1:city> because of it. <span style=""> </span>So who might credibly provide that kind of evidence?<span style=""> </span>The Planning Department, which is inexplicably seen as an enemy saboteur by some?<span style=""> </span>Individual TM members offering anecdotal examples?<span style=""> </span>The Planning Board?<span style=""> </span>Oh wait, it’s their recommendation that is being doubted anyway.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">If you really want information and perspective, then why would you not welcome the input of an expert external third-party?<span style=""> </span>Why would you regard with disdain professional expertise intended to inform your understanding of the situation?<span style=""> </span>Do you prefer to get your medical advice from random strangers because it is more “democratic” than the “propaganda” offered by a doctor? </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">And most of all, why would you ask the question “where’s the evidence?” if you didn’t want to know the answer?<span style=""> </span>Here’s a guy who is providing just such an answer, and some in Town Meeting are engaging in the equivalent of putting their hands over their ears and bleating “la la la la la la la – can’t hear you!”<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">I am constantly baffled by the minutiae which some in TM feel the need to “understand” while being content to not understand – willfully <i style="">mis</i>understand? – the larger concepts.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Which is the perfect segue back to the warrant.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style="">Article 11</b> was about clarifying and regulating the uses that would be allowed in the Research and Development overlay district we created last week with Article 10.<span style=""> </span>It was divided into three motions.<span style=""> </span>(Read the Planning Board Report <b style=""><i style=""><a href="http://www.amherstma.gov/departments/Town_Clerk/town_meeting/warrantsandresults/stm110507/Research_Industrial_Uses.pdf">here</a></i></b>.) Motion A was to establish that those R&D uses allowed in the Limited Business district by Special Permit be allowed in the R&D overlay district by Site Plan Review.<span style=""> </span>Planning Board Chair Aaron Hayden prefaced his explanation of this by saying that good rules that are easy to follow protect the town better than vague rules.<span style=""> </span>He also emphasized the Site Plan Review is a rigorous process that doesn’t “give away the shop,” saying that there are 34 rules governing the Planning Board’s approval of a Site Plan Review, and that their vote requires a supermajority with a minimum of 5.<span style=""> </span>He said that the ZBA has 18 rules governing approval of a Special Permit, and that their vote must be unanimous among all three members.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The Select Board and Finance Committee both had unanimous support for the motion.<span style=""> </span>Someone asked about the Board of Health’s involvement in creating the article and their willingness to be involved in its regulation, and Mr. Shaffer provided assurance of both.<span style=""> </span>The ZBA supported the motion.<span style=""> </span>One person spoke against it.<span style=""> </span>Gerry Weiss gave it strong support, saying that Special Permit sends the message that we don’t want that use in our town but we’re willing to consider it; and said banks are reluctant to finance projects requiring Special Permit approval, contributing to <st1:city st="on"><st1:place st="on">Amherst</st1:place></st1:city>’s reputation for being unfriendly to business.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The question was called; it passed, and the vote on Motion A passed with a declared 2/3 voice vote.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">Motion B was to make more intense manufacturing require a Special Permit instead of a Site Plan Review in the only two districts where it is allowed - <st1:place st="on"><st1:placename st="on">Professional</st1:placename> <st1:placename st="on">Research</st1:placename> <st1:placetype st="on">Park</st1:placetype></st1:place> and Light Industrial.<span style=""> </span>The motion was changed from the original permit provision in the warrant, which called for one of the rare Planning Board SPs, to instead call for a ZBA SP.<span style=""> </span>That change was due to a compromise reached at a meeting the night before between those two boards.<span style=""> </span>The Select Board and Finance Committee had both supported the original SP designation and assumed that their members would support this change also, though no formal votes had been taken on it.<span style=""> </span>ZBA supported it.<span style=""> </span>There was a question or two, the fixing of a typo, and a small process objection, and then the vote to approve Motion B was overwhelmingly in support, with a few scattered Nos.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Motion C was to add language to the Zoning Bylaw aligning the Town definitions of toxic and hazardous substance with those of the State.<span style=""> </span>With little discussion, it passed unanimously.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Yes – unanimously.<span style=""> </span>Even the usual token Nos acceded to clarifying the definitions of toxic substances.<span style=""> </span><span style=""> </span>How about that.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style="">Article 12</b>.<span style=""> </span>Ugh.<span style=""> </span>This is where the wheels fell off.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">This article (PB report <b style=""><i style=""><a href="http://www.amherstma.gov/departments/Town_Clerk/town_meeting/warrantsandresults/stm110507/Accessory_Light_Manufacturing.pdf">here</a></i></b>) was about regulating uses that are secondary to a primary R&D use. <span style=""> </span>It is in three sections: the first proposes changes to the current regulation, and the second two propose new language to be more specific about what is and isn’t allowed and where. <span style=""> </span>In a nutshell, the article sought to allow approval of secondary uses to occur under the same process and permitting authority by which the primary use was permitted.<span style=""> </span>If your use and location required a ZBA Special Permit for the primary use, then that is to whom you would go to seek a permit for a secondary use, and likewise, if Site Plan Review was the primary use authorization, so too it would be for the accessory use.<span style=""> </span>Doesn’t sound too complicated, and the Select Board and Finance Committee both supported it unanimously.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">But the ZBA sought to amend it to make all accessory uses require Special Permits, which as I understood it, essentially guts the Planning Board’s proposed change to that section, but accepts the proposed new sections.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Then a ZBA member sought to divide the article, separating out the second of three sections of proposed new language – the long, detailed part – so that sections one and three would be voted on separately from section 2. <span style=""> </span>For those following along at home with your warrant – how sad! – the section of concern was 5.071.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">This led to nearly two hours of questions from people who didn’t understand, restatements by people who did, and attempted clarifications by those who sometimes did and sometimes didn’t.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">There were legal questions, procedural questions, regulatory questions, and plentiful questions on the differences between principal and accessory uses.<span style=""> </span>Most perplexing of all, there were two separate motions to refer this back to the Planning Board.<span style=""> </span>Why would this be referred back?<span style=""> </span>Because not all the Town Meeting members could wrap their minds around the intricacies of the article.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Could that be because they aren’t on the Planning Board?<span style=""> </span>Because they aren’t fluent in the complex details and confusing language of the zoning bylaw?<span style=""> </span>Because they have no idea how different uses are currently governed and what the proposed changes mean?<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Referring the article back to the Planning Board wasn’t going to solve any of those issues.<span style=""> </span>They already understand it – that’s what they’re for.<span style=""> </span>We have a Planning Board and a Planning Department so that we don’t all have to be individual experts on the Zoning Bylaw.<span style=""> </span>It saves a lot of hassle.<span style=""> </span>Or at least, it should.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">There is an unfortunate arrogance to the notion that “If I as an ordinary citizen can’t understand this, it must be bad, or must need to be fixed.”<span style=""> </span>There are roughly 250 Town Meeting members.<span style=""> </span>We are variously abled and variously interested.<span style=""> </span>We need to understand the concept of what we are being asked to vote on, and to exercise our individual wisdom accordingly.<span style=""> </span>But we need to recognize that we might not understand every minute detail, and that every one of those details does not need to suit our personal fancy.<span style=""> </span>And we have to have some trust in the process that brought the articles to us.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">If we don’t trust the process or we don’t like the outcome it produced, there is no need to pick the article apart or stall it in procedural gridlock.<span style=""> </span>Just vote against it.<span style=""> </span><span style=""> </span><span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Simple.<span style=""> </span>Straightforward.<span style=""> </span>And democratic.<span style=""> </span><span style=""> </span><span style=""> </span><span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Eventually, there was a <b style=""><i style=""><a href="http://www.amherstma.gov/departments/Town_Clerk/town_meeting/warrantsandresults/110507_Tally_Vote_Article_12.pdf">tally vote</a></i></b> on the motion to refer Article 12 back to the Planning Board.<span style=""> </span>It failed with 56 Yes votes and 107 No votes.<span style=""> </span>I voted No.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">After more noodling around, we eventually voted on the ZBA’s amendment.<span style=""> </span>It was defeated in a voice vote.<span style=""> </span>I voted No.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">After still more noodling around, we voted on parts one and three of the main article.<span style=""> </span>That required 2/3 majority and passed on a standing vote of 121 to 33.<span style=""> </span>I voted Yes.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Then more noodling on the second section, which had been divided out.<span style=""> </span>That too was sought to be referred back to the Planning Board.<span style=""> </span>That failed in a voice vote.<span style=""> </span>I voted No.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">We quickly voted on the original motion for that second section, and that passed in a declared 2/3 majority voice vote.<span style=""> </span>I voted Yes.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">In the frenzy of trying to finally get out of there – was it 10:20?<span style=""> </span>I forgot to write it down – the body was offered the opportunity to adjourn until November 28<sup>th</sup>, but I’m not sure people understood that’s what was happening, and that in order to do so we would have to first reject the motion to adjourn to Monday the 19<sup>th</sup>.<span style=""> </span>We approved that first motion so now we meet again Monday.<span style=""> </span>It doesn’t make much difference to me.<span style=""> </span>I would like to get this over with sooner rather than later, but I also think a lot of people will probably already be away for Thanksgiving on Monday, so I was leaning toward the 28<sup>th</sup>. <span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">So the bad news is that it took us an entire evening to parse out two articles.<span style=""> </span>The good news is they both passed.<span style=""> </span>Beats the heck out getting through them quickly but having them fail.<span style=""> </span><span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span></p> </span>Stephanie O'Keeffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139345960579356043noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-32550104966835246212007-11-09T00:18:00.000-05:002007-11-10T01:55:04.926-05:00Inching forward<p class="MsoNormal">Not so quick this time, but progress was made.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <span id="fullpost" class="fold"><p class="MsoNormal">It started off pretty late.<span style=""> </span>The constable’s announcement of the quorum came at about 7:40, and we didn’t start until ten minutes after that.<span style=""> </span>Tough to know what to do about that.<span style=""> </span>People sitting around me were grumbling about the Moderator, but it’s not like he’s up there goofing off – he’s dealing with people who have questions and procedural issues.<span style=""> </span>If he cuts off all that discussion and bangs the gavel as soon as the quorum is called (which should occur at 7:30 – a late quorum is entirely “our” fault as members) then presumably those same questions and procedural issues will need to be dealt with during the course of the meeting.<span style=""> </span>And we had some pretty good examples of that last night too.<span style=""> </span>Maybe forcing such stuff to be dealt with during the meeting instead of right before would put more pressure on people to handle their issues ahead of time – earlier in the day, or days prior – instead of reinforcing the notion that “TM always starts late, so it’s fine for me to be part of that delay.”<span style=""> </span>It really is a self-perpetuating problem – people come late because they know the meeting typically starts late, so that means we don’t achieve quorum until late, and any delay beyond that just makes it all worse.<span style=""> </span><st1:state st="on"><st1:place st="on">Alas.</st1:place></st1:state> <span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style="">Article 8</b> – CPAC money for Town Hall.<span style=""> </span>We already authorized money for the Town Hall repairs and restoration last spring.<span style=""> </span>This article was about using Community Preservation Act funds instead of straight Town tax money, allowing State matching funds to reduce the amount required from taxation.<span style=""> </span>This issue has gone around and around in recent months – Was this a legal and appropriate use of CPAC funds?<span style=""> </span>Was it “fair” to make this a Historic Preservation CPAC expenditure, thus redirecting the Historical Commission’s CPAC share away from other planned preservation projects?<span style=""> </span>Once the former was decided in the affirmative and the latter achieved an acceptable compromise, this was pretty much a done deal.<span style=""> </span>So many parties were involved in the negotiations on the issues leading up to this article that even Town Meeting didn’t stand much chance of derailing this.<span style=""> </span>And it didn’t.<span style=""> </span>The various parts – $100,000 from the CPAC fund balance for the south stairs and clock tower repairs; $295,000 in borrowing against future CPAC funds for the rest of the exterior masonry work (except for the money that has already been spent – this is the kind of nitty-gritty stuff that has been keeping folks busy on this issue;) and the vote to reduce last spring’s appropriation accordingly, all passed nearly unanimously with only the usual handful of obstinate Nos.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style="">Article 9</b> – Fair Trade.<span style=""> </span>Yuri Friman talked about the benefits of Fair Trade and the benefits to Amherst of declaring itself a Fair Trade town – only the fourth in the country and the first in Massachusetts: it’s good for the farmers and crafters; it gives them direct access to international markets and earns them better prices for their goods; it promotes sustainable farming and safe labor practices; and it can help draw attention and tourism to Amherst.<span style=""> </span>The article sought to encourage Town purchasing of Fair Trade goods where possible, for the Select Board to promote Fair Trade purchasing, and for the Select Board to consider forming a Town committee devoted to Fair Trade in the future.<span style=""> </span>There was much support, a hint of opposition (a member felt that it wouldn’t make a difference in a greedy world and that it might represent more expense for low-income people,) and the vote to pass it was, again, nearly unanimous with a couple of random Nos.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Then we embarked on what would be the main focus of this Town Meeting:<span style=""> </span>zoning.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">We have a lot of zoning articles, with a lot of details, and rather than my describing them all, I recommend you check out the incredibly thorough <b style=""><i style=""><a href="http://www.amherstma.gov/town_meeting.asp">Planning Board reports to Town Meeting</a></i></b> on the Town web site.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">We began with <b style="">Article 10</b> – which would establish a Research and Development overlay district (part 1) and apply it to parcels on the west side of University Drive between Amity Street and Route 9 (part 2.)<span style=""> </span>The point of the overlay district is to allow certain research and development activity to occur there by right, through Site Plan Review.<span style=""> </span>That means it requires approval via the Planning Board’s Site Plan Review process, which entails: the notification of abutters; a public hearing; conforming to all the necessary criteria in the Zoning Bylaw, as identified by the Planning Board; and earning the 2/3 majority vote of that body.<span style=""> </span>It is by all accounts a rigorous process, but at the end of it, a project that meets all the requirements can proceed.<span style=""> </span><span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The R&D uses in question are currently possible under Special Permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals.<span style=""> </span>Special Permit is a similar and equally rigorous process, but it requires unanimous approval by the three-member panel, and can end in rejection.<span style=""> </span>The ZBA determination allows more discretion.<span style=""> </span>An applicant can come out of the process without the ability to proceed.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">What has been identified as the key issue by those who know such things – actual applicants, the Town Manager, and economic development experts – is that the Special Permit requirement is a deterrent to businesses.<span style=""> </span>Without the certainty that their project can proceed – even if it has to be modified far beyond their original intentions – they don’t even bother to try.<span style=""> </span>The Special Permit requirement is said to be an obstacle to obtaining financing because banks don’t want to risk the loss of all the up-front money required to design the plans and pay the professionals to shepherd a project through that approval process if there is no assurance it will proceed.<span style=""> </span>So such businesses reportedly go to other communities where they don’t face that risk.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The point of the articles being proposed by the Planning Board, at the behest of the Town Manager, as he explained so well at the meeting, is to encourage the kind of appropriate business growth and development in Amherst that will help to grow the tax base and reduce the burden on residential property tax payers to cover the growing expense of providing the services our community values.<span style=""> </span>More money from businesses means less money from the rest of us.<span style=""> </span>The less expensive our property taxes are, the more diverse our community will be.<span style=""> </span>And the more new revenue we can bring in, the less we have to cut our schools, Town services and libraries.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">To encourage this kind of business growth and economic development, the proposed zoning changes generally seek to eliminate the deterrent and obstacle of Special Permit where appropriate. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">“Where appropriate,” or perhaps “if appropriate” is the crux of disagreement on these issues.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">In case you missed this development (what do you mean you don’t read every word of the <a href="http://www.inamherst.com/"><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Select Board recaps</span></a>?<span style=""> </span>That some are quite tardy is another issue entirely…) my husband is a recent appointee to the Planning Board.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">So back to TM.<span style=""> </span>Larry Shaffer gave a powerful endorsement to all the articles that will be put forth by the Planning Board.<span style=""> </span>(Those of you paying attention know that not all the upcoming articles originate there, but that will be a topic for a different post.) <span style=""> </span>The Planning Board explained Article 10 and its support.<span style=""> </span>The Select Board gave its unanimous (!) support, as did the Finance Committee.<span style=""> </span>The ZBA did also, though that got rather confusing once ZBA member Hilda Greenbaum spoke against it – more on that later. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Mary Wentworth offered an amendment that would support the creation of the overlay district, but would require that the uses allowed there be by Special Permit rather than Site Plan Review.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The Moderator had to decide whether this amendment was within the scope of the article – seeing as how it essentially rendered the article moot.<span style=""> </span>He ultimately decided that it was, because it would allow for a lesser change than the article sought, rather than a greater change, which would not be allowed as an amendment.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Lesser indeed.<span style=""> </span>The point of the article, you’ll recall, is to make the change to Site Plan Review, and to remove the obstacle that is Special Permit within this proposed overlay district.<span style=""> </span>There is no point in making the overlay district if it has the same use rules as are required outside of its boundaries.<span style=""> </span>An overlay says that in this defined geographical area, we think there is good reason to make the rules a little different.<span style=""> </span>(Often they are used for resource protection, making use rules stricter than a particular zone otherwise requires because it has been determined that different rules are needed to protect the water supply, for example.) </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">And so this point was made by many, perhaps best by Planning Director Jonathan Tucker, who said that if Mary’s amendment were to pass, it would add a bunch of words to the Zoning Bylaw, but no change.<span style=""> </span>Similarly, another Jonathan – O’Keeffe – said that the amendment should be rejected, and Town Meeting should have a straight up or down vote on the article.<span style=""> </span>Because supporting the amendment was the same as rejecting the article.<span style=""> </span>I don’t know if Mary’s proposal was the result of confusion or an attempt to confuse, but either way, it was a procedural mess.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">And with it, more wackiness ensued.<span style=""> </span>As mentioned, Hilda Greenbaum voiced strong opposition despite her previous ZBA vote and erroneously claimed that abutters and other tenants in a building with R&D use would lack an appeal process.<span style=""> </span>(Um, actually the ZBA is the appeal process, as are the courts.<span style=""> </span>Again – confused or attempting to confuse?)<span style=""> </span>Following the rejection of Mary’s amendment we also had surprisingly blatant fear-mongering from Rob Quinn (Site Plan Review could lead to defense work, nerve gas and weaponry being developed right here in Amherst!) and one of those classic “Atlas Shrugged” TM moments:<span style=""> </span>when Ben Grosscup complained that Site Plan Review would render research and technology “disconnected with and unconstrained by democracy” (it’s an approximate quote – I take copious notes, but I don’t record TM.)<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">On the plus side, the discussion clarified nice and early this whole Special Permit vs. Site Plan Review thing that will continue to be a factor in future articles.<span style=""> </span>Andy Churchill gave a particularly fine presentation on this point, debunking the “SunEthanol as Special Permit success” myth (it was a success, but it shouldn’t have had to be that difficult, and that company vigorously supports the change to Site Plan Review.)<span style=""> </span>Other excellent and welcomed support came from Larry Shaffer and Paul Bobrowski, as well as Gerry Weiss, who tried to reassure the reluctant that the process leading to these recommendations has indeed been good and thoughtful, and should be endorsed.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">And Diana Stein, bless her heart, pointed out that research and development can be used for good, not just evil.<span style=""> </span>Green energy, she noted as example, requires R&D.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">When all was said and done, Town Meeting passed Article 10.<span style=""> </span>We passed an actual zoning change designed to encourage economic development.<span style=""> </span>Amazing, but true.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">But we’re not done yet.<span style=""> </span>The <st1:street st="on"><st1:address st="on">University Drive</st1:address></st1:street> stuff is considered the “least controversial,” so imagine the battles that lie ahead.<span style=""> </span>Prepare for more stalling and confusion, and lots of “We already passed the <st1:street st="on"><st1:address st="on">University Drive</st1:address></st1:street> changes – let’s not get all crazy now.”<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">And count how many times you hear:<span style=""> </span>“Not before the completion of the Master Plan,” and the new “sure-we-want-development-but-not-<i style="">this</i>-development” buzzword: <i style="">brownfields</i>.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Or maybe this is the dawn of a new era at Town Meeting.<span style=""> </span>I doubt it, but I’d love to be wrong.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span><span style=""> </span><span style=""> </span></p> </span>Stephanie O'Keeffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139345960579356043noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-77377148373153998452007-11-06T21:23:00.001-05:002008-02-21T13:49:57.994-05:00Off to a quick start<p class="MsoNormal">Last night was so efficient!<span style=""> </span>I thought I had wandered in to some other town’s Town Meeting.<span style=""> </span>Very impressive.<span style=""> </span><br /><span id="fullpost" class="fold"><br />Started with the usual welcome and procedural stuff.<span style=""> </span>Turns out the meeting wasn’t being broadcast live on ACTV due to some glitch, but it would be re-broadcast.<span style=""> </span>Click <a href="http://www.actvamherst.com/17/phpicalendar/"><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">here </span></a>for the channel 17 schedule.<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Gerry Weiss acknowledged all the volunteers who had completed two terms of service on a Town board or committee.<span style=""> </span>They were:</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Elisa Campbell, Community Preservation Act Committee</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Audrey Child, Community Preservation Act Committee</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Ludmilla Pavlova-Gillham, Design Review Board</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Becky Hurwitz, Disability Access Advisory Committee</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Jean Smyser, Disability Access Advisory Committee</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Edith Nye MacMullen, Historical Commission</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Alex Kent, <st1:place st="on"><st1:placename st="on">Kanegasaki</st1:placename> <st1:placename st="on">Sister</st1:placename> <st1:placetype st="on">City</st1:placetype></st1:place> Committee</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Cynthia Asebrook, <st1:place st="on"><st1:placename st="on">La Paz</st1:placename> <st1:placename st="on">Centro</st1:placename> <st1:placename st="on">Sister</st1:placename> <st1:placetype st="on">City</st1:placetype></st1:place> Committee</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Jerry Jolly, Town Commercial Relations Committee </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Larry Shaffer introduced the new Town Counsel, Joel Bard, from the firm of Kopelman and Paige.<span style=""> </span>He also gave updates about the Plum Brook Soccer Fields, praising Guilford Mooring and the DPW (grass is growing, soccer is possible next fall;) and <st1:place st="on">Cherry Hill</st1:place>, praising Linda Chalfant, Barbara Bilz and LSSE (revenues are up, expenses are down, to the tune of about a $30,000 surplus.)<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Then it was on to <span style="font-weight: bold;">Article 1</span> – hearing board and committee reports that aren’t available in written form.<span style=""> </span>First we voted to approve this, then we heard the reports.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Barry Roberts, Chair of the 250<sup>th</sup> Anniversary Celebration Committee, reported on that body’s work to date and its five subcommittees preparing for 2009 (History – chaired by Wendy Kohler; Arts & Literature, chaired by Adrienne Terrizzi; Parade – chaired by Pat Wagner; Community Week Celebration – chaired by Dolly Jolly; and Marketing – chaired by Martha Nelson Patrick.)<span style=""> </span>He encouraged any and all to attend any meeting, get involved and share feedback and ideas.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">There were good hand-outs on the back table about this too – a brochure with all the subcommittee info and details of event plans to date, and an announcement of a fundraising party January 10<sup>th</sup> upstairs at Amherst Brewing Company.<span style=""> </span>Mark your calendars.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">James Wald of the Comprehensive Planning Committee gave a recap of that committee’s work on the Master Plan:<span style=""> </span>it’s been a long time in the making; it’s had tons of input; it’s not quite done yet.<span style=""> </span>Thus delayed what is sure to be one of Town Meeting’s epic battles.<span style=""> </span>I actually couldn’t believe we got off that easy last night.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Brian Morton, Chair of the Finance Committee, then delivered a powerful reality check to Town Meeting about the truly dismal state of Town finances now and for the foreseeable future.<span style=""> </span>Not only did he lay all the bad news on the table in no uncertain terms, (we face a $1.9 million shortfall from level-services funding for FY09 – get more of the gory details <a href="http://www.amherstma.gov/budget/fy09/FinCom_FY_09_Prelim_Budget_Guidelines.pdf"><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">here</span></a>,) he also told us what to do about it:<span style=""> </span>pass the necessary zoning changes to encourage real economic development.<span style=""> </span>We don’t see too much of this kind of straight talk and bold calls to action, so some might not recognize it:<span style=""> </span>it’s called <span style="font-style: italic;">leadership</span>.<span style=""> </span>Bravo Brian and the Finance Committee!</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">And don’t miss the FinCom public meeting on the draft budget guidelines for FY09:<span style=""> </span>Tuesday, November 13<sup>th</sup> at 7:00 p.m. in the Large Activity Room at <st1:place st="on"><st1:placename st="on">Bangs</st1:placename> <st1:placetype st="on">Center</st1:placetype></st1:place>.<span style=""> </span>Read the draft guideline document <a href="http://www.amherstma.gov/budget/fy09/FinCom_FY_09_Prelim_Budget_Guidelines.pdf"><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">here</span></a>.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Article 2 </span>– payment of unpaid bills from the prior fiscal year.<span style=""> </span>Despite being broke, we have no unpaid bills, so this article was dismissed in short order.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Article 3</span> – budget amendments.<span style=""> </span>This is where we have to amend the current year’s budget to account for changes that have occurred since we approved the budget in the spring.<span style=""> </span>There were two amendments:<span style=""> </span>an appropriation of $562,207 from free cash to the Health Claims Trust Fund to cover the $111,000 negative balance and to have sufficient reserves to meet this year’s State-mandated requirement that self-insured trusts like <st1:city st="on"><st1:place st="on">Amherst</st1:place></st1:city>’s have sufficient funds to meet claims incurred but not yet reported.<span style=""> </span>(As in, you had your doctor’s appointment, but the bill hasn’t come yet.) <span style=""> </span>He explained that this is a temporary advance from free cash and would be reimbursed by continuing a temporary surcharge on employee premiums that was supposed to end in January, but will now remain until this is paid back.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Then we voted on it.<span style=""> </span>It passed unanimously. So simple.<span style=""> </span>Weird.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The second motion on this article was to pay an assessment for the <st1:place st="on"><st1:placename st="on">Hampshire</st1:placename> <st1:placetype st="on">County</st1:placetype></st1:place> lock-up facility, which the State had been paying for fully, but was now transitioning to being funded by the member communities.<span style=""> </span>50% community funding is required this year, and based on a per-capita formula, <st1:city st="on"><st1:place st="on">Amherst</st1:place></st1:city>’s assessment is $31,123.<span style=""> </span>In future budgets, this will be a separate article, similar to the <st1:place st="on"><st1:placename st="on">Hampshire</st1:placename> <st1:placetype st="on">County</st1:placetype></st1:place> retirement system assessment, but this year requires an appropriation from free cash.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">No questions.<span style=""> </span>We voted.<span style=""> </span>Unanimous.<span style=""> </span>Amazing.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Article 4</span> – property tax exemptions for veterans’ organizations.<span style=""> </span>We have two such organizations<span style=""> </span>in town – the VFW and the American Legion.<span style=""> </span>State law mandates an exemption up to $200,000, and communities can adopt larger exemptions of either $400,000 or $700,000.<span style=""> </span>Because both properties are already approaching $400,000 in value, the $700,000 option was being proposed.<span style=""> </span>The Select Board and FinCom both made the case why we should do this – keep them exempt like other charitable organizations, they’ve made great sacrifices to the country, the organizations are fixtures in the community, etc.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">And we did.<span style=""> </span>Simple vote.<span style=""> </span>A couple Nos thrown in for good measure.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Health insurance, fees from the county, veterans – and not a peep from Town Meeting.<span style=""> </span>No passionate speeches on tangential issues.<span style=""> </span>No symbolic registering of opposition.<span style=""> </span>Where am I?</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Article 5</span> – portable classrooms for Mark’s Meadow.<span style=""> </span>Elaine Brighty of the Joint Capital Planning Committee and School Committee explained why the portables are needed:<span style=""> </span>smallest school; only 10 classrooms for 7 grades, some kindergarteners have to go to other elementary schools; some classes end up too large; currently there are two mixed-grade classrooms to deal with problem, but that won’t work for MCAS-focused teaching; no room to expand within the school which UMass owns, etc.<span style=""> </span>The portables will allow for four additional classrooms.<span style=""> </span>She talked about how the $195,000 was already approved through the capital plan in the spring but wasn’t spent then because the portables weren’t needed immediately, and because plans were being formulated to fold them into a larger borrowing package.<span style=""> </span>Alisa Brewer of the Select Board talked about how used portables have been sought for purchase or loan from other communities, how such are not available or not desirable, and how these would be “green” and would remain as Amherst property to be used elsewhere in the future if needed.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Then Town Meeting member Nancy Gordon spoke against the purchase, saying that it didn’t make sense to buy portable classrooms for a school that is going to close.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">In case you’re wondering, the simultaneous raising of about 400 eyebrows is silent.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Her logic was impeccable.<span style=""> </span>Why would you put more money into a school you’re about to close?<span style=""> </span>Except that there aren’t actually any plans to close Mark’s Meadow.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">But that was precisely the conclusion she came to when she looked at the costs of the school, its student population and recent enrollment trends.<span style=""> </span>She determined that Mark’s Meadow could be closed and its students could be absorbed by the other elementary schools – which she said were “sold” to the Town as accommodating 800 students each – and saving almost precisely the $1.9 million that the Town is projected to be short next year.<span style=""> </span>Well, whaddya know?</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Elaine did a very fine job explaining why the other schools are in no position to absorb the Mark’s Meadow population.<span style=""> </span>Other than that, the proposal, such as it was, was pretty much ignored.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Another member provided a tip on where some available portables might be scored cheap, and then we voted.<span style=""> </span>Because it involved borrowing, it required a 2/3 majority vote, and that was achieved.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Decades ago, I was a student at Mark’s Meadow. <span style=""> </span>I was surprised to hear that there isn’t a cafeteria there anymore, and that kids eat in their classrooms.<span style=""> </span>I should go back and check it out to see what things are like today.<span style=""> </span>And maybe <st1:city st="on"><st1:place st="on">Nancy</st1:place></st1:city> should come too. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Article 6</span> – dissolve the Senior Trust and transfer its funds.<span style=""> </span>This was really an accounting issue, to transfer funds that had been donated to the 30-year old Senior Trust to the newly-formed Friends of the <st1:place st="on"><st1:placename st="on">Senior</st1:placename> <st1:placetype st="on">Center</st1:placetype></st1:place> group.<span style=""> </span>All the money in the Trust was donated to support <st1:place st="on"><st1:placename st="on">Senior</st1:placename> <st1:placetype st="on">Center</st1:placetype></st1:place> activities – there was no town money involved.<span style=""> </span>The old trust had to be dissolved because changes in State law rendered its organizational structure non-compliant.<span style=""> </span>A new 501c3 was formed.<span style=""> </span>TM needed to approve the dissolution and transfer to make everything official.<span style=""> </span>(Per chance you detect bias or skullduggery in the preceding statements, let me note that I’m on the Council on Aging.)</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <a name='cpac'></a><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Article 7 </span>– CPAC Open Space.<span style=""> </span>Beautiful nature.<span style=""> </span>Important part of a wildlife corridor.<span style=""> </span>Wood turtle habitat.<span style=""> </span>Crucial watershed area.<span style=""> </span>Must protect the land.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">That sums it up mostly.<span style=""> </span>For more details – which were well-presented by all concerned – click <a href="http://www.amherstma.gov/departments/Community_Preservation_Act_Committee/Recommendation_to_Town_Meeting_Nov_2007_STM.pdf"><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">here</span></a><span style=""> and scroll down.<br /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">This article came with a lot of baggage for me.<span style=""> </span>I saw the issue first presented to the Select Board last December. <span style=""> </span>I attended what I think was the first Conservation Commission meeting where acquiring the property was brought up.<span style=""> </span>I watched various unsuccessful machinations to try to get an article on a Special Town Meeting warrant last spring.<span style=""> </span>Bottom line:<span style=""> </span>this was just another incredibly determined effort to thwart development.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">There were so many reasons to oppose this article.<span style=""> </span>A) Despite how this has been portrayed of late, this property had NEVER been on the Town’s official list or unofficial radar of priority targets for preservation and conservation.<span style=""> </span>That it is suddenly the highest priority does not mean it had previously been prioritized.<span style=""> </span>B) The idea that landowner Barry Roberts – of all people!<span style=""> </span>the Patron Saint of downtown <st1:place st="on"><st1:city st="on">Amherst</st1:city></st1:place> – could be harassed into submission like this was appalling.<span style=""> </span>C) This sense that in <st1:place st="on"><st1:city st="on">Amherst</st1:city></st1:place>, property rights are secondary to public accommodation – People’s Republic, indeed.<span style=""> </span><span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">And there are more.<span style=""> </span>Rich Morse was insightful and eloquent as usual at TM when he spoke about how we mobilize for and actively pursue biodiversity, while human diversity languishes.<span style=""> </span>Lots of momentum for conservation to keep our town natural and beautiful.<span style=""> </span>Little momentum for economic development to make our town affordable and keep it functioning.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Even Anne Awad, no slouch in the conservation world, opposed the purchase, and defended her stance with conviction:<span style=""> </span>it didn’t include the most relevant part of the parcel and it wasn’t prioritized in the larger scheme.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">As a vegetarian bug-saving animal lover who has to talk myself out of the lunacy of leaving the basement open in the winter in case squirrels need shelter from the cold, I get the whole wildlife habitat thing.<span style=""> </span><span style="font-style: italic;">Deeply</span>.<span style=""> </span>But I also understand that the last house has not yet been built.<span style=""> </span>Trying to keep new people from living in new places for the sake of flora and fauna is about as logical as tearing down our own homes and returning the land to its natural state.<span style=""> </span>Yes, it’s true – your house displaced deer and fox and beautiful trees too.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">So where was I?<span style=""> </span>Oh yeah – so many reasons to oppose this article.<span style=""> </span>Right.<span style=""> </span>But I didn’t.<span style=""> </span>I voted for it. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Why?<span style=""> </span>Well, mainly out of practicality.<span style=""> </span>Purchasing the land required $610,000.<span style=""> </span>A State grant would cover $427,000.<span style=""> </span>Private donations would cover $60,000.<span style=""> </span>That leaves $123,000 from Community Preservation Act funds, half of which are State matching funds.<span style=""> </span>That means that just over $60,000 of direct <st1:city st="on"><st1:place st="on">Amherst</st1:place></st1:city> taxpayer money was being leveraged to buy $600,000 worth of land.<span style=""> </span>(That leaves aside the issue that the State isn’t exactly printing its money in the back room – the grant money and CPA match all comes from the larger “us” anyway, alas.)<span style=""> </span>Additionally, if the Town didn’t buy the land, Barry would likely be stuck in eternal litigation purgatory as the development foes were forced to find new ways of preventing those lots from being built.<span style=""> </span>If that sale price apparently seemed like the best option to him, then it was the least Town Meeting could do.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">And obviously, the land has much to recommend it for conservation.<span style=""> </span>I don’t think acquiring it was a priority, but there was plenty to justify it.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The vote to approve the purchase was overwhelmingly in support. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">A final word on that:<span style=""> </span>Kudos to the FinCom and Kay Moran who anticipated all the right questions – how much property tax the land brought in currently (about $13.5 K,) how much it would bring in with houses on it (maybe $67K,) and the tempering effect of the cost of services to those houses and those who would live in them.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Wednesday we do it again.<span style=""> </span></p><br /></span></p>Stephanie O'Keeffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139345960579356043noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-67526731523501811102007-10-30T20:52:00.000-04:002007-11-01T15:47:31.345-04:00Time flies -- Fall TM is almost hereIn preparation for Fall TM, you might be interested in the following:<br /><span id="fullpost" class="fold"><br />TMCC’s Zoning Orientation Forum – 7:00 p.m. in the Town Room at Town Hall<br /><br />Rebroadcasts of the Warrant Review Meeting on ACTV’s Channel 17 (It’s on at weird times – you might want to tape it. It runs a little less than two hours.)<br /><ul><li>Wednesday, October 31 – 5:00 a.m.</li><li>Thursday, November 1 – 7:00 a.m.</li><li>Friday, November 2 – 7:00 a.m.</li><li>Saturday, November 3 – 7:00 a.m.</li><li>Sunday, November 4 – 10:00 p.m.</li></ul><br />Independently-organized Precinct Meetings – There’s still one left. It's for Precincts 4 and 10, but anyone can go: Saturday, November 3rd, 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., 284 North Pleasant St. (Corner of McClellan St.) Hosted by Howard Ewert 256-1445<br /><br />Always good info on the <a href="http://www.amherstma.gov/town_meeting.asp"><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">TM section </span></a>of the Town web site.<br /><br />Here’s a <a style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;" href="http://www.whmp.com/page.php?category_id=193&jock_id=251">radio interview</a> with Yuri Friman about Fair Trade. </span><span id="fullpost" class="fold">(Scroll down to October 16th.) </span><span id="fullpost" class="fold">He is the petitioner of Article 9 on that subject.<br /><br />See you Monday!<br /><br />[<span style="font-style: italic;">11/1 update: new and more convenient warrant review broadcast times added -- don't miss comment below!</span>]<br /></span>Stephanie O'Keeffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139345960579356043noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-41481493132602097242007-07-31T20:50:00.000-04:002007-07-31T20:54:25.294-04:00Post-TM reflections finally upA few days, a few weeks – whatever. <br /><span id="fullpost" class='fold'><br />It took until the end of July, but I finally put up my TM post mortem. Click <a href="http://www.inamherst.com/2007/07/pondering_town_meeting.html"><strong><em>here</em></strong> </a>to read it, if you’re interested.<br /></span>Stephanie O'Keeffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139345960579356043noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-39928987569847390822007-06-22T09:40:00.000-04:002007-06-23T11:27:25.266-04:00Twelfth NightThis was it. Another epic Town Meeting was coming to an end. But not until we got through four more articles.<br /><span class="fold" id="fullpost"><br />Before that however, an announcement: Members from precincts 5 and 8 wouldn’t quite be done with TM tonight, because they will hold elections to fill vacancies at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 25th in the Large Activity Room at Bangs Center.<br /><br />Article 33 – Energy conservation and the dark night sky. The gist of this is that it seeks to create a general bylaw regulating external lighting at businesses and apartment complexes. It involves phased-in deadlines, requirements for shielding lights so that they point downward, and penalties for non-compliance. Vince O’Connor was the petitioner of this article.<br /><br />After a comically prolonged period of trying to clarify, explain and read the amended motion, Mr. O’Connor spoke to its merits – conserving energy and having the dark sky. He said that by making it a general bylaw rather than a zoning bylaw it made for a level playing field for everyone, rather than having it apply only to new businesses and apartments while grandfathering all that exist before the bylaw’s creation. He said he didn’t think enforcement would be an issue because “peer pressure” and cost savings would encourage compliance. He said it didn’t address the University and colleges – the primary local dark sky wreckers, particularly UMass, reportedly referred to as “the city” and “space” by children of colleagues in my row, for how the campus doth glow.<br /><br />The concept of the article was good, but …<br /><br />Town Counsel said it wasn’t workable. The Town Commercial Relations Committee hated it. The Energy Task Force apparently didn’t like it. Even the Select Board didn’t support it.<br /><br />The Select Board moved to refer it to the Town Manager, which I had thought was a good compromise, particularly when Alisa Brewer raised the point during the SB meeting that it is not of high enough priority to have him deal with it by the fall, and got them to defer it to a soft spring deadline. But a wise and eloquent TMer pointed out that Town staff have plenty of work to do already, urging defeat rather than referral.<br /><br />Oddly, that was a reality check for me. At that moment I realized that I was becoming so inured to bad policies and proposals that this one had seemed OK by comparison. Since I started recapping Select Board meetings, I have been exposed to such a barrage of inappropriate, impractical and plain-old lousy ideas and justifications that I think I’ve been building up a tolerance to them. I was failing to think critically about this. Dark sky is good, energy conservation is good, other places do it, and referral would fix the proposal’s many flaws. The good outcome of the proposal and its relative overall benignity had put me into “Fine. Whatever.”-mode.<br /><br />I’ve often described Amherst as “government by squeaky wheel,” and Mr. O’Connor is among our squeakiest. That he was even getting to me speaks to the effectiveness of that technique. Thanks to Rich Morse for jolting me back to consciousness.<br /><br />We had a tally vote on this – which included a brief SBer-Moderator incident that I feared might escalate into another YouTube highlight. That Gerry Weiss – what are we gonna do with him?<br /><br />No, <em>of course</em> it wasn’t Gerry.<br /><br />Anyway, the tally vote on referral failed, 73 Yes to 83 No, and I voted No. We immediately voted on the main article, which despite the clear defeat via voice vote, we tallied anyway, and sure enough, it failed 52 Yes to 102 No. Again, I voted No.<br /><br />Article 32 was to abolish the Amherst Redevelopment Authority, another O’Connor petition. This has been discussed in some detail at the <strong><em><a href="http://www.inamherst.com/2007/05/recap_of_the_april_23rd_select.html">April 23rd</a></em></strong>, <strong><em><a href="http://www.inamherst.com/2007/05/recap_of_the_may_10th_select_b.html">May 10th</a></em></strong>, and <strong><em><a href="http://www.inamherst.com/2007/06/recap_of_the_june_18th_select.html">June 18th</a></em></strong> Select Board meetings.<br /><br />The Select Board moved to dismiss the article. The Finance Committee supported dismissal. An ARA member spoke to the legitimacy of recent write-in candidates winning ARA seats.<br /><br />The vote to dismiss was overwhelmingly in favor with just a few Nos, and I voted Yes.<br /><br />Article 27 was to purchase an Agricultural Preservation Restriction on 45 acres of farm land on 116. Conservation Commission member Nicki Robb spoke about the value of this parcel for farming; that it is part of a block of APR land in that area in both Amherst and Hadley; that it has been actively farmed for 9 generations; that there are 2 chunks of the parcel excluded from the APR and maintaining their Light Industrial zoning designation for potential development use; and that the full appraised value APR – which equals the development value of the land – is $450,000, but Amherst’s portion is $90,000 and the State kicks in the rest.<br /><br />In response to questions, David Ziomek, Director of Conservation and Planning, said that there are about 1,900 acres of APR land in Amherst currently, with perhaps 500 acres of prime-soil land still to be protected. He explained the complicated zoning of the parcel and its Flood Prone Conservancy and Farmland Conservation overlays, and how that limits development potential and value, as represented by the appraisal. He said that the two excluded pieces include the site that was formerly an auction barn that has good taxable development potential, and a smaller piece that could become a scenic highway pull-off, among other uses. He emphasized the land owners – the WD Cowls business and family – maintain ownership and the developable rights in the excluded parcels.<br /><br />A member spoke about the need to balance open space with economic priorities for the future, and suggested that the exclusions for developable land could have been larger, hence supporting more potential business activity. He said he has long supported APRs but would probably oppose this one.<br /><br />An Agricultural Commission member spoke about the high quality of the farmland and its importance for being contiguous to other protected parcels. She spoke of values of farming in terms of producing crops to feed animals and people, and in being a traditional and taxable form of local industry.<br /><br />A member asked if there were considerations being made regarding a goal for how much protected land Amherst is seeking – as much as possible, or achieving a specific amount? He talked about the changes in agriculture and the implications for the future, and what that economic sector would look like in Amherst without government intervention.<br /><br />Mr. Ziomek said that the Town’s Open Space and Recreation Plan is being updated, as required by the State, and that he intends to have a draft done this summer, and that it will dovetail with the Master Plan process. He said that Master Plan working groups were also looking into issues of prioritized land protection. He said this particular parcel has been identified as a priority for at least 12 to 15 years. He said the excluded part with the auction barn is the size it is because it is easier to redevelop developed land and that land is considered to be already developed.<br /><br />A member spoke about past APRs on the East Street corridor and Pine Street, and why those were important and necessary, but that he opposed this one, primarily because of its location, which he suggested was better suited for development.<br /><br />There were more comments about the quality of the soil and land – this is row crop farm land, not dairy farm land, because it is large and flat and has good soil – and the value of farming to the local economy.<br /><br />A member said he would like to see more data related to proposals like this with details including the long-term economic impact. He said that preservation needs to be considered in the context of potential revenues, and how much land is left to be developed and preserved.<br /><br />Rob Kusner of the Select Board said that the only parts of this parcel that were developable are the two parts that have been excluded from the APR, and that that is reflected in the appraisal.<br /><br />The voice vote on appropriating $90,000 from CPAC money for Amherst’s share of the APR on this land was overwhelmingly in favor. This was another one of those times when discussion of the article would make you think the body was more evenly split, but the vote ends up being lopsided. I voted Yes. I too have wondered if Amherst is going to try to preserve every piece of land possible and eventually start turning developed land back into open space, until the town is one giant lovely view and wildlife habitat. It would be like Quabbin, without the water. But I was persuaded by the fact that this has long been prioritized for preservation – quite unlike the “we’ll go to any lengths to thwart development” situation with the Strawberry Fields land on South East Street, or the Haskins View land on East Leverett Road, neither of which has apparently ever been part of the Town’s Open Space Plan. I also thought the fact that the land is zoned such that it can’t be developed was quite compelling. I completely agree with all the comments about balancing financial needs with preservation needs, and considering the long-term economic impact of preserving specific parcels, but I was persuaded that those were not significant factors with this parcel. Though thinking about that now, it does make me wonder why we need to take steps and spend money to keep land from being developed that supposedly can’t be developed anyway. <em>Hmmmm.</em> I wish I had thought to ask that.<br /><br />There were two other parts to Article 27 which amounted to technicalities – the ability to borrow the amount equal to the State’s share of the APR in anticipation of the grant money being received, if the process needs to take place sooner than we have that money in hand; and granting authority to the Select Board to acquire and hold the interest in the land, and to do so in partnership with the State. Both passed easily with just a smattering of Nos, and I voted Yes to both.<br /><br />Article 28 was another APR, this one in South Amherst. All the details aren’t complete yet though, so it was referred back to CPAC and will come back at fall Town Meeting.<br /><br />And speaking of thwarting development, the Town Manager gave Town Meeting an update on the Andrews-LaVerdiere Meadow Street land lawsuit, and how Town Meeting’s decision in that is now part of case law, and honestly, if I were to go any further on that subject, my brain would explode.<br /><br />And then we were done.<br /><br />I will be offering some reflections on this Town Meeting in a few days, on the <strong><em><a href="http://www.inamherst.com/">inAmherst</a></em></strong> site.<br /><br />Thanks to all who commented and e-mailed. Some excellent points were raised and good discussions were had – and continue – and I appreciate that very much. We muddle through this process of trying to do what each of us thinks is best for the Town. We surely don’t all agree, but we are all well-intentioned.<br /><br />Enjoy the summer.<br /></span>Stephanie O'Keeffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139345960579356043noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-71270741670525835452007-06-19T21:06:00.000-04:002007-06-20T08:32:07.385-04:00Penultimate, perhapsThe school year is over. The Middle School is sparkling clean. The music room, where the Select Board meetings are held before Town Meeting, has had all its posters and student work removed, and the chalk boards look brand new.<br /><br />But we’re still here.<br /><br />Week 7, session 11, hour 30-something.<br /><span id="fullpost" class='fold'><br />If there were key announcements at the beginning, I missed them – sorry. The SB meeting ran late, and I was a bit discombobulated, switching mental gears and juggling my notebooks and materials as I checked in and sat down.<br /><br />By the time I was “ready,” Marilyn Blaustein was already presenting the JCPC’s recommendation on Article 22 – $154,000 for repairs to buildings and facilities, $50,000 of which is grant money. The list (page 68 in the <strong><em><a href="http://www.amherstma.gov/PDFs/FY_08_Finance_Committee_Report.pdf">FinCom Report</a></em></strong>) is non-controversial enough – there were a couple of questions about what certain items were, and naturally, a dig at Cherry Hill from You Know Who. One member proposed that there be an item-by-item explanation, but we had really already had that in Ms. Blaustein’s intro and the body apparently didn’t feel the need to discuss each one in that much detail. The voice vote on the $154,000 was decisively in favor, and I voted Yes.<br /><br />Article 23 was the $755,000 borrowing authorization, with $675,000 being for Town Hall brick and mortar repairs, and $80,000 being for required accessibility upgrades to the East Street School. This time, we got a pictorial tour of Town Hall masonry problems from Facilities Director Ron Bohonowicz. We’ll try not to worry too much about the threat of falling capstones before the repairs get made, but if you see Town staff wearing helmets as they enter and exit, you’ll know why.<br /><br />Much discussion about this article was about using CPAC historical preservation funds to pay for these repairs, and indeed a motion was made to refer the recommendation to CPAC for that purpose. Select Board Chair Gerry Weiss is particularly interested in this topic, and spoke of how discussions would be held with all the relevant parties this summer to pursue the possibility of using those funds for the debt service on this project. At first glance, this seems like a no-brainer, but the issue and trade-offs are more complex. The common argument against this is that repairing Town Hall should be a capital expense, just like repairing any other Town property, and that using historical preservation funds for that purpose means NOT being able to use those funds for the Historical Commission’s preservation priorities. You can always borrow to pay for capital needs, but the CPAC money is the only source for headstone restoration and other historical preservation projects. It is an interesting discussion, and we’re sure to be hearing a lot more about it.<br /><br />We also got one of those wacky TM procedural moves where a motion can be divided on the request of one member, thus separating the Town Hall stuff from the East Street School stuff. This makes a little sense if you support referring the Town Hall part to CPAC, but as Kay Moran of the FinCom/JCPC pointed out, the article is a borrowing authorization, and if the big money for the Town Hall repairs are separated out, the cost of the East Street School repairs aren’t large enough on their own to be worth the borrowing expenses.<br /><br />Many made the point that referring the Town Hall part to CPAC would delay repairs further, resulting in more damage and higher repair costs, as well as the possibility of higher interest rates on borrowing next year if CPAC declines to fund this. One member spoke of the importance of Town Hall as the primary historic building in town, and his desire to fund it with the CPAC money. Mr. Weiss agreed with the sentiment, but said that referring the article for that purpose was not necessary as that funding was already being pursued in parallel with this borrowing action, and I think that was the key point.<br /><br />After a multi-step voting process dealing with the divided motion and the related referrals, we ultimately rejected referring anything to CPAC and we approved the borrowing of $755K to cover both projects, and that is how I voted as well.<br /><br />Despite all this CPAC talk, it wasn’t until Article 24 that we actually were dealing with a CPAC article. This was the Affordable Housing one, seeking appropriation of $155,000 in CPAC funds for three $50,000 loans to be used for down payments by qualified applicants to buy homes in Amherst. It would also establish a revolving fund for such payments, which would be paid back with interest when the homes are sold, and it sought $5,000 to pay an agency to set up and administer the program.<br /><br />Nancy Gregg, Chair of the Housing Partnership/Fair Housing Committee, explained that the loans would be available to those making up to 80% of the Area Median Income, an eligibility amount she said would currently be about $57,000 or less. She said preference would be given to those who live or work in Amherst. She said that it was important to have housing options for a wide variety of people.<br /><br />Ms. Blaustein explained how CPAC funds work: that Amherst’s money comes from a property tax surcharge that we recently voted to increase to 1.5%; that the State currently matches the local money 100% with money collected from real estate deed transfer fees; that the 100% match might be reduced if those transfer fees are insufficient or if more communities adopt the Community Preservation Act, thus more widely spreading those matching funds.<br /><br />Mr. Weiss said the SB vote to support was unanimous and that they thought it was a good use of CPAC money.<br /><br />A member said he appreciated the sentiments of the article, but he vehemently opposed it for a variety of reasons: that it duplicated the efforts of other programs; that repayment of the loan once the house is sold ties up the money for a long time making the revolving fund concept unworkable; that it wasn’t contributing to the permanent stock of affordable housing and didn’t follow the standard practices of buying land and building affordable homes.<br /><br />Ms. Gregg said the Housing Partnership Committee had considered many options including deed restrictions, but that they thought this was the best option. She said the committee also pursues the standard practices, and is working on a building project now that will still be three years before anyone will live there.<br /><br />Vince O’Connor, of CPAC, made a substitute motion to essentially provide the $155K for affordable housing, but with its use unspecified. He said that the original proposal wouldn’t lead to affordable units that are countable under Chapter 40B (more about this later) and said that Community Development Block Grant Funds had already been sought for the same purpose, and that it made better sense to make those loans with those CDBG funds that have many strings attached, rather than CPAC money which can be used with greater discretion.<br /><br />CPAC Chair Peter Jessop urged defeat of Mr. O’Connor’s motion and said that “affordability” depends on each person’s wallet. He said there are already affordable units under development, that this addresses a different need, and that the down payment loans are modeled after similar effective programs in the State.<br /><br />Eventually, it was moved that the original article be referred back to CPAC to try again, for the concerns already stated. Someone said that the article needed more detail, someone else said that that complaint could always be made about any article and that the committees and staff should be trusted to make this work. Another member said that this was just one piece of the affordable housing pie and that it was good to be pursuing many different approaches.<br /><br />After another complicated series of votes (I don’t actually have a record in my notes about voting for the O’Connor motion. Is that because the vote on the main motion trumped it? Did I just not write it down? Who knows…) the motion to refer back to CPAC was defeated and I voted No, and the original motion passed and I voted Yes.<br /><br />This one was more interesting live than it was in my recap, which is probably true of everything. I found some of the points opposing the article compelling and thought-provoking. But the bottom line for me was (well, there were two bottom lines, one of which is my standard: if you can’t trust the Housing Partnership Committee to weigh all the options and come up with the best recommendation, then what is the point of the committee?) that this is another way of addressing affordability, and that many options are needed. There is a tendency, a kind one, to be sure, to think about the poorest of the poor for issues like this. But the range of housing needs and range of what constitutes affordability is quite broad. I thought the article and those speaking in favor of it addressed that point well.<br /><br />More CPAC. Article 25 – Historic Preservation. Edith MacMullen, Historical Commission Chair, spoke of the committee pursuing its recommendations via the five-year plan it had created three years ago, and how they try to do their projects in a logical, cohesive and timely manner. She said they have four categories they try to fund annually: capital projects, interpretation and outreach, research and planning, and an annual set-aside of funds. She said the report given to Town Meeting details their status on projects to date, and she explained that much of their work requires consultants and RFPs and cooperation with other Town entities, and that it takes significant time to complete each project and spend the money appropriated toward it. The article sought $141,000 for historic preservation projects.<br /><br />There was the slightest discussion about a couple of items on the list – expensive signs, an archaeological survey of the Bay Road/116 intersection – but really, this was all about two issues: a proposed fence at South Cemetery, and to a lesser degree, past unspent funds.<br /><br />The unspent funds issue is a funny one. I would think my very simplified sentence above would be enough of an explanation to satisfy most people on that topic, and Ms. MacMullen’s more detailed explanation, at this and other meetings, would surely satisfy nearly everyone else. But Mr. O’Connor and the Select Board both remain unsatisfied, which suggests to me that the concern originated with one and was then adopted by the other. It has not gained much traction outside of that circle, however.<br /><br />So then there’s the fence. There has been loud opposition to this fence. At this and other meetings, people have spoken about it being unnecessary, and worse, being decidedly negative for a host of aesthetic and practical reasons. Because people are generally averse to change, I’ve taken these objections with a grain of salt, though they are certainly compelling. And as we know, it is my instinct to defer to the expert wisdom of a committee. So I’ve been waiting to hear the other side of this issue.<br /><br />I must say, I was really surprised to find that there wasn’t one. Guarding against potential vandalism was the only example given, and it was even conceded that the fence wouldn’t provide much protection against that anyway. With all the known opposition to this fence, I would have expected a well-planned and persuasive response, but there was none.<br /><br />This perplexed me. My brain was still trying to reconcile this when it was time to vote on the Select Board’s amendment to reduce the funding recommendation by the $40,000 cost of the fence. I didn’t know what to do. So I abstained. Like the song says: <em>If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.</em> The amendment was resoundingly approved, with just a couple of Nos.<br /><br />With a little more discussion about other elements of the funding list, we voted nearly unanimously to appropriate $101,100 of CPAC money for historic preservation.<br /><br />Article 26 is the most straight-forward of all the CPAC articles – appropriating $15,000 for the Conservation Department to do surveys and appraisals as due diligence on properties being considered for acquisition or protection. That’s all there is to know. It was unanimous, except for one No. Who objects to this and why??<br /><br />Articles 27 and 28 were moved to the end of the warrant, so we’re up to Article 29. This is the latest salvo in the long running assault on the Survival Center. As I am tired of thinking, writing and raising my blood pressure about this, I will skip this summary. (If you are a glutton for punishment, you may wish to read <a href="http://stephanietownmeeting.blogspot.com/2006/08/paved-with-good-intentions.html"><strong><em>this</em></strong> </a>and <strong><em><a href="http://stephanietownmeeting.blogspot.com/2006/09/and-every-child-should-have-pony.html">this</a></em></strong>. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.) Suffice it to say that the motion to refer it to the Community Development Committee passed decisively with only a handful of Nos, and I voted Yes.<br /><br />Article 30 is to appropriate to the stabilization fund those monies collected but not spent for FY08, in the wake of the successful tax override vote. You may have noticed that we didn’t have a successful tax override vote. Hence, no money to stabilize us. Dismissed.<br /><br />That’s a nice description, actually. The town has been destabilized by the failure of the override. Quite true.<br /><br />Moving on.<br /><br />Time for the postponed reconsideration of the budget and assessment for the Regional Schools. This was to fix the fact that we (not me, but the body) had voted to appropriate a 2% assessment for the region, even though we knew we would in all likelihood be compelled to pay the 3%. We need an appropriation to match an expenditure, so this needs to be taken care of. Some blah blah, then we voted, officially approving the $27,567,000 budget and Amherst’s assessment of $12,385,188.<br /><br />And then to finish off that saga: Article 31 – Free Cash. This is to appropriate from Free Cash (that’s reserves for all those just joining us) the amount necessary to balance the budget, and that means paying that extra 2% of the regional assessment. For reasons I’m not sure of, we are appropriating $237,893, not the full $238K we’ve been discussing, but what’s $107 dollars after we’ve just dealt with more than $60 million?<br /><br />Before voting, we got a reprise of the lament about balancing the budget on the backs of our neediest citizens, as well as a plea to move the elections sooner so Town Meeting can start sooner (and with an additional appeal to make mighty Amherst the first to vote on the Regional School budget and not be at the mercy of our pipsqueak neighbors. <em>Are we done yet?)</em> I fear that Town Meeting expands to fill the time you give it, so adding extra time on the front end doesn’t seem too appealing to me.<br /><br />The vote to appropriate those funds from Free Cash to balance the budget was nearly unanimous, with, of course, a couple of Nos.<br /><br />So it’s after 10:00, and everyone expects to adjourn, but Mr. Weiss moved to consider Article 11, because it requires the attendance of the Planning Board, who can’t be here Wednesday, necessitating either taking this up without them, or coming back next Monday. No one wants to come back next Monday, so the motion, which is required for taking up an article after 10:00, passed. Half a dozen or so people left immediately, but most of us hung in there for Mr. O’Connor’s proposal to change the zoning bylaw to require that the affordable housing units required under the inclusionary zoning section (15.10) be mandated for low income, as opposed to the low or moderate income option currently allowed. His stated concern is that moderate income units don’t count toward the requirement that a minimum of 10% of the housing inventory be affordable, under Chapter 40B of Mass. General Laws, and that if Amherst were to drop below that threshold, it would be vulnerable to the kind of large-scale housing project that can result from a developer seeking a Comprehensive Permit, or 40B application. He said Amherst is vulnerable to falling below 10%. His other stated concern is that the decision about whether the affordable units are the moderate- or low-income types is left to the permitting authority, being the Planning Board or the Zoning Board of Appeals, and he thinks that is too much power to rest with those bodies.<br /><br />I see a number of ironies here. One is that the kind of predatory, “unfriendly” project that could be fast-tracked if Amherst fell below 10% would be larger scale affordable housing projects. If your goal is more affordable housing, a 40B application would surely accomplish it more quickly and with a larger number of units than the inclusionary zoning section of the bylaw. I don’t know squat about zoning, but in my cursory read of <strong><em><a href="http://www.chapa.org/40b_fact.html">this</a></em></strong>, for example, it seems to me that the main thing a 40B application trumps is local NIMBYism. Is that so bad? Another irony is Mr. O’Connor’s concern about the power of the Planning Board and ZBA with regard to making such decisions. I can understand his concern if his other philosophy about those Boards – that they should be made up only of non-professionals – were to triumph (and regrettably, that seems to be the case.) A group devoid of important professional knowledge probably is less likely to make the best decision for the Town, but isn’t he playing both ends against the middle here?<br /><br />These, of course, were not the objections raised by the estimable and <strong><em><a href="http://www.gazettenet.com/newsroom/index.cfm/2007/6/19/Amherst-Planning-Board-member-resigns-with-sharp-comments-on-the-way-out">newly-former</a></em></strong> Planning Board member Rod Francis. (What does it say when smart people get so fed up with how onerous it is to try and serve Amherst that they not only quit their Boards, but they move away? This is either an outrageous shame or a brilliant insight that should be strategically applied. <em>Hmmmm.</em> No, no, no – it’s just an outrageous shame. Don’t anybody be getting any ideas now.) Anyway, Mr. Francis made the points that the Planning Board is deeply concerned about affordable housing in Amherst, and that the amendment would take away the ability to negotiate for the moderate income units, which is the level often described as workforce housing, something Amherst also wants and needs. He said that in the two years that the inclusionary zoning section has been part of the bylaw, developers considered about three projects that would qualify (according to the Planning Board report on this article: “apartments/townhouses, Open Space Community Developments, and Planned Unit Residential Developments (PURDs)” of ten or more units) and didn’t pursue any of them. He said that this change would make the rule more restrictive, hence less attractive, for a developer. He said that affordability requirements will lapse on some local complexes in the next few years, and that that is of greater concern for the affordable housing inventory, and that there is time to deal with Amherst potentially falling below 10%, because that determination wouldn’t be calculated until the next census. He said we have until 2011 to have a plan and make serious decisions about dealing with low income housing, and that we shouldn’t thwart a possibility for moderate units.<br /><br />Ms. Greeney spoke of the Select Board’s 4-1 recommendation to support referring the article to the Planning Board and the Housing Partnership/Fair Housing Committee, to return with an update or a better plan next spring. A member spoke against referral and in favor of the article, citing the perils of falling below 10%. Another member, one from the HP/FH committee, said he preferred that the article be defeated rather than referred back, and said that many partial truths and partial bits of information were being cited in support of the article. He said that the Town needs units in both the low- and moderate-income categories, and that this would reduce that flexibility.<br /><br />Time to vote. Another tough one. I’d definitely prefer that it be defeated, but referring it was better than passing it. I voted to refer back, which seemed like the safer bet at the time, but I now regret that. It would have required a 2/3 majority to approve the article, and that was probably not achievable. But let’s see, having voted with the majority (referral passed on a standing vote of 64 Yes to 57 No) I could now move to reconsider it for the purpose of defeating it.<br /><br />Evil laugh: <em>Bwaa-haa-haa-haa-haa!<br /></em><br />But I won’t.<br /><br />Wow, this really is going on too long, and my brain is turning to mush.<br /></span>Stephanie O'Keeffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139345960579356043noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-53185228980017587542007-06-18T09:04:00.000-04:002007-06-18T09:21:13.123-04:00Better late than never?OK, here’s the tardy and abbreviated version.<br /><span id="fullpost" class='fold'><br /><strong>Intro:</strong> The Moderator said to be prepared for the possibility of meeting next Thursday. Uggh! We then approved moving Articles 27 and 28 to the end of the warrant. These are CPAC open space articles and their details are still being worked out.<br /><br /><strong>Article 17 – Library Services:</strong> This was all about $19,000 in overdue fines, and who gets that money – the Libraries or the Town. The libraries have been collecting the fees with the hope and/or expectation of keeping that money this year, but the problem is, that money has always gone to the Town’s General Fund, and as such, has been “spent” elsewhere, as part of the budget process. If the libraries got to keep that money, it would amount to a 2.3% increase for FY08, rather than 1%. In a bit of a compromise, the Finance Committee was recommending a budget $2,097,199 that includes the $19,000 increase, but an appropriation from taxation of $1,461,162 that does not. This will allow the library to spend that money if they can come up with it from other sources. The Select Board approved the FinCom recommendation. A Town Meeting member made a motion for the higher appropriation amount, to assist the library trustee who had meant to do so, but didn’t do it at the right time and was then unable to – such are the rigidities of parliamentary procedure. Most everyone thinks the library should keep that money, but differ on whether they can have it this year or whether they have to wait for this issue to be worked out more thoroughly for next year. The creation of a revolving fund for that purpose can only be done at an Annual Town Meeting, and since it wasn’t on the original warrant for this Annual, it would have to wait until next spring. It was noted that the Library Trustees did not support the override, which would have helped to address the Town’s structural deficit. Ultimately the vote on the higher amount with the $19K was defeated in a tally vote of 62 Yes and 81 No. I voted No. The Finance Committee’s amount then passed nearly unanimously.<br /><br /><strong>Pool Announcement:</strong> The Town Manager updated Town Meeting on the pool situation. He said it would take four to six weeks to open War Memorial pool, with the earliest opening date being July 11th. The wading pool there will probably open two weeks earlier than the large pool. He said the Groff Park wading pool would not open this year, so that resources could be concentrated on getting War Memorial open, and because the construction of a bathroom at Groff Park would make that area dangerous for children. I’m not sure who was more chagrined by the pool news – those who opposed the funding, and were now having it driven home that we just spent about $60,000 we didn’t have for the pool to be open a maximum of about six weeks; or those who supported the funding but apparently weren’t paying attention when the LSSE Director told us that it would be difficult to get that pool open this year, but she would try.<br /><br /><strong>School Announcement:</strong> The Town Manager also reported that the Elementary Schools had found unspent funds while closing out their FY07 accounts, and would be expecting to return $120,000 to the Town. He said the Superintendent also expected to use more of that unspent money to cover additional expenses for next year. This information was of course received suspiciously by the body. Though we would later be told by a FinCom member that a $100,000 return of unspent funds had been projected, it wasn’t clear if that had meant it had been expected to come from the schools. So this either takes care of half of the Regional Assessment problem, or it doesn’t. To me, this money doesn’t seem fishy at all. Unlike the Regional Schools, the Elementary Schools have no reserves. They were being careful with their spending because of the bad fiscal situation anyway, and they can’t very well be spending to the bitter limits of their appropriation in case costs put them over. It makes sense to me that as they are closing out their books on this year, they would find that among their various line items, they had extra funds. It is only once you put all those little extras from each line together that you get a sizable chunk, and that is something that you can only know and lump together at the end of the fiscal year. That is how I view it anyway. Alas, Finance Director John Musante was not available to set us straight on this. Also part of the school announcement: Pelham Town Meeting voted the 3% budget and appropriation at their much-anticipated meeting that night. What a surprise.<br /><br /><strong>Water Fund:</strong> What’s there to say? As an enterprise fund, it is completely self-supporting through the user fees it collects. It has the same fixed-cost increases that affect every part of the budget. A member asked how long until the fund has its own structural deficit, with the largest user – UMass – paying less and using less water. The short answer was that basically means more rate increases for other users. In response to another question, we were told that we have plenty of capacity, and continued reductions is usage from UMass are expected, so Veridian Village and plans for expanding UMass enrollment are not a concern. The vote to approve the $3,907,453 appropriation for the Water Fund budget was unanimous.<br /><br /><strong>Sewer Fund:</strong> Same deal. Self-supporting fund, increased fixed costs. There were a couple of odd questions about why various elements of this fund – the total, the percentage increase – are different from those of the Water Fund. Um, because they’re completely different systems. Why would the numbers be the same? The vote to approve $3,656,878 for the Sewer Fund was unanimous.<br /><br /><strong>Solid Waste Fund:</strong> Same deal. This time we also got money-saving trash disposal tips from a Select Board member. The vote to approve $523,251 for the Solid Waste Fund was unanimous.<br /><br /><strong>Transportation Fund:</strong> This money comes from parking fees and fines and it funds such expenses as the parking officers, rental of the parking lot behind the Unitarian Church, the PVTA assessment, subsidies for the senior citizen shuttles, and outreach bus routes. We heard from two members of the Public Transportation Committee about improvements that have been made to the bus service, chief among them, the new route that runs from Puffer’s Pond to Atkins, and the soon-to-be-launched re-routing of the Belchertown Center route through Echo Hill, to replace the Gatehouse Road route. The new route is expected to provide better service and do so at a much lower cost. Stan Gawle moved to increase the amount of the appropriation by $1 and suggested transferring $104,000 of the money to cover bus transportation for the Elementary Schools instead of funding the outreach routes. It was determined to be impossible to use Transportation Fund money for that purpose. The vote on the amount with the additional dollar failed, and the vote on the original appropriation of $907,453 passed with just a couple of Nos. I voted Yes.<br /><br /><strong>Retirement Assessment:</strong> Article 18! Finally! This was our obligatory annual appropriation to the Hampshire County Retirement System to fund the retirements of current and future municipal, library, and non-teaching elementary school retirees. There were questions about rolling local retirement systems into the State system (the Town is evaluating it potential advantages and disadvantages,) and whether or not the money is held in trust (it is, but by the County, not the Town,) and new accounting procedures that will be required in FY09 (Zzzzzz…) The vote to appropriate the $2,920,979 was unanimous.<br /><br /><strong>Article 19 – Reserve Fund:</strong> No, not the regular reserves – that’s Free Cash and Stabilization. This is the FinCom’s reserve fund for taking care of unforeseen expenses during the year. It’s always a $100,000 appropriation, but last year, in Town Meeting’s infinite wisdom, that money was reduced to $50,000, hence needing an additional appropriation with the FY07 budget amendment article at the Special Town Meeting last week (or last month, or whenever that was… This has gone on so long that all sense of time is lost.) After a couple of random questions, the vote to approve the $100,000 appropriation was unanimous.<br /><br /><strong>Article 20 – Capital Spending – Chapter 90 Funds:</strong> This article kicks off the capital articles. We are told again that the goal for capital spending is 10% of the tax levy, but that we never manage to allocate that amount, and this year are down to 7%, and we are falling further behind on maintaining our infrastructure. This article addressed Chapter 90 funds, which come from the State and are collected through the gas tax and can only be used for road work and related equipment. We have a $20 million backlog of roadwork, so at $500,000 a year, we are falling behind here as well. The vote to approve the $500,000 appropriation was unanimous.<br /><br /><strong>Article 21 – Capital Spending – Equipment:</strong> Again, we’re falling behind on this stuff. There’s a long list of stuff we’ll get, but a much longer list of stuff we need but can’t afford. (See the JCPC’s report in the <strong><em><a href="http://www.amherstma.gov/PDFs/FY_08_Finance_Committee_Report.pdf">FinCom Report</a></em></strong> for all the details.) The Finance Committee’s recommendation was for $1,095,378. Stan Gawle moved to reduce the number by $191,000, citing the LSSE van as something that could come out of that department’s budget and complaining about spending on computer and web site upgrades, saying “How much more sophisticated do we have to get?” He said that we still needed to come up with the $238,000 for the Regional Assessment and we were running out of line items we could reduce before it would all have to come from reserves. Vince O’Connor moved to increase the FinCom amount by $86,500 to add refurbishing of the aerial ladder truck and purchase of another defibrillator. He cited the $120,000 of unspent school money, and money he expects to come from the colleges and the State, and said we should spend this money for useful purposes. This is when Brian Morton told us that $100,000 of turn-back money had already been anticipated as funds to help increase the reserves this year. A member noted that any additional amount that can go to reserves is a good thing, and that if the new funds Mr. O’Connor anticipates actually come through, we can always spend them later. Elaine Brighty of the JCPC talked about how the computer spending is primarily for infrastructure items like servers and routers and software, and that new computer purchases have been mostly deferred. The first vote was on Mr. O’Connor’s, as it was the largest amount. It was defeated soundly and I voted No. The Finance Committee’s figure of $1,095,378 passed with only a couple of Nos, so we didn’t vote on Mr. Gawle’s amount. I voted Yes to the FinCom amount.<br /><br />And that was Wednesday. Pretty good progress. It was about as straight-forward a Town Meeting session as you could ask for in Amherst. Now if only we could get everyone who has spoken three or more times so far to not speak again, we might actually finish this thing.<br /></span>Stephanie O'Keeffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139345960579356043noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-40762066063343617322007-06-16T17:43:00.000-04:002007-06-16T17:55:11.506-04:00Brain fryNo, I haven’t fled to Shutesbury in pursuit of a one-day Town Meeting. It’s tempting, but then I couldn’t walk to Bueno. <br /><span id="fullpost" class='fold'><br />I just haven’t written up Wednesday’s meeting yet, nor the SB meeting for that matter. I go through a bit of recap burn-out every so often, when I can’t even make myself do it. I’ll try for Sunday. Sorry!<br /></span>Stephanie O'Keeffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139345960579356043noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-41897606311562786832007-06-12T18:01:00.000-04:002007-06-12T20:20:26.177-04:00Robbing Peter to pay poolIf it weren’t for the debt service vote at the end, we might actually have made negative progress on the warrant. Otherwise, we spent the whole night on Cherry Hill and pools, two subjects that just haven’t had quite enough discussion yet. <br /><span id="fullpost" class='fold'><br />I could just cut and paste from previous recaps, as this was the same people saying the same things about the same subjects. But that’s no fun. However, I can’t quite bring myself to do a blow-by-blow rehash of all this tired stuff again. So this will be a little different.<br /><br /><strong>Intro:</strong> The Moderator noted that this was our 9th session and we need to move along so people can get on with their lives. Apparently, this message was lost on the body. He also emphasized when the “highly-privileged” point of order is in order—Yes: to correct the Moderator, to get clarification on which motion is being voted, to note that the speaker can’t be heard, or other points pertaining to the running of the meeting; No: to note that a speaker is incorrect or misleading or not providing sufficient info. <br /><br /><strong>Cherry Hill redux:</strong> This time, it was through its Community Services line item. Larry Kelley moved to reduce its funding. He seems to think that the course won’t meet its projections. His proposal would fund it through the end of December. A member noted how the budget calendar and the golf season calendar line up badly. The Town Manager said: give the new management a chance. Other people said: give the new management a chance. Some people thought this reduction could be used to instead fund the pools. The problem is, Cherry Hill operating revenues come from Cherry Hill fees. The Town doesn’t write Cherry Hill a check for its operating money – the Town appropriates, or “authorizes the spending of,” $231,862 (in FY08, including employee benefits) by and for Cherry Hill. But Cherry Hill brings in all of that money – or almost all of it. It is when they bring in less or spend more than the appropriation that the Town has to bail it out. So the Town does not spend $200K+ per year on the course – the Town only spends the shortfall amount – about $35K for FY07, I think – which, as Larry is happy to tell you, isn’t pocket change and really adds up over time. We had all the same questions, pros and cons from the discussion at last week’s Special TM. We finally voted on the Finance Committee’s number, because it was larger than the amended amount, and it passed soundly in a voice vote. I voted Yes. To me, an RFP would be a new plan and an actual protection against loss, whereas simply docking the budget would be meaningless and counterproductive. And can we finally put to rest this erroneous notion that all the budgets were held to 1% increases? That only applied to the overall Town, School and Library budgets – individual departments went up and down, as is made quite obvious in the “% Change” column of the <a href="http://www.amherstma.gov/PDFs/FY_08_Finance_Committee_Report.pdf"><strong><em>FinCom Report</em></strong></a>. And nothing inspires sympathetic votes like a motion that is doomed to fail on the ninth night of Town Meeting, when no end is in sight. <br /><br /><strong>Orphan areas:</strong> Public Health, the Senior Center, Veterans’ Services and Town Commemorations lack the kind of passionate advocates and opponents of the human service funding, LSSE, the pools and the golf course, so they went quickly and unchallenged. <br /><br /><strong>Belly flop:</strong> Just before we voted the bottom line on Community Services, someone who had to leave the meeting prior to the pool voting last time moved to reconsider. I hate reconsiderations like this. I hated it <a href="http://stephanietownmeeting.blogspot.com/2006/06/dj-vu-all-over-again.html"><strong><em>last spring</em></strong></a> when it could have led to an outcome I preferred, and I hate it now, when it was all but certain to lead to one I oppose. Reconsiderations of this kind are a failure to accept that in a democracy, you don’t always get your way. I understand the process allows for this, but I think it is an abuse of the spirit of the rules. The fact is that the pool funding was voted down fair and square last time. To game the system by working to have more of “your” voters present for a re-vote is not so far from tampering. What next? We start preventing those with whom we disagree from attending Town Meeting? Let the air out of their tires? Sabotage their tally vote cards? This kind of “all is fair in love, war and politics” sentiment really offends me. But victory via jerkiness is a time-honored American tradition. Thanks, but I’d rather lose. And I did. The vote to reconsider was 95 Yes and 82 No.<br /><br /><strong>Eureka:</strong> But thank goodness reconsideration won! Otherwise, I and others might not have realized that War Memorial pool is really important to people. A lot of people enjoy it. Especially in the summer. Some have even learned to swim there. Who knew?<br /><br /><strong>Pasta pitch:</strong> Arguments in favor of the pool were another instance of throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what would stick. Mill River is too far away. It will be extra pollution to drive and bus people there. Closing the pool will lead to increased juvenile delinquency. Puffer’s Pond will be too crowded. People who don’t know how to swim might drown at Puffer’s. War Memorial pool is an integrated melting pot. People with disabilities use it. Swimming is good exercise. Heck, I was ready to propose we increase the budget further and build another pool in South Amherst. Must be fair to all, must meet every need, cost be damned.<br /><br /><strong>Eat the rich:</strong> How many times over both nights were we subject to the argument that not all families have their own pool or go away for summer vacations? This whole class shaming thing is getting really old. And where are all these private Amherst pools anyway? The way people talk about that, you’d think this was Florida.<br /><br /><strong>Just like home:</strong> Select Board Chair Gerry Weiss did something I thought was very smart – he divided the numbers by 100 to make them more manageable, and compared them to a household budget. He said if you had intended to put $13,000 into savings this year, (the Town’s $1.3M reserve increase) and had an unexpected $2,380 expense for a roof repair (the $238,000 from the Regional School assessment) would you really want to deny your children the $700 dollars ($70,000 pool cost) that it would cost to have the backyard pool? He said it wasn’t a matter of not putting money into savings, just a matter of putting in less. So that was a good concept, but I would take it a step further. Is it really better that the kids should have the pool if it means continuing to inadequately fund the family savings, leaving them in dire straights if Mom’s car dies or Dad loses his job? <br /><br /><strong>Perception and precipitation:</strong> A common issue with Cherry Hill is how weather-dependent its success is. I don’t know what money doesn’t get expended at the pools when weather is bad, but now that this issue has become such a big deal, it will be hard not to think of the lost money if it is a rainy summer. <br /><br /><strong>Reservations on reserves:</strong> Bryan Harvey did an excellent walk-through of Brian Morton’s reserves graph. But it was no use. Some people are convinced that putting money in reserves is either mean or crooked. And the continuing refrain about the school money being separate and how the pool money wouldn’t come from reserves, but from the general government cut, is perplexing. That’s like saying that you don’t have enough money in your checking account to pay your bills, and the money in your wallet and under your mattress doesn’t count. It’s all the same money folks. Before the pools, we have about $58,000 that can be appropriated before we’re in the red. But because we know we have to come up with $238,000 for the Regional Schools, we’re actually already in the red by $180,000. Put that $58K to the pools, and we’re in the red for the whole $238K. “In the red” means using reserves. Or seeking an override which would be amusing for a couple of reasons: a) as one member pointed out, that would cost another $14,000; and b) if it failed, guess where the money would have to come from? Reserves! It’s not an optional expenditure – not like the last override, whose failure meant we wouldn’t be paying for those firefighters … or the pool… or… <em>Hmmmm</em>.<br /><br /><strong>Follow through:</strong> Actually, to me that last point is the biggest negative of funding the pool. What is a person supposed to believe? How will we ever get people to trust that Town government will do what it says it will do with a multi-year plan, if even a straightforward set of override-dependent expenditures turns out to be a crock? Furthermore, if there are no tangible consequences to not passing an override, then how do we persuade people that it is necessary? Most people don’t see or recognize the reductions to text books and supplies at the schools, the creeping class sizes, the gradual trimming away of special programs. They don’t see the staff being spread too thin at Town Hall, or the proportional decrease in police protection. That these are not widely perceived would be considered by some to mean that reductions led to new efficiency; I would say it means that Amherst is subjecting itself to death by a thousand cuts. Closing the pool would be stark evidence that the Town is in tough financial shape. It’s hard to blame a person for believing things can’t be that bad if Amherst still has not one but two public pools open this summer.<br /><br /><strong>Splash:</strong> Sure enough, the vote to fund the pool was successful, but that was almost a foregone conclusion. One of the operatives of reconsideration told me he and others had been working the phones since last week, getting attendance and voting commitments from some critical mass. He said that if the headcount was right, they would move to reconsider. Welcome to Tammany Hall. The first vote was on the Select Board’s amount, and it failed in a tally of 88 Yes, 94 No. By strange coincidence, the Oldham motion, for $12,000 less, passed with the reverse totals: 94 Yes and 88 No. That led to approval of the bottom line appropriation for Community Services at $1,743,604. <br /><br /><strong>What if:</strong> So perhaps the pools and the human services funding are indeed sacred cows of the Amherst budget. If they had both been fully funded (whatever fully-funding human services would mean,) does that mean we would have sailed through this budget? Or does it mean that those determined to exercise their advocacy and passions would simply have chosen different targets? <br /><br /><strong>Debt:</strong> No, not the debt we are imposing on the future by failing to prioritize today’s reserve funds. This is debt service, or “General Fund Indebtedness,” a separate budget section. Blessedly, we have moved on from General Government. This is the cost of principal and interest payments on the Town’s big-ticket borrowing. I was too depressed to take good notes here though – sorry. The vote to appropriate the $1,491,359 as recommended by the Finance Committee was unanimous.<br /><br /><strong>Cancel those elitist yuppie vacation plans:</strong> So how can we make this take even longer? What else can we reconsider? Can we find another way to address Cherry Hill? Are there more procedural motions we might exploit? Have we exhausted all possibilities for screwing up the Regional Assessment? Does anyone have a pet cause that needs indulging? Ahh, Town government in action. <br /><br />Or rather: Town government inaction.<br /></span>Stephanie O'Keeffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139345960579356043noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-8549049395601022942007-06-07T23:24:00.000-04:002007-06-08T09:19:47.802-04:00If only the override had passedWednesday’s motion sheet had included one for reconsideration of the Regional Schools’ budget, and I thought to myself, “Here we go…” I was not expecting it to be the Finance Committee seeking reconsideration.<br /><span class="'fold'" id="fullpost"><br />Sure enough, it turns out that the symbolic 2% vote from Monday isn’t quite good enough. FinCom Chair Alice Carlozzi told us that she had been mistaken in saying that if 3% prevails with the region that we don’t need to take another vote. In fact, there does need to be an appropriation vote to match a corresponding expenditure.<br /><br />This was just an announcement to begin the meeting – we needed to have a Special TM first, then we would return to the reconsideration question.<br /><br />Article 1 of the Special is a housekeeping article that had previously been Article 15 of the Annual. It is a two-parter. Part A allows the transfer of money between different functional areas to let excesses in one make up for deficiencies in another. As we all know, and should know even better after this meeting, the Town Manager can move money around as necessary within a functional area, but TM’s approval is needed to move money between functional areas because it was our appropriation that “gave” each area its money during last year’s budget votes. Under the motion made by Brian Morton of the FinCom, we were to approve increasing the FY07 appropriation to General Government by $72,800 and decreasing the appropriations to Planning, Conservation and Inspections by $34,800 and Debt Service by $38,000 accordingly.<br /><br />There were some questions about this – the specifics of the departmental overages and underages, particularly as pertained to Cherry Hill. A member pointed out that we were increasing the FY07 General Government appropriation by $72,800 after having recently cut the FinCom’s recommended FY08 General Government appropriation by $100,000 and asked whether this might suggest we would be making a similar transfer next year. FinCom said – “Yup.” After a couple other questions and comments, we voted. The voice vote was nearly unanimous, except for those two or three pathological No votes that we almost always have. Honestly – what is up with that? What possible opposition could one have to what is essentially technicality – a vote to clean up our FY07 books? Is there a legitimate dissenting opinion here? Are these couple of people really opposed to government in general or the FinCom in particular? Does that feel like a protest vote? It does make the idea of tally votes for everything rather attractive (as if TM doesn’t last long enough…) Would they still vote No on the record? Or is it a symptom of that TM plague – enjoying the sound of one’s own voice?<br /><br />Part B was to increase the appropriation to the Finance Committee’s reserve fund by $50,000 through a transfer from Free Cash to cover the FY07 shortfall. Again, last year’s Town Meeting voted to decrease the Finance Committee’s recommended appropriation of $100,000 by half. And now we need to use reserves to cover that same amount that we had cut. Are any doubters starting to recognize that the Finance Committee isn’t making up their budget recommendations? These numbers are not arbitrary, they are not wild guesses, and they aren’t value judgments. They reflect the realities of how much the business of government costs based on how much it has cost in the past, and based on educated and careful projections of revenues and expenses. Mr. Morton reminded us of the specifics of the cuts, redistributions and additional appropriations that TM made last year and how without them, this article may have been unnecessary.<br /><br />The vote on this was again nearly unanimous, with one or two of the (same? different?) renegade Nos.<br /><br />Article 2 of the Special sought to advise the Select Board to advise the Town Manager to re-RFP Cherry Hill – under more reasonable conditions and with an expectation of accepting an appropriate bid. Petitioner Larry Kelley, apparently under the auspices of Amherst Taxpayers for Responsible Change, brought forth his usual litany of figures to illustrate the golf course’s drain on Town money. (Production values weren’t quite up to their usual standards however. Last year we got a documentary short feature, this year we got numbers scribbled on the back of an envelope. I was expecting 3-D, or maybe a laser light show.)<br /><br />The Finance Committee supported the recommendation, the Select Board didn’t. The Town Manager listed all the reasons he didn’t accept the Niblick bid (didn’t want to lose control of valuable asset, didn’t want to lease Town equipment for its upkeep, ambiguous deal, opposes privatization of Town stuff) why he is optimistic about the course’s future under new Town management (big improvements, better marketing, new programs, improved results so far.) People asked questions about his threshold for giving up on this (poor results next year would make him reconsider an RFP, but he wants to try first) and about organic turf management (they’re doing more of that with help from UMass’ Stockbridge School,) and others spoke to the beauty and potential of the course. The vote on the article was defeated pretty soundly, and I voted Yes.<br /><br />I really don’t give a whoop about Cherry Hill. I have no real problem with it not making money – thinking about it like the other recreation programs of LSSE is fine with me. I don’t find the argument about subsidizing out-of-towners compelling, whether or not it is true. Considering some of the stories I’ve heard about past course management or lack thereof, I think the finances almost can’t help but improve. And yet, I just don’t see a downside to outside management. The whole “people enjoy the course for non-golf activities” thing doesn’t seem to me to be precluded by a lease deal. Continuing LSSE’s low-fee golf programs and protecting the land from being wrecked both seem like simple details taken care of by a good contract. No one expects the place to be a goldmine under the best circumstances, so it isn’t like they want to keep Amherst from missing out on that windfall. Is it possible that by annoying citizens and Town officials alike on this issue for 20 years, Larry has simply entrenched his opposition? I can’t believe that’s really the case, but it could be as good an explanation as any.<br /><br />Done with the Special. Back to the Annual.<br /><br />Oh, yes, that reconsideration thing. Ms. Carlozzi reiterated her earlier points and said that we need to re-vote this, just to clean things up and enable us to finish TM with a completed and balanced budget.<br /><br />Select Board Chair Gerry Weiss moved to postpone reconsideration until just before Article 31 is dealt with – the one where we seek money from reserves to cover unfunded appropriations. He said that on Monday people wanted to give the Regional School committee the opportunity to consider the E&D proposal and to have Pelham TM’s final decision on June 13th. The Regional SC had met but several members weren’t there and they didn’t vote about the alternative proposal, and with Pelham’s final vote still a week away, he said there was no rush to do this now.<br /><br />The Moderator reminded us that having brought forth the motion to reconsider, this was our only shot.<br /><br />Andy Churchill of the Regional SC said they had discussed the issue in depth the night before, and that Pelham and Shutesbury Select Board members and a Pelham Finance Committee member were present. He said that there was no interest in using the E&D money for this, and while they did not vote, he did not expect there would be sufficient support from the full committee for the 2/3 majority that E&D use would require.<br /><br />People spoke for and against postponing reconsideration. Those speaking for it emphasized that we will have more complete info if we wait; that there seems to be no harm in waiting; and that if the vote for 3% failed to pass tonight, that would be procedurally problematic. Those speaking against it said that it would make the $238,000 shortfall more real to us and might keep us more disciplined in the rest of our budget actions; that we might as well do it now; and that the small risk of the 3% failing could be easily taken care of with a Special TM if necessary.<br /><br />The question was called, and we voted on the motion to postpone. The voice vote was too close to call, so we had a standing vote.<br /><br />This was another one of these brain-twisting TM moments. The arguments on both sides sounded perfectly reasonable to me – it was six of one, half-dozen of the other. So I really had no idea how to vote, and in the voice vote, I abstained. The standing vote is supposed to confirm the voice vote, so was I even allowed to participate in the standing vote? I decided yes, but that still didn’t solve my dilemma of <em>how </em>to vote. So I decided that members all have their own angles on this, wise and otherwise. But the School Committee had a vested interest in the outcome. So when I saw that Andy Churchill was standing to vote in support of postponement, that was good enough for me, and I stood as well. The motion to postpone passed, 104 Yes and 69 No.<br /><br />Back to Community Services, which we had last dealt with a week ago, having only determined the amount for the human services funding line. This time, it’s LSSE.<br /><br />The FinCom’s recommendation was for $637,704. The Select Board’s recommendation was for $625,704. Mr. Weiss spoke to the Select Board’s figure, saying they had originally voted 3-2 to cut $24,000 from there, to complete their redistribution of money to restore funds for the War Memorial pool and wading pools. But he said they had taken the $12,000 that TM had rejected from the SB’s recommendation to restore Puffer’s Pond seasonal staff and trail maintenance and put it into LSSE. He said that $1,000 was intended to provide childcare for Town Meeting members who need it in order to attend TM. He said childcare money was something that had been decided on in the past, but wasn’t being funded, and that we need to deliver on this promise.<br /><br />Andy Steinberg of the FinCom spoke of how the cut to LSSE would jeopardize programs and that there had already been staff reductions and fee increases, and that with summer LSSE programs already underway, it was too late to increase those fees anyway. He spoke about the importance of subsidies for low-income participants, and how even a small fee increase has a large cumulative effect.<br /><br />An LSSE commission member talked about the large numbers of people served by LSSE programs and their positive effect on the community, and how LSSE’s percentage of tax support is at its lowest level in 10 years.<br /><br />There was some discussion of the pools as their funding relates to the SB’s LSSE cut, and whether the Town Manager would be obligated to use such money for the pools if these votes were to pass. The Town Manager talked about how the Town Government Act gives the Manager the authority to move money around within categories to use as he sees necessary, but he said that having that authority and utilizing it were two different issues. He said he would be very conscious of the vote of TM and the recommendation by the Select Board, and said that only under extreme circumstances would he go against those.<br /><br />A member – OK, it was me – mentioned that the intent of the SB adding back $12,000 of their original LSSE cut was to provide $1,000 for childcare and $11,000 for the Puffer’s Pond maintenance that TM had rejected last week, and asked if that might be elaborated on a bit.<br /><br />Mr. Shaffer said that Puffer’s Pond has to be maintained, even if the funding isn’t there, so the Select Board added the Conservation money to LSSE to fund that maintenance.<br /><br /><em>Hmmmm.</em><br /><br />So we are voting whether or not to fund things that may or may not be funded regardless of our vote.<br /><br />I certainly understand that the Town Manager needs the ability move money around as necessary. But why would a required item have been left off the core 1% budget and treated as a restoration, when there is apparently no intent or possibility of it not happening? Doesn’t that seem less like moving money around as necessary and more like a bait and switch? And isn’t that kind of like what happened with the firefighters? And the line painting? And doesn’t that make something of a mockery of this whole Town Meeting budget process?<br /><br />And the Select Board, whose chain is similarly being yanked, wasn’t exactly forthcoming with the info that they had earmarked that money for Puffer’s Pond. Mr. Weiss had said in the course of their discussions about this on Monday that the motion to put this money into LSSE to do something that had already been rejected by Town Meeting seemed like an “end-around” move, and Ms Awad had said that it was honest because it was what the Select Board wanted. Yet they opted to talk about the $1,000 for childcare, and conveniently didn’t mention the Puffer’s Pond part.<br /><br />Is Town Meeting being toyed with from without and within?<br /><br />I don’t really know what to make of this. I have championed the Town Manager’s budget all along, on my abiding belief that he is the one who knows best what the priorities are of Town government as a whole, and that the budget he recommended was created through a careful and informed process. I worked hard – not hard enough, apparently – in support of the override based on that same belief. Now I’m not sure what to think.<br /><br />Maybe I’ll go take a dip in the War Memorial pool to clear my mind. Yes, we would later (<em>spoiler alert!</em>) vote down funding for that, but such things don’t appear to be linked here in Amherst through the looking-glass.<br /><br />After a nice presentation of LSSE numbers and the relationship between tax support and fees, and a few more comments about this wacky process, how LSSE doesn’t do karate, ballet or gymnastics, and the value of LSSE to low-income families, we voted. The vote was on the Finance Committee’s amount – without the SB’s reduction. Too close to call, it went to a standing vote. 89 Yes and 81 No. I voted Yes.<br /><br />Now people – we must learn to work the clock on these things a wee-bit better. If the vote finishes before 10:00 p.m. – even one minute before – then we have to start the next line or article. Couldn’t we have delayed our standing and sitting down just a tad? Couldn’t we have maybe had a brief commotion? Don’t tell the Moderator, but let’s try to never finish a vote just before 10:00, OK?<br /><br />No such luck this night. At 9:59, we started the pools.<br /><br />The Select Board’s recommendation was to add $70,812 to the pools line, to restore funding to War Memorial pool and the wading pools. Mr. Weiss said that the SB had voted unanimously for this and said so many people benefit from the pools, that closing War Memorial would make the Mill River pool and Puffer’s Pond more crowded. He said that the last vote meant that the SB’s plan was $12,000 over budget, but so be it. He said he would hate to have the pools not open and find at the end of the summer that we could have afforded them.<br /><br />Jim Oldham offered an amendment for $12,000 less, to open the pools but not go over the 1% budget. He said that LSSE could determine how to make due without that $12K, and that the motion, if passed, would convey the sense of Town Meeting that it wants the pools open.<br /><br />Mr. Steinberg, speaking for the FinCom, said how difficult it was for him to recommend against funding the pools, but that these were the kinds of things that had been contingent on the override passing, and it didn’t pass. He spoke about the need to not take money from reserves, and said that it is not uncommon for the schools to have a higher increase than other parts of the budget. He mentioned the hiring schedule for staffing the pool and said that all swimming lessons were able to be accommodated at the Mill River pool.<br /><br />The LSSE Commission Chair spoke to the history and importance of the War Memorial pool. Another member asked about the ability to hire lifeguards at this point.<br /><br />LSSE Director Linda Chalfant wins the Guilford Mooring “Truth in Government” award for this session, saying that aquatic staff is among the hardest positions to fill, and that the pool would still require prep work by the DPW in order to open, and that if this funding were approved, she would do everything in her power to get War Memorial open this summer, but that it would be hard to do.<br /><br />A member spoke to how approval of the Select Board’s $100,000 cut to general government implied the desire to re-allocate that money according to the SB’s plan, and said he was sorry the Finance Committee had treated that money as floating funds. He said it was an anomaly of how the budget is presented that those funds couldn’t be immediately moved to a different functioning area, as had been done with the Special TM budget amendment article earlier in the evening.<br /><br />Another member reiterated the points about the override having failed and the alternative having been a 1% budget. He said parents and other hadn’t been advocating for particular extras and that fiscal restraint had been accepted for this year. He said that the pools would be available for 60 days or fewer, and that there was still one municipal pool in town as well as those at apartment complexes, and said that there are still hoses and sprinklers. He said that unlike the pools, the Regional School Assessment was not an optional expenditure.<br /><br />The question was called, and everyone already had their tally vote cards ready. First up was the vote on the Select Board’s higher amount. It was defeated 62 Yes and 101 No. Next up was Mr. Oldham’s amount, it too was defeated and because the results were so close, it was recounted and the results stood: 78 Yes and 84 No. I voted No on both.<br /><br />We adjourned around 10:30-ish. I didn’t write it down.<br /><br />Quite a night.<br /></span>Stephanie O'Keeffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139345960579356043noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-1822030255031757372007-06-05T21:14:00.000-04:002007-06-05T21:51:07.133-04:00School dazeAppropriate to the theme of the evening, we began with a gentle reminder: Boys and girls – behave yourselves! No taunting, hitting, biting or spitballs, especially during tally votes. Apparently, there had been an incident…<br /><span id="fullpost" class='fold'><br />After a procedural motion to postpone Community Services, we took up the school budgets, as had been scheduled by a previous procedural motion.<br /><br />Superintendent Jere Hochman began with a presentation (an abbreviated version of <a href="http://www.amherstma.gov/budget/FY08%20SCHOOLS%20BUDG%20OR%20PRES%20april%2026%20%5bRead-Only%5d.pdf"><strong><em>this</em></strong></a>) about the schools, as a way of grounding the discussion.<br /><br />Finance Committee Chair Alice Carlozzi made the Finance Committee’s recommendation of $19,456,715, a 1% budget. Details of her recommendation are available in the <a href="http://www.amherstma.gov/PDFs/FY_08_Finance_Committee_Report.pdf"><strong><em>FinCom Report</em></strong></a>.) She called it an “austerity budget,” and said it was not a “disaster.” She said that the majority of the School Committee recommended it for the same reason that the FinCom does – it offers an opportunity for the Town to create a multi-year financial plan to begin next year, and to not jeopardize that opportunity with a small override this year.<br /><br />School Committee Chair Andy Churchill said the School Committee had voted to support the 1% budget 4-1, even though they weren’t happy about it. He said that the failure of the override, desire to not use reserves and general limited available funds made them conclude that this was the best option. He said that all the SC members are also members of the Regional School Committee, and that the regional budget situation is more desperate, and the overage of its 3% will probably have to come from reserves. He said that adding more to the elementary school budget would be too much to ask for from reserves, and said they didn’t want to doom next year’s override prospects. He said that he was surprised to have a lot of parents urging the School Committee to hold the line at 1% this year. He said that they can scrape by at these levels this year but that the excellence of both the regional and elementary schools are at risk, and talked about the significant cuts that have been made over the last few years. He also highlighted some special successes in student achievement and mentoring programs. He spoke of challenges posed by the uneven distribution of low-income families among the elementary schools, and the challenges inherent in the physical space of the aging building. <br /><br />Alisa Brewer reported the Select Board’s unanimous support for the recommendation.<br /><br />Members asked about the particulars of delaying the musical instrument programs by a year (starting strings in 4th grade instead of 3rd, and winds and percussion in 5th grade instead of 4th;) and asked the usual questions about the ratios of staff and dollars to students. <br /><br />Dick Mudgett proposed an amendment for a 3% budget ($19,842,043,) calling a 1% elementary school budget “highly discriminatory” as the regional schools are expected to get 3%. He talked about how crucial learning is at the elementary level and about the good experiences his children had had in the system, and the expense and necessity of quality special ed services.<br /><br />Chrystel Romero, who cast the lone dissenting vote on the School Committee’s recommendation, proposed an amendment for a 2% budget ($19,649,715.) She said the biggest priority is more teachers in order to reduce class sizes. She said that Town Meeting votes a bottom-line number for the schools and that the school committee then directs the Superintendent how to spend it, and said that was different from the Town situation. She said that the school budget was created before she became a school committee member and it doesn’t represent her priorities. She said that if you want different priorities you need to change the School Committee membership. (<em>Ouch!</em> And kind of a funny thing for the only non-elected SC member to say.) She said the schools shouldn’t have to scrape by and that the future was too unpredictable to sacrifice this year for a better expected outcome next year. <br /><br />Vince O’Connor proposed a budget that gives Medicaid and MassHealth reimbursements back to the elementary schools ($19,581,715.) He said that the schools do all the work for this money, but it gets deposited in Town accounts, unlike at the regional level, where he said they keep those funds. He said the School Committee had been trying to resolve this with the Finance Committee for three years, and he cited a bunch of arguments against doing this that he called “red herrings:” that the money is already allocated elsewhere; that other departments would then want the revenues they generate; something I didn’t understand about the reserve situation being different than it was last year; and that doing this isn’t required by law. He explained why he found those arguments uncompelling. He said his proposal would provide funding for two additional teachers. <br /><br />Ms. Carlozzi said the FinCom didn’t favor any of the proposals, because any increase would compound the shortfalls projected for FY09, and she repeated cautions against using reserves or having a small override. She said the reimbursement issue has been under discussion but that they ran out of time for this budget, and said that there are details that need to be worked out. <br /><br />I find the reimbursement issue an interesting one – it is the same one the library is concerned with regarding their overdue fines. Certainly it seems fair and reasonable that the entity that took in the money should keep the money – leaving aside the whole can of worms about whether the Clerk’s office should keep passport fees and whether the I.T. department might as well start selling something too – but it also seems irrelevant. Going back to the budget-as-pie analogy, if the slice we are going to cut for the elementary schools is yay big, then where the funds come from that make up that slice hardly matters. We aren’t going to give them their full slice PLUS the reimbursement money – that money is already figured in to their slice. Without the reimbursement money, the slice would be the same size; the funds would just come from other sources. Despite having sat through numerous meetings where the term “revolving fund” is tossed around in relation to this issue, I don’t actually know what that means. If it means that it is separate from the rest of the pie, I don’t think that changes my point. If you would be expecting them to get $X from the revolving fund, then you would reduce the size of their pie slice accordingly. At least that’s how I would expect it to work. I may not agree with Mr. O’Connor too often – an understatement – but he is certainly intelligent and well-informed, so I would want to know his take on this. But not at the 11th hour.<br /><br />Mr. Churchill said that it was odd to be a School Committee member and be in the position of recommending the lowest budget amount. He said it is not a matter of strange priorities but a practical question of where additional money would come from. He said that class size is the main concern and that there are a few places where that is problematic, but he read the averages for classes in each grade in each school which were in the teens and low twenties, and said that these were not the classes of 25-27 students that they had been afraid they might have. He said the override didn’t pass and that left no viable source for additional funds. <br /><br />Mr. Kusner said that the Select Board had no official position on the amendments but that he would urge support for a higher number, saying that elementary education is one of the most crucial things we do as a society. <br /><br />A member asked how the different proposals would impact the schools. The Superintendent said that for budgeting purposes, they use an average of $50,000 per teacher, so the different proposals would provide for a couple of new teachers. He said that based on analysis of the numbers Mr. Churchill had cited, the priority for placing teachers would be determined. But he said that it wasn’t as easy as looking at the simple class size number. He said it is rare that a class has all its students all day long because children with different needs and abilities work with specialists for some lessons.<br /><br />One member talked about MCAS issues at Crocker Farm and how cuts at the elementary level mean more needs aren’t being met, and that the problems for those students will get worse as they advance to higher grades. Another spoke about the need to focus personnel on those working directly with students, how Amherst’s SPED money could support a paraprofessional for each student, and how the State and Federal mandates and their required paperwork need to be addressed because they negatively impact the system. Elaine Brighty of the School Committee, agreed about the mandate and paperwork problems, and said that the priority <em>is</em> the adults working with children, and that one paraprofessional per special ed student wouldn’t address all needs – some kids need multiple specialists.<br /><br />There were questions about whether more money would be spent on staffing if it were voted (probably,) whether those making amendments have to identify the source of funds (no, but it’s helpful,) about the status of projected town and school reserves (around $4.2M for the town and more detail to follow on the schools,) and what class size goals are (the targets are 22 for K-2nd, 23 for 3rd and 4th, and 24 for 5th and 6th grades.) <br /><br />Brian Morton of the FinCom presented another great graph of historical and projected reserves, reserve usage, State aid and bonding level recommendations. This is always interesting and he explains it very well. <br /><br />A member suggested that an override or reserves were not the only options for finding new revenues: cuts could be made from other parts of the budget, such as the capital plan. Ms. Carlozzi said that capital spending has been diminished and diverted for several years and that it is important to maintain a balance between the services we provide and the equipment and facilities we need to support them.<br /><br />The question was called and then we came to a vote, starting with the highest amount first. The 3% Mudgett amendment failed decisively; the 2% Romero amendment failed decisively; the reimbursement-based O’Connor amendment failed somewhat less decisively, but a tally vote was called for, confirming the defeat: 55 Yes to 141 No. I voted No.<br /><br />The subsequent voice vote for the 1% Finance Committee recommendation – $19,456,715 – was nearly unanimous with the typical smattering of Nos.<br /><br />On to the Regional School budget.<br /><br />This one boils down to the 3% recommendation from the Regional School Committee –which all legal sources agree that Amherst is going to have to pay regardless of how we vote, because it has already been agreed to by the three other towns in the region – versus the Finance Committee’s 2% recommendation, which is both a last-gasp hope for a reprieve and intended to make a statement to the other towns that Amherst is in tough financial shape. Ms. Carlozzi said that she doesn’t think anything is likely to change with the other towns and that it is expected that we will have to pay the 3%. <br /><br />I just can’t bear to summarize again details related to the whole three-out-of-four towns thing or the iterations of the interpreting the revised statute. Feel free to consult a couple of previous blog entries and multiple <a href="http://inamherst.com/blog-mt/mt-search.fcgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=recap"><strong><em>SB recaps</em></strong></a> if you want or need more info on that. <br /><br />Other than that stuff…<br /><br />Ms. Brighty said the regional budget is very different than the elementary budget, which is mostly made up of people. She said the region has capital, facility and transportation costs, as well as the costs of paying tuition of students from Amherst who attend other schools (the elementary budget has that too, but less.) She said that the cost of paying tuition for students attending charter schools is expected to be more than $500,000 in FY08. <br /><br />Mr. Weiss said that the Select Board had supported the 3% recommendation 3-2, and that he had proposed a compromise to the Regional SC that morning, whereby Amherst would pay 2% and that the additional 1% would come from the Region’s E&D funds, but that there had been no agreement on the proposal. <br /><br />Ms. Brighty explained that E&D stands for excess and deficiency, and that those funds are not supposed to be less than 3.5% of the budget and would be preferred to be at 5%. She said that the region doesn’t have a town’s reserve fund to tap for a new boiler or to fix a roof leak or to cover higher-than-anticipated bills – these types of expenses are covered by E&D money. She said that what that total would be at the end of this fiscal year is uncertain because the revenues and expenses need to be reconciled. In response to other questions, she said that the amount of E&D would affect bonding for borrowing, and that that fund has been drained in recent years to pay bills. <br /><br />Dr. Hochman said that the Regional SC members had been reluctant to consent to using E&D money as a last resort to eliminate the second study hall, so while he couldn’t speak for them, he wasn’t optimistic that they would accept its use for Mr. Weiss’ proposal. In response to a member’s question, he explained the Pelham Town Meeting situation which some seem to believe suggests that they might stray from the 3%. He said that in early May, Pelham TM had overwhelmingly approved both the per-pupil assessment method and the 3% budget. He said there were a couple of issues about their elementary school budget, but that that had also ultimately passed overwhelmingly. He said they will reconvene on June 13th to complete their work and vote on the entire budget again.<br /><br />A member wanted clarification on what the E&D amount is currently, having recently heard $1.3M and $1.5M, and the suggestion that they might be 3.5% of the school budget, which he said would equal $977,000. Ms. Brighty said that it is a moving target, but that best estimates are $1.3M to $1.5M.<br /><br />Ms. Brighty talked about how much fixed costs had increased since FY05, particularly health insurance and utilities, and the significant cuts that had been made.<br /><br />Ms. Carlozzi said that the region is a separate legal entity and can’t be told what to do, but that Town Meeting can advise. She said that if the 3% is pursued, we will pay it because we have to, and that the FinCom is reluctantly willing to take that money from reserves, but is not willing to use reserves for any other overages. <br /><br />Mr. Weiss reiterated the Select Board’s mixed vote to support the 3% recommendation, and said that the region’s E&D money was well above the 3.5% that is required.<br /><br />A member asked what would happen if Amherst rejected the 3% – would it require a new Town Meeting vote? Ms. Carlozzi said that no further action would be needed – Amherst would have to pay and would pay.<br /><br />So it was time to vote, and the larger Regional SC amount was first. A tally vote was called for, and that amount was rejected, 76 Yes and 114 No. I voted Yes.<br /><br />This was a little tough. I obviously favor the Finance Committee recommendations, and I am firm in my “no override this year/no use of reserves” stance. But the regional agreement trumps that which is in Amherst’s individual financial interest. What good is an agreement if you are only going to go along with it when it works to your advantage? If Amherst, as the much larger town, is going to lord its weight over the smaller towns, then we’ve abandoned fairness for might. Not only is that yucky on the face of it, but it could really derail the important cooperative relationship that enables the region to function effectively.<br /><br />And support of the 2% FinCom recommendation is largely symbolic.<br /><br />So I voted for the Regional School Committee’s 3% amount, and once that failed, I voted for the Finance Committee’s 2% amount. And with that, and with none of the histrionics I had expected from this discussion, the school budgets are now blessedly done. I hope.<br /></span>Stephanie O'Keeffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139345960579356043noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-47656715092867893892007-06-02T15:07:00.000-04:002007-06-02T22:20:30.393-04:00Inching forward, ever so slowlyThe previous post was a mere snippet of the meeting, evocative though it was. This one is the whole enchilada.<br /><span id="fullpost" class='fold'><br />First up, Jim Chumbley moved to reconsider Article 16 – approval of the regional school assessment formula. He said that the new information regarding the Department of Education’s interpretation of the revised statute necessitated reconsideration. He said that the original vote had taken place with the understanding that Town Meeting would get to express its opinions on the regional school budget directly, and didn’t need to use Article 16 as leverage. He said the reasons to reconsider were to reassure that all voices were heard on the matter, to confirm that the action has its intended consequences – which he would do by moving to resume discussion and vote again at the end of the budget, and to communicate with the other towns in the region to make them understand the seriousness of Amherst’s structural deficit.<br /><br />The Moderator talked about the technicalities of reconsideration – only someone absent or voting with the majority could move to reconsider; reconsideration puts the body back to the point in time and discussion right before the original vote was taken; and a vote can only be reconsidered once, so it was then or never.<br /><br />Elaine Brighty, Chair of the Regional School Committee said that one might choose to reconsider for two reasons: on the merits of the article or based on new information. She said the merits of the article didn’t lend themselves to reconsideration because the per pupil assessment method is the most fair option and took much work to achieve. She said the new information amounts to the law being unchanged – approval of the budget by three out of the four towns is binding. She said the Regional School Committee has never voted anything other than a 3% budget, but had considered options for eliminating the second study hall requirement when a 1% budget seemed likely. She said she hoped any new discussion would be on the merits of the article and not on the possibility of using lack of approval as a way to pressure the other towns.<br /><br />Alice Carlozzi, Chair of the Finance Committee, said that body had no position on reconsideration, but maintained its original position in support of the article. She said that this had been confusing, and that some people may feel frustrated. She said that no one was to blame for the situation and emphasized that other towns in the region had been in the same situation of being bound by a budget they did not want but that the other towns had approved. She said that the fact that it is now Amherst’s turn to be in that position isn’t really so shocking, and that it would be a bad thing to mess with the assessment, considering the history of cooperation among the towns.<br /><br />Gerry Weiss, Chair of the Select Board, said that he had spoken in support of the previous vote being a pro forma one, and had recommended that people support Article 16 in good conscience, knowing that they could address the budget later. He said that while the circumstances are now different, he still recommended that the article be supported.<br /><br />A member asked a question about the implications to other towns if we were to reconsider and reject Article 16. Ms. Brighty said their school committees would take it up again, and they would probably have to reconvene their Town Meetings. She said that with teacher contracts in place, and the possibility of creating a different assessment formula that would require towns to fund contracts they couldn’t afford, chaos would result.<br /><br />In one of the most clear and persuasive opinions I have yet witnessed at Town Meeting, Jim Pistrang spoke against reconsideration, and compared the situation with his experience coaching the self-officiated sport of ultimate Frisbee. He said that if you step out of bounds, you need to call that, even if no one else saw you do it, and said that was easy when you have a big lead, but much harder in a tie game when the stakes are high. He said that the main issue with Article 16 was fairness, and that financial implications were secondary. He said that had been an easy call to make when we thought we could affect the budget later, but that now that we can’t, and now that we have to deal with the financial implications, it is as though our game is tied, and we still need to make the call based on fairness.<br /><br />There was a question about Town Counsel’s opinion. Town Manager Larry Shaffer said that he agreed that all four towns had to approve the assessment formula and three out of four had to approve the budget. He said that although Pelham had voted on the budget already, they would be considering a Special Town Meeting warrant article about the situation shortly.<br /><br />A member pointed out that last year two of the towns had contributed money to help pay Amherst’s share of the assessment to ease the transition to the new formula, and that the amount they contributed was pretty close to the amount a 2% assessment would cost us this year. He said that discussion of the budget would be a sham without the assessment formula agreed to, and said that the difficulties of the situation would be compounded if we don’t stick with the previous vote.<br /><br />Another member said that he supported Jim Pistrang’s position, but also supported reconsideration. He said that there was enough uncertainty to warrant reconsideration, but said that instead of deferring the new vote, we should address it immediately and not use it as a pressure tactic. He said we should confirm our original vote on the fair option – approving the per-pupil assessment formula.<br /><br />So then it was time to vote. And I voted in favor of reconsideration.<br /><br />I am absolutely unequivocally in support of the current assessment formula and I am deeply offended by the idea of using it to blackmail the other towns to lower their budget. I know that sentiment is out there, and I know that if the article were to be reconsidered, that would be a risk. But I also think that Town Meeting can only function, such as it does, if everyone feels that the process is fair. If some critical mass of members was feeling that they were tricked or forced into the original Article 16 vote, then that could have a poisonous effect going forward. So I was voting for the integrity of the process, and hoping to reaffirm and strengthen the original vote.<br /><br />A couple of months ago, when the Select Board was considering its options regarding putting an override question or questions on the ballot, a similar thing happened. After having first voted <em>against</em> two override amounts on the ballot, they then voted <em>for</em> two amounts, following a confusing and convoluted discussion about the smaller amount and whether it was simply a number or a half-baked plan. It was immediately clear that not everyone completely understood or supported what four of them had just voted for. Anne Awad was SB Chair at the time, and had favored two amounts. She knew that reconsidering that vote was all but certain to reverse that outcome. But she did it anyway. I was really impressed by that.<br /><br />Anyway, I voted for reconsideration, but I was in the minority. The motion to reconsider failed.<br /><br />Next up: Planning, Conservation and Inspections. The main issue here was that the Select Board was recommending an additional $12,000 for seasonal staff for Puffer’s Pond and its trail maintenance.<br /><br />The Finance Committee said they had voted at one point to support that extra $12,000, but the new reality of needing to fund the looming regional assessment obligation had them supporting the lower amount instead.<br /><br />David Ziomek, Conservation Director, said that the Conservation Department has one full-time land manager and one part-time assistant land manager to cover all the Town’s conservation lands and trails. He said seasonal staff addresses the needs of the Puffer’s Pond area at peak summer crowd time.<br /><br />There were a couple of questions regarding the specifics of the budget numbers and the Town’s liability at Puffer’s.<br /><br />A member asked about cutting an inspection position and the wisdom of doing that in light of complaints about inspections and permitting from the business community. Mr. Shaffer said that this position had been hard to fill anyway because of the salary attached to it, and said that many improvements are being made to the inspection process. He said the issue is not one of how many inspectors the Town has, but how they provide that service.<br /><br />Someone asked if the Town could charge fees for inspections to take some of the burden off tax payers. Good idea – such a good idea, in fact, that we already do, and those fees surpass that department’s expenditures.<br /><br />Once the Select Board formally offered their amendment for the extra $12K, some earlier points were reiterated. One TM member said that the $100,000 general government cut that is being redistributed, including for this proposal, shouldn’t be used for the schools because it is part of the original budget and should be used for regular budget items. He said that the regional assessment money should come from reserves.<br /><br />Another member stressed fiscal restraint and said that there were enough bad cuts in a 1% budget to provide stuff for everyone to hate. He suggested that the $100K was being treated like found money and he didn’t think that was reason to stray from the 1% budget. He said he questioned the priorities after last week’s line painting recommendation. He said that we should stick with the 1% recommendations or risk dipping into reserves for much bigger sums.<br /><br />Mr. Weiss said the Select Board did not stray from a 1% budget. He said that it is the policy making body and that the recommendations represent the Select Board’s best guess on policy based on feedback from the community.<br /><br />A member said he had originally agreed that the amendments were a question of different ways of dividing up the same money, but said that the regional assessment issue changes that because now more money is needed. He said that any of these additions increase the amount that will ultimately need to be taken from the reserves.<br /><br />Alisa Brewer said she had originally supported the Select Board’s recommendation for this $12K but due to the regional assessment situation, she no longer supports it.<br /><br />Mr. Weiss said that the key issue with using the $100K for the regional assessment is that it means taking money from the Town budget to give it to the schools.<br /><br />A member asked if the $12K were approved, would the money necessarily fund the Puffer’s Pond position, or might the Town Manager use the money elsewhere. Mr. Shaffer said that he would be mindful of the Town Meeting vote, but would have to assess the priorities when the entire appropriation process is complete and all the figures are known. He said he would retain the power to move money around as needed.<br /><br />Someone asked about the implications for this year and future years of not having that staffing. Mr. Ziomek said that the trails at Puffer’s Pond are being “loved to death” and that the area was not designed to accommodate the volume it has now. He said that the cliffs are a particular problem and that when people are doing stuff there that they aren’t supposed to, he calls the police to take care of it.<br /><br />A member spoke to it being inefficient to use expensive highly-trained police officers to deal with issues that seasonal staff – typically college students – could do very cheaply instead. Regarding Mr. Weiss’ point, he said that shifting money between the Town and the schools would undermine future budgets and make people not trust the budget process.<br /><br />The vote on this extra $12K went to a tally: 78 Yes, 113 No. I voted No. The subsequent vote on the lower FinCom amount was nearly unanimous.<br /><br />Community Services. To help with the nomenclature issues of the Community Services budget versus the Community Services line item, we temporarily renamed the line item “human services funding,” which is still a little confusing because it includes not just the money for human service agencies but also a portion of the salary for the Community Services Director. And because all of the Community Service items are individual mini-dramas, (human services funding, LSSE, the pools) we will deal with each separately.<br /><br />Andy Steinberg spoke to the Finance Committee’s recommendation, the details of which are available in the <strong><em><a href="http://www.amherstma.gov/PDFs/FY_08_Finance_Committee_Report.pdf">FinCom Report</a></em></strong>. He said that it is not a budget that would be recommended if more money were available. Regarding funds for human service agencies, he said it was a practice that started when the Town had more money; that other towns don’t do this; and that the practice is not akin to the State contracting for services it needs to provide to its citizens, but is more like a foundation providing grants. He said that the amount spent here affects the amount that will be available for the upcoming consideration of schools and libraries. He said that just like individuals can’t respond to every envelope or phone call seeking charitable donations, the Town can’t either, and that under the current financial situation, the proposed $25,000 for that purpose is generous and responsible.<br /><br />Mr. Weiss said that number represents an 82% cut to last year’s funding amount and isn’t fair. He said it impacts the most vulnerable residents and that this funding should be considered one of the main things Amherst does, not an extra. He talked about how the Federal and State government cuts have already hurt these vulnerable populations. He said the extra $41,000 that the Select Board was recommending was also a pitiful funding amount, but that it was the best that they could do.<br /><br />Isaac BenEzra then offered his recommendation for an extra $117,387, which represents full funding at last year’s level plus 1%. With seven extra minutes granted, he then used his time to let the chair of the Community Development Committee and reps from the affected agencies speak.<br /><br />With all due respect, I think this kind of thing is a complete waste of time. Everyone spoke about what important work they are doing and how important the Town’s money is to them.<br /><br />Well, <em>duh!<br /></em><br />The work being done by these agencies – and so many other agencies not included in the Town’s human service funding – is crucial to society, locally and on a much larger scale. What they accomplish with the resources they have available warms your heart and blows your mind. To me, that is a given. And entirely beside the point.<br /><br />So what to make of the intent and effect of this parade of virtue? Was it really meant to persuade people that these agencies are doing good work? Had there been any doubt of that? Worse, were there some Town Meeting members who actually experienced eureka moments and decided to support more money for the agencies because they were <strong>now</strong> convinced of their worthiness? As in, “<em>I didn’t know the Survival Center was really helping people! Now I’ll support more money for them!”</em> Or “<em>Wow, now I realize the importance of the English language program at Center for New Americans – let’s give them more money!</em>”<br /><br />That almost certainly happened, and was almost certainly the goal. That is depressing for so many reasons. It means that some Town Meeting members don’t realize or appreciate what these agencies are doing. It means that some Town Meeting members don’t recognize the need to which the agencies are responding. And it means that people elected to make informed and careful decisions are instead voting based on a last-minute whim.<br /><br />Don’t misunderstand me. I am not talking about people who fervently believe that this is an area where the Town should be spending money regardless of our budget situation. That is a wholly defensible position, one with which I respectfully disagree. We can assume that those folks needed no persuading by the agency presentations. We can also assume that the people like me who fervently believe that this is not an area in which the Town can afford to be more generous this year were similarly unaffected by the presentations.<br /><br />So who is left? Undecideds who either: a) made their decision based on the “new information” that these agencies really are doing important work; and b) worse, made their decision based on finding the presentations “unworthy” of support. If there are a lot of such undecideds, Town Meeting is in big trouble. If there are a few, then that is why I find such presentations to be a waste of time.<br /><br />It is exactly the same as the grandstanding that happens with other budget areas like public safety, public transportation or the schools. If Town Meeting members need to be convinced of the value of such expenditures with heartwarming or heart-wrenching tales, then we are doomed. Soon our budget will be determined not by economic prudence or fiscal necessity but by which budget area has the best drama coach.<br /><br />That long aside sums up how the rest of the discussion went. The Community Development Committee also presented its recommendation, which was about half way between that of the Select Board and Mr. BenEzra, adding $88,973 to the Finance Committee’s recommendation. More people chimed in, sometimes eloquently, about why we should or shouldn’t support the different amounts. And eventually we voted. The Select Board’s recommendation prevailed, and I voted against all the amendments and for the Finance Committee’s recommendation.<br /><br />In my <strong><em><a href="http://stephanietownmeeting.blogspot.com/2007/06/debate-and-debase.html">previous post</a></em></strong> I elaborated on my wacky tally vote encounter. Thanks to all who commented or e-mailed about that. I keep wondering what that might have meant. Was it an attempt to strong-arm my vote? Was it meant to insult or challenge me personally? Was it simply a spontaneous inappropriate remark? We’ll never know. I wonder if she realized that she was targeting someone who transcribes and blogs about the proceedings.<br /><br />Town Meeting is now crawling along at a glacial pace. We finished Thursday just before 11:00, and we reconvene Monday, June 4th. With the schools. Good grief.<br /></span>Stephanie O'Keeffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139345960579356043noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-72466290995817246052007-06-01T02:46:00.000-04:002007-06-01T14:58:55.167-04:00Debate and debaseI think I would choose a night of foreign policy articles over the human services funding.<br /><br />The low point of my evening: when a respected member of multiple major town committees came up behind me – I was sitting in the back row – as I was handing in my “No” tally vote card on the first amended amount. She leaned over and said “How long before you’re poor?”<br /><span id="fullpost" class='fold'><br />That’s what these kinds of issues do to people.<br /><br />First of all, <em>Huh?</em> That’s not a discussion – that’s a taunt. Just what we need more of in Town Meeting.<br /><br />Secondly, and most disturbing, is the idea of voting on something simply as it relates to each of us individually. Does she really mean to suggest that I oppose that funding because I happen to be fortunate enough to not need the services of these agencies? Does that mean that is the basis on which she and others make their votes? If that is true, it does not bode well for Town Meeting.<br /><br />But going along with that theory sure would simplify my life.<br /><br />Let’s see. I don’t have any kids, so forget those big bucks for the schools. Police and Fire – well, better safe than sorry. Cherry Hill – yeah, right. LSSE – I have paid for that pottery class many times over. Pools – I don’t think so. Farmland preservation – as long as it’s just for raising vegetables, but not for animals that will be eaten. DPW – what have you done for me lately? Public transportation – I walk. Libraries – I do like those… <br /><br />That would be a frighteningly negligent way to make decisions. I’ll assume – or hope – that the great majority of the body doesn’t determine its votes like that. But when people allow themselves to get so emotional about the concept of the funding instead of the practicality, the feasibility and the details, then you get this kind of blinding pathos. We see this over and over, where a topic becomes a line in the sand – if you oppose funding a low-ridership bus route, then you don’t support public transportation. If you opposed the override, then you don’t support the schools. If you don’t support funding the human service agencies, then you are cold and heartless. Et cetera. It’s either/or.<br /><br />During a tally vote, I overheard one member say to another “We need to educate these people. There are a lot of yuppies here.” <br /><br />More interesting points to ponder. Are you allowed to be classist in one direction but not the other? Imagine the opposite of that sentiment. Would that be OK? And why does anyone think a No vote is disrespecting the agencies or denying the need in our community? Did a single person say anything remotely like that in opposition to the amendments? Of course not. <br /><br />It’s tiresome really. We are dealing with an issue on which reasonable people can disagree – there is no right or wrong answer. Different people draw their priority lines differently – and often, just barely so. When such specifics are abandoned for moralizing and platitudes, intelligent discussion is lost.<br /><br />But I guess that only matters if intelligent discussion had been a goal in the first place.<br /><br />I supported the Finance Committee’s recommendation on the human services funding and I opposed all the amendments. Isaac BenEzra’s amendment to increase the Finance Committee’s $25,000 recommendation by $117,387 failed in a tally vote of 70 to 110. The Community Development Committee’s amendment to add $88,873 to the FinCom amount failed in a tally vote of 75 to 102. The Select Board’s recommendation to add $41,000 passed in a tally vote of 114 to 63. <br /><br />More happened at this meeting, but I’ll deal with it in another post. Had to work through this annoyance tonight so that my weary brain could sleep.<br /></span>Stephanie O'Keeffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139345960579356043noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-85867063049030834782007-05-24T16:16:00.000-04:002007-05-24T23:06:22.379-04:00A matter of prioritiesNo time for the whole play-by-play, so we’re just hitting the highlights here.<br /><span id="fullpost" class='fold'><br />From the Moderator: TMCC election winners: Harry Brooks, Carol Gray, and Judy Simpson. Also: with the close margin for Monday’s tally vote, which had first appeared to be 95 to 98 and later turned out to be 97 to 98, recounts will now be automatic when the count is so close – within 5% or so.<br /><br />A procedural motion was approved to consider the Elementary and Regional School budgets on June 4th because the Superintendent won’t be available next Thursday. As if we’d get to that part Thursday.<br /><br />Public Safety. Kay Moran of the Finance Committee moved to appropriate $7,891,970, of which $6,386,180 would come from taxation and $1,505,790 would come from ambulance receipts. She spoke to how tough it was to recommend a budget with so many cuts, particularly the loss of the two police officer positions that were added two years ago, reducing that staff from 50 to 48. She said the new Mutual Aid Agreement with UMass was a good thing, but wouldn’t solve the problem of being understaffed, especially on busy nights when both departments have their hands full at the same time. She said that all five firefighter positions funded with the SAFER grant were expected to be kept, and explained that UMass currently pays about $80,000 for fire services, about $180,000 for ambulance services which are figured on some kind of per student basis, and $160,000 payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) from the State. She said that even before the recently announced administrative changes at UMass, the Finance Committee wasn’t counting on new money there.<br /><br />The Select Board supported the Finance Committee’s recommendation. <br /><br />There were also two amendments to the Finance Committee’s recommendation. Stan Gawle recommended $8,042,046, for about an additional $150,000, with that extra money coming from the capital budget. Eva Schiffer recommended $7,991,970, with the extra $100,000 coming from the $100,000 that had been cut from general government on Monday. These amendments came up later, but since I’m trying to streamline this summary, I’m putting them out there now.<br /><br />The Chief said he had been on the Amherst Police force almost 38 years, and been Chief for the last 8 years. He spoke of his early priorities to have the department accredited, which means that every rule and action is written down so people are held accountable; and to put the department in the forefront of racial profiling awareness, which he also accomplished. He spoke of all the cuts the department has had to bear in the last couple of years, particularly to the valuable community policing programs. He said the loss of two officers would affect the busy 7:00 p.m. – 3:00 a.m. “band-aid” shift that he employs on busy weekends, as well as the day shift, which will likely drop from three to two officers on duty. He said that would leave one officer to respond to nuisance calls and the other dedicated to emergency calls, and said that arrangement could lead to situations where no officer is available to respond to a call. He also addressed the illogical nonsense that keeps being repeated about the force always being a couple members short due to officers being in training or injured, and how that proves they can absorb a staff cut. Um, because if there are fewer officers, that won’t happen anymore? I would love to have this “reasoning” explained. No doubt it would fall into the latter half of the “dazzle them with brilliance or baffle them with _____” option. <br /><br />In response to questions, the Chief gave special recognition to Rick Fuller, the Police Station’s solo maintenance and custodial person, whose responsibilities had been recommended to be spread among three people, and unsurprisingly requires some overtime; and Carol Hepburn, the Animal Welfare Officer, who has expanded the position dramatically beyond the mandated dog officer duties and refuses to put in for overtime. <br /><br />The discussion on public safety followed the predictable path. We got the dual perennial complaints about the colleges not paying the Town enough and the Town not utilizing the colleges’ police enough. And this doozy: the threats in Amherst aren’t as bad as they are being portrayed because the main thing the Police do is hassle college and high school students about trivial matters. <br /><br />On the other side, people spoke to how great and necessary the police are, what tough jobs they have, how quickly they respond and how understaffed the department is. <br /><br />One member offered suggestions for “thinking outside the box” with how policing happens in the Town and State, and referenced how Maryland uses State Police instead of local police departments, which removes jurisdictional concerns. Another warned of the potential for the Town to be sued – perhaps by him – if something bad happens in the wake of our cutting officers, when YouTube has made us vividly aware of the rampaging student threat. <br /><br />This is basically a pro forma annual discussion where talk of the importance of the Police Department only needs to happen in order to counter Amherst’s weird <em>hippy-hangover, question authority, oppose anything vaguely military</em> bent. In most towns, Public Safety probably doesn’t need to be justified, and the necessity of police officers probably goes without saying. But this is not most towns. <br /><br />When we got to the vote, the extra $150K amendment with funds taken from capital was soundly defeated and I voted No. The amendment to add the $100,000 cut from general government, with the reasoning that it was next in line on the Town Manager’s priority list, went to a tally vote, which was defeated, 60 Yes, 133 No. I voted Yes. I didn’t feel strongly about this. Basically, I’m supporting the Finance Committee’s recommendations, but that extra $100K has to go somewhere, and to me, there are only three reasonable options: Public Safety, the regional assessment or reserves. So I would just as soon take it off the table now before people start spending it on their own pet priorities. Alas.<br /><br />So the Finance Committee’s recommendation of $7,891,970 was the third vote, and it was approved overwhelmingly, and I voted Yes.<br /><br />Then we got to the highlight of the evening. I don’t think the points I made in the <a href="http://stephanietownmeeting.blogspot.com/2007/05/fussbudget.html"><strong><em>Fussbudget</em></strong> </a>post could have been more vividly illustrated.<br /><br />Yes, the Public Works budget. <br /><br />Doug Slaughter of the Finance Committee moved to appropriate $1,690,501. He noted that this was a reduction of 2.7% from FY07 and included five fewer full-time-equivalent staff positions. <br /><br />Anne Awad of the Select Board said that that body would be recommending that an additional $10,000 be added to that figure to fund line painting.<br /><br />And that’s really where things got interesting.<br /><br />There were a few questions about snow and ice and this and that, but then someone asked about the line painting that was clearly being done already.<br /><br />DPW Superintendent Guilford Mooring said that all the center lines had been done and that the edge lines were almost done, and that 8-10 crosswalks were getting painted each night. He said little painting was done last year due to a contract snafu with the company that handles the center and edge lines. But now – yep, pretty much taken care of.<br /><br />Gerry Weiss noted that this was a little embarrassing for the Select Board, and said they were told that there would be no painting without the extra $10,000. <br /><br />Mr. Mooring, in his exceedingly earnest and honest manner, said that there were probably better places to put that $10,000 than the Public Works budget, and noted that his budget was tight and he could use the money, but that line painting wasn’t his top priority. His top priority was labor.<br /><br />It wasn’t his top priority. Imagine. The guy who runs the department had a handle on how the line painting thing was going, and had other more pressing needs. <br /><br />Lesson: If you believe more DPW service is needed, you should look to increase that budget, but not decide how it should be spent. Knowing and prioritizing the departmental needs is what managers are for. If you don’t agree with how they do that, that would be a performance issue, not a budget issue.<br /><br />This is why I oppose all the Select Board budget recommendations, and similar arbitrary amendments. I think that kind of interference disrespects the process of creating the budget, and the staff whose job it is to know and manage their individual areas of responsibility. <br /><br />So I object to the Select Board having taken this tack at all, but this particular faux pas wasn’t their fault. At the April 9th Select Board meeting, the members were championing their personal favorite restorations for funding in case the override were to pass. (Only Ms. Greeney had the good sense to not indulge herself that way.) When the subject of line painting was raised, and it was specifically asked if that might be done quickly with unspent snow money, the Town Manager said that he had corresponded by e-mail with Mr. Mooring, and said that between FY07 and FY08 funds, “We have sufficient money to do the line painting.” At the May 14th meeting, where the Board was formulating its 1% budget recommendations and that was inquired about again, Mr. Shaffer said “We need the appropriation to achieve that.” When Mr. Weiss asked for clarification, Mr. Shaffer said “We need the additional funds.” <br /><br />I don’t really know what to make of that. I do know that Guilford Mooring’s candor cost him ten thousand bucks, and I surely hope that was all it cost him. <br /><br />Ultimately, the Select Board did not offer its amendment, and the Finance Committee’s recommended appropriation of $1,690,501 passed overwhelmingly. <br /><br />We adjourned just after 10:00 p.m. I hope somebody bought Guilford a beer.<br /></span>Stephanie O'Keeffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139345960579356043noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-34046054808630176632007-05-22T17:13:00.000-04:002007-05-22T20:25:51.888-04:00Budgeting our timeThings got underway late, you know, what with the bomb scare and all.<br /><br />You didn’t hear about that?<br /><span class="fold" id="fullpost"><br />Apparently, at the end of the school day, there was some kind of bomb report/rumor at the Middle School, and such things aren’t taken lightly these days. Emergency people were still checking the building when I arrived a little before 6:30 for the Select Board meeting. Things got cleared up in time for that meeting to start at 6:45, without any ACTV as there was no time to set that up. Kudos to Sean Kinlin and his crew and the Town IT folks and whomever else is part of making the Town Meeting broadcast happen, because they had to cram those arrangements into a much-condensed time last night.<br /><br />So Town Meeting got underway at 7:50. I don't actually know that the residual effects of that incident contributed to the late start, but I couldn't resist it as a juicy blog intro.<br /><br />The Moderator started with announcements: <strong><em><a href="http://www.amherstma.gov/departments/Town_Clerk/town_meeting/warrantsandresults/050707_Additional_info/tmcc_elecion_results.pdf">TMCC voting</a></em></strong> was taking place at the rear of the auditorium, members should sign up for the TMCC mailing list (send an e-mail to <a href="mailto:TMCC@amherstma.gov">TMCC@amherstma.gov</a> to do so) and then recognized School Superintendent Jere Hochman for an announcement.<br /><br />This poor guy. Just when you think the other shoe has dropped, the schools sprout another foot.<br /><br />So sure enough, Dr. Hochman explains that the infamous change to the State law about all towns in a region now needing to approve the regional schools’ budget rather than the 2/3 majority previously required – mmm yeah, not so sure about that any more. The Department of Education says the rule change wasn’t meant to have the new interpretation. Town Counsel is trying to reach the DoE Counsel, and what happens next is anyone’s guess. Stayed tuned for Wednesday, when we find out that Leverett never officially became part of the region, and that Hadley is staging a hostile takeover bid for the High School. Glad I’m not on the School Committee.<br /><br />It was then time to start the budget. Except that it wasn’t, because the Select Board wanted to meet with the Moderator somewhere behind the curtain, so we took a ten minute break. As a faithful scribe of Select Board meetings, I had a fleeting notion to go back there to see what that was all about, but frankly, you just don’t pay me enough for that. However, if anyone who was part of that pow-wow would like to fill the rest of us in, we’d be most appreciative.<br /><br />So the Red Sox game was projected on the auditorium screen instead (YAY!!!) where the Yankees were killing Wakefield, and we were down 0-4 (BOO!!!) It was just that kind of a night.<br /><br />When the meeting resumed, Gerry Weiss, Select Board Chair, talked about the many hours the Select Board had spent considering the budget details and how their recommendations differ from those of the Finance Committee by a small amount, and that those changes total 7/10ths of 1% of the general fund budget. He said that Town Meeting was facing several choices – to accept the Town Manager’s/Finance Committee’s budget, to accept the budget with the Select Board’s small modifications, to increase the budget as Town Meeting sees fit with such increases contingent on an override, or to have a rancorous debate about making further cuts to one area in order to add that money somewhere else. He urged no further cuts.<br /><br />Alice Carlozzi, Finance Committee Chair, gave a long statement about the need for a multi-year financial plan and how the FY08 budget will be the foundation of that, and how this will be a transition year. She urged adopting a 1% budget with no use of reserves, with the possible exception of the regional school assessment, once that situation gets clarified. She said that some people doubt that a multi-year plan can succeed, but she believes it can because all parties are working for the good of the town. She said the reserves must be safeguarded for emergencies, to protect the bond rating and so that necessary funds are available when the next inevitable economic downturn happens. She stressed the importance of not reducing the capital spending and said that we had strayed far enough already from the goal of dedicating 10% of the levy for that purpose. She said that the Finance Committee disagrees with the Select Board’s cut to General Government funding and the redistribution of that money to Public Works, Conservation, and Community Services, and said the FinCom also doesn’t support the SB’s and Library’s recommendation that the Libraries keep $19,000 in overdue fines that have previously gone into the general fund. She said the FinCom expects Town Meeting to make amendments and respects its right to do so, but urged restraint.<br /><br />Brian Morton of the Finance Committee gave a presentation about historic growth and depletion of reserves, and capital spending trends. It was tough for me to pay attention to this and take sufficient notes to summarize it. I hope he and Alice might make their presentations available on the Town web site.<br /><br />Here’s my inadequate summary: our reserves are at their lowest point in 13 years, supplemental lottery aid is not available to help grow them, appropriating money into them isn’t looking too likely, and all that makes the prospect of taking additional money from them even more dire. They had been allowed to grow significantly during good times, they were vital for cushioning the blow during bad times, and now that we’re no longer in bad times and State aid is increasing we can’t keep using them or the next bad time will be a disaster. He said that recessions tend to happen once every ten years and that we are well into that cycle now and unprepared. He said reserves had once totaled 62% of State aid but were now at 18%, and he talked about Moody’s downgrading the Town’s bond rating if reserves fall below 5% of general fund revenue. He talked about capital spending and how 10% of the levy had been the goal, but we’re now budgeted for only 7% for FY08, an amount he called dangerously low. He talked about how costly it was in financial and service terms the last time capital spending was reduced and delayed in the early 90s, and an override was needed to replace a fire truck. He said that delayed capital spending is an override waiting to happen.<br /><br />The Moderator said that Town Meeting’s desire to comment and ask questions on each budget line and the body’s ability to amend the different amounts tended to get in the way of each other, and that he wanted to preserve both. He created a new procedure for how budget amendments would work, in order to accomplish that. I won’t summarize the procedure, but it’s available <strong><em><a href="http://www.amherstma.gov/departments/Town_Clerk/town_meeting/warrantsandresults/050707_Additional_info/A_Message_from_the_Moderator.pdf">here</a></em></strong>.<br /><br />Two members spoke to how they felt the new procedure violated the rules of Town Meeting. It felt more like they were reacting to some kind of perceived bias the new procedure might impart, and I can’t even fathom a way that could happen. We do see this kind of paranoia about the Moderator every so often.<br /><br />After the various objections had been duly noted, the Finance Committee made its recommendation – $5,855,139 for general government. Kay Moran of the Finance Committee talked about the various departments and responsibilities that fall under this budget category, and rather than summarize it all, I refer you to page 21 of the <strong><em><a href="http://www.amherstma.gov/PDFs/FY_08_Finance_Committee_Report.pdf">Finance Committee Report</a></em></strong>. She noted that the FinCom had voted 7-0 to stick with this recommendation rather than adopting the Select Board’s recommendation to reduce funding to this area by $100,000.<br /><br />Gerry Weiss said that the SB’s $100,000 cut was recommended in order to use that money to fund other things, which he said would be discussed in more depth eventually. (Read more about that in the <strong><em><a href="http://www.amherstma.gov/departments/Town_Clerk/town_meeting/warrantsandresults/050707_Additional_info/SELECT_BOARD_BUDGET_RECOMMENDATIONS_for_08%20.pdf">Select Board’s recommendations</a></em></strong>.)<br /><br />A Town Meeting member said everyone had to live within a 1% budget increase except for the funding to the human service agencies, which was cut from $140,000 last year to a proposed $25,000 this year. He said the most vulnerable among us were taking the biggest hit, and that he wanted them to be treated like everyone else.<br /><br />This sounds like a good argument, but it is actually specious. The 1% increase didn’t apply at the departmental or line-item level, but to each of the Town, School and Library budget totals. Many departments had cuts large and small, though none as large percentage-wise as the human services cut.<br /><br />Another member wanted employee benefit costs clarified. Another asked why legal services spending always goes over budget. Town Manager Larry Shaffer said that legal services used to be billed at an hourly rate, but that the RFP for a new Town Counsel seeks fixed rate billing for everything except litigation. He said he was confident this would reduce legal services spending and keep it within budget this year.<br /><br />Someone else asked what the Human Rights department does, and Mr. Shaffer explained that it has previously instituted the policies of the Human Rights Committee and investigated Human Rights complaints. He said it has now been combined with Human Resources, and while the Human Rights Director would continue with her previous responsibilities, her focus would now be on human rights as they apply to hiring and training within the Town.<br /><br />A member asked if funding for an Economic Development Director was included. Mr. Shaffer said no, without the override he would have had to cut other Town positions to make room for that now, which he wasn’t willing to do. He said he hopes bring back a new proposal to fund that next year. Another member asked if the Town Manager had the authority to reassign money for that if he wanted to, and Mr. Shaffer said yes.<br /><br /><em>How many people in the Human Rights/Human Resources Department?</em> Three. <em>Will I.T. spending continue at high levels?</em> Yes. Hwei-Ling Greeney noted that productivity from new technology never seems to result in savings from a decreased workforce, and that cuts to things people care about continue. <em>Why the big reduction in the election budget? </em>Only two elections are scheduled for next year, while there were three this year.<br /><br />Sy Friedman offered an amendment to the General Government budget, seeking to appropriate $5,950,753, with $95,614 of that amount contingent on an override.<br /><br />Someone questioned the ability of Town Meeting to make contingent appropriations, but was assured by a FinCom member and the Finance Director that that ability is explicit through Proposition 2 ½, and detailed in <strong><em><a href="http://www.amherstma.gov/budget/prop2.pdf">this publication</a></em></strong>.<br /><br />Mr. Friedman said he would be offering many similar amendments but would only speak about it once. He said he had only opposed two overrides since becoming a Town Meeting member in 1984, and that he did so both times because he thinks an override prior to Town Meeting usurps the body’s budget powers. He didn’t like the three-year plan that went along with the May 1st override because there was no way to enforce new members of TM or the Select Board to stick with that plan next year or the year after, and he didn’t like that it sought to collect more in taxes than was needed in year one and bank the rest. He said he is willing to have an override to keep Town and School services at a more reasonable 3% level, but wants the override vote to occur after TM. He said his amendments provide for that 3% funding.<br /><br />Gerry Weiss then offered the Select Board’s recommendation that had already been discussed: $5,755,139. He said it was doable, and the Town Manager had agreed to it, and asked Mr. Shaffer to speak to that.<br /><br />The Town Manager said that with expected reductions in legal services spending and collective bargaining progressing as it is, he said he could live within this budget and was happy to recommend it. With that, Gerry removed his heel from Larry’s instep.<br /><br />Oh relax. It’s a joke.<br /><br />Kay Moran reiterated her point about the FinCom sticking with its own recommendation and said its members are skeptical about the Town Manager’s ability to deal with a $100,000 cut to that budget.<br /><br />A couple of people asked about whether Amherst might join the State’s health insurance program. The Town Manager and Finance Director said that every opportunity for flexibility and savings is being considered, and touched on how ongoing collective bargaining negotiations prevent too much from being said on that, and outlined recent cost-saving changes to the Town’s program.<br /><br />Someone asked that recurring question about three-year overrides and one-year overrides and what that all means, and whether you revert to the original levy afterwards. John Musante gave a good explanation of the how the three-year plan would have been funded by the $2.5 million dollar override, but I think the direct answer may have gotten lost in all that detail.<br /><br />In case anyone reading this is still confused by the concept, I would be remiss if I didn’t explain this. The kind of override we’ve been talking about is a permanent increase to the tax levy. If we had approved the $2.5 million override, that amount would be added to the levy and never be removed. The terms “one-year” and “three-year” refer to how long that money is intended to sustain us before another override is needed. A one-year override only raises enough money to get us to next year, and then we’ll either have to make more big cuts or have another override (unless, magic money really does start raining down from the sky, as some are predicting…) and the three-year override was intended to fund its accompanying plan for three years, at which point another override might have been needed – but initiatives to make the plan last beyond three years without an override were a key part of the plan.<br /><br />Back to Town Meeting…<br /><br />A member made a stirring plea to the body to think in terms of what the Town wants as a whole, and not just what each of us want as individuals. She said she can’t afford a house in Amherst but was willing to live in an apartment forever if the budgets requiring high taxes are for the greater good of the town she loves.<br /><br />A member said that if an override were to be held in the summer, much of our electorate is gone during those months, and that would skew the vote. I don’t really know what that means. If that is referring to students, that concept just isn’t supported by the voting data – it’s extraordinary how few people under the age of about 40 are voting at all in Amherst. If it refers to the general non-student population going away on vacation, that is a little questionable to me. Even if a huge percentage of the Town does go away in the summer, it’s not like they’re all gone at the same time. Some tiny subset might be gone for the whole summer, but most people probably go away for a week or two, and those weeks would be spread out. And as Mr. Weiss noted during a Select Board discussion on the topic – people can always vote absentee.<br /><br />A member said the main difference between the Select Board’s and Finance Committee’s recommendations was how the process of budget creation was viewed. He said that a long time is spent trying to estimate as well as possible what amount would be needed for each budget area. He said that making a $100,000 cut to one area on the rationale that its particular budget is big enough to absorb it, in order to redistribute that money to other areas, was a bad practice. And he said of course the Town Manager said he could live within that budget – what else can he say?<br /><br />Mr. Weiss disagreed with the characterization of how the Select Board made the recommended cut and said that things change over the course of the budget process and that the Select Board had discussed with the Town Manager where the money they wanted to spend elsewhere could be found. That isn’t quite how I recall the process, but what do I know?<br /><br />So then the question was called. An angry murmur rippled through the crowd. A couple of people raised points of order about how this procedure didn’t allow for discussion about how that cut money would be redistributed in other parts of the budget, and that people would be voting without that important information. The Moderator said that people certainly could talk about how they wanted such money redistributed.<br /><br />The voice vote on calling the question was considered too close to call, so it went to a standing vote. A two-thirds majority is needed for that motion. The standing vote was 138 Yes and 54 No. I voted No. It seemed to me that some people were clearly upset by the new procedure, and they sure weren’t going to be any happier if they felt that they got railroaded into a vote without adequate discussion. I didn’t share their concerns about the procedure or the adequacy of the discussion, but I was more than willing to have more discussion if that was what they wanted. But the motion passed, so we came to an immediate vote.<br /><br />Because of that wacky “vote the higher number first” thing, we started with Mr. Friedman’s amendment for $5,950,753, with the $95K being contingent on an override. That was defeated pretty soundly by voice vote.<br /><br />Next up: the Finance Committee’s $5,855,139 figure. Too close. Tally vote. Whoa. My notes say that the results had been 95 Yes, 98 No, but the results on the Town site say <strong><em><a href="http://www.amherstma.gov/departments/Town_Clerk/town_meeting/warrantsandresults/050707_Tally_Vote_Article_17gg.pdf">97 Yes, 98 No.</a></em></strong> And in those results, there’s a surprise or two. Or one. The Finance Committee’s recommendation apparently wasn’t quite sustainable. I voted Yes.<br /><br />So almost by default, that means the Select Board’s recommendation of $5,755,139 prevailed, but to make it official, we voted on that too. On the slight chance and fascinating possibility that it didn’t pass and we had to – what? – start all over again? – I voted No, but only a handful of us spleeny types did.<br /><br />This session adjourned at 10:15. But now the real fun begins. What happens going forward? Does one simply concede and go along with the rest of the Select Board’s recommendation, or at least $100K’s worth? Do we say: OK, you don’t need that money for General Government – let’s put it in reserves? Will this new-found fortune ultimately fund the continuing saga of the regional assessment? Or was this just the first tweaking of a budget that will morph into something completely unrecognizable? Time will tell.<br /><br /><br /><strong>Trivia, courtesy of my data guru husband:<br /></strong><br />Last night’s attendance (218) was the highest since 4/27/05, which was the opening session of the 2005 TM. There were 219 there that night, which is the highest total since online records are available back in 2002.<br /><br />The number voting on the budget question (195) was also the second-highest tally-vote total in history, surpassed only by the 201 votes cast on the failed motion on 6/22/05 to rescind the Plum Brook funding.<br /><br />Do your own voting and attendance analysis with the <strong><em><a href="http://www.inamherst.com/2007/02/town_meeting_database_to_aid_a.html">inAmherst.com Tally Vote Database</a></em></strong> which contains up-to-date information on attendance figures and tally vote results through the 5/21/07 meeting.<br /><br /></span><span class="fold"></span>Stephanie O'Keeffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139345960579356043noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-78376967392115866572007-05-21T09:23:00.000-04:002007-05-21T09:33:34.184-04:00FussbudgetImagine a young person just out of college: first job, shoebox apartment, eating a lot of rice as she tries to make the entry-level salary cover life’s start-up costs. Now imagine her mom, worried and well-intentioned, deciding that the stress of it all is not good for the daughter, so she gives her a gift certificate for the works at a fancy day spa. Now the daughter would love to have these relaxing spa treatments – who wouldn’t, after all? – but more than that, she really could have used that money. If Mom had really wanted to help her out, she would have just given her the gift certificate money to apply to her own priorities as needed.<br /><br />That’s how I feel about budget amendments at Town Meeting.<br /><span class="fold" id="fullpost"><br />This is an illustration, not an etiquette lesson, so never mind that the daughter should just be grateful for the gift.<br /><br />When someone from the floor of Town Meeting moves to add back funds for X, Y or Z in any of the budget areas, they are not respecting the funding priorities of that area. Sure, the Town Manager would love to be able to open the pool and the schools would love to bring back the Ecobus, but unless such items are next in line on their funding priority lists, insisting on those expenditures amounts to meddling.<br /><br />“But Town Meeting represents the priorities of the citizens!”<br /><br />Well, first of all, the whole structure of Town government represents the priorities of the citizens – as a whole, if not as individuals.<br /><br />And secondly, individuals are always going to get worked up about something sexy like the pool or the Ecobus – there’s no such thing as a rallying cry of support for the boring but vital nitty-gritty elements of administration. That’s why we need the Town Manager, the Superintendent, and the Library Director – it is their job to know the big picture of their departmental priorities better than anyone else in town, and we should respect that.<br /><br />The big-picture part is key. These people are responsible for serving and balancing the needs and wants of the entire town, and not merely the loudest or the most eloquent Town Meeting members.<br /><br />I am inclined to defer to the experts. I believe that no one understands the complexities of the Town’s revenues and expenses better than the Finance Director and the Finance Committee. Ditto for the Town Manager, the schools, the Public Transportation Committee, etc. in their respective domains. That labor and knowledge is divided into different areas for very practical purposes – we can’t all know everything about everything. Why do we think the little that we each do know about any given area has more value than the vast amounts of knowledge held by the committee or official dedicated to it?<br /><br />I expect to be voting for the 1% budget with the Finance Committee’s recommendations.<br /><br />Bear in mind that the Finance Committee didn’t determine how the money would be spent, only how much was available for spending.<br /><br />I accept that a 1% budget will be painful and will entail cuts to a lot of important services. To me, there was only one good way to avoid this, and that was with the override and the three-year plan. I feel that taking money from reserves or seeking a smaller override to simply meet this year’s needs perpetuates the cycle of delaying rather than addressing our fiscal problems.<br /><br />I have heard powerful arguments to justify both, but I am not persuaded. I think working toward a larger override next year is our best short- and long-term option, and I believe that a small override this year dramatically reduces the chances of that passing. There is no guarantee for next year, obviously, but I think we need to take the best steps we can now to help make that happen. A small override this year, on top of last year’s CPA tax increase, feeds the perception that “we’re always voting to raise our taxes.” We must be judicious in going to the voters, and I think we tried this year and failed, and now need to look ahead.<br /><br />So those are my sentiments going into the budget articles, and my expectations for how I will vote. But you never know. Like they say in sports about the folly of predicting an outcome based on what is known about the teams beforehand: “That’s why they play the game.”<br /></span>Stephanie O'Keeffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139345960579356043noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-21894194227026141182007-05-17T17:49:00.000-04:002007-05-18T00:33:18.058-04:00With apologies to the BardThis session was much ado about nothing.<br /><span class="fold" id="fullpost"><br />We started with a Special Town Meeting to again fix the Olympia Drive issue regarding which parcel is to be developed for affordable housing and which parcel is to be conservation land. We did this in the fall too, but because the State legislature has to approve it and ran out of time to do so in that session, we needed a new vote in order to submit it to them again. And to be on the safe side, we want to submit it as soon as possible, so that’s why this article was moved from the annual TM warrant to a Special TM warrant. Town Meeting votes don’t become official until the meeting dissolves, so the Olympia Drive decision would have had to languish for weeks as we wend our way through the warrant before it could be sent to the legislature. With the Special, that meeting is now dissolved, and it’s ready to go.<br /><br />A little information, a couple of questions, and then a unanimous vote to support. Moving right along.<br /><br />Article 34: Resident alien voting rights. Petitioner Vladimir Morales spoke to the article. He said it seeks to spread democracy in Amherst. Allows friends and neighbors to participate in local issues and local elections. These people are here legally, pay taxes, contribute to society. Town Meeting has approved this five times already. There’s no Constitutional barrier to prevent this from happening. The issue keeps dying in committee at the State legislature. If it fails to succeed in Boston this time, he will be back to try again.<br /><br />Hwei-Ling Greeney spoke to the Select Board’s unanimous recommendation. She was once a resident alien, and now a citizen. Those holding green cards are making positive contributions in town and on boards and committees already. In the spirit of preventing taxation without representation, she urged support.<br /><br />Jim Oldham said he was co-sponsoring the article with Morales. Wants a large majority to pass this, and said he would seek a tally vote. It isn’t an extreme or out-of-bounds action for Amherst to take, and has been allowed in the past in the US and is allowed in some states and cities, as well as many other countries. New social and economic realities have people living in places other than where they were born.<br /><br />A member opposed the article, citing his path to citizenship and the psychological process involved in making that transition. Said the article denies or is naïve about that element. Said becoming a citizen isn’t too long or onerous.<br /><br />Anne Awad spoke of Town Meeting’s past support of this. Said daughter-in-law has found process of obtaining citizenship to be quite long – seven years so far with two more predicted.<br /><br />The vote is done by tally, and the results are in support, 154 Yes and 22 No.<br /><br />This is the first time this has come to Town Meeting since I’ve been part of the body. I have long followed it in the newspaper, and rolled my eyes about it as “one of those things” Town Meeting likes to do. All symbolism, no effect. Makes everyone feel good about how progressive they are. Had it come up last year, when I was a newbie TMer with a pre-existing bias, I’m pretty sure I would have voted against it.<br /><br />So this was my big chance. But I didn’t. Am I getting all soft in my old age?<br /><br />Besides the symbolic thing, I have a problem with the logic of the concept. So the key argument is that these resident aliens (a simply awful term, but what can you do) face taxation without representation. They pay taxes here (local, State, Federal) own property, have kids in the schools, and are affected by the outcomes of local votes in which they can’t participate. Sounds reasonable. Who wouldn’t want to fix that?<br /><br />But here’s my thing. People own businesses and other property in town but reside elsewhere. They too are affected by but can’t participate in Amherst voting. How about teachers and town employees who don’t live here? Definitely affected, definitely can’t participate. If you say, “Well, they can vote somewhere, so that’s good enough,” then that negates the guts of why the local voting for the resident aliens is supposed to be so important.<br /><br />Examples abound of people being compelled by voting outcomes and taxation they have no say in – like residents of one state having to pay another state’s sales tax. The fact is, lines determining who can vote where have to be drawn somewhere, imperfect though they may be. Non-citizens seem like among the most reasonable places to draw a line.<br /><br />Yet I supported the article. Why?<br /><br />I don’t oppose the concept. It does occur in other places without apparent negative consequences. If this vote can lead to real action by the State legislature, then it isn’t just symbolic. My contrarian analysis doesn’t rise to the level of opposition, especially when my own logic may well be flawed. This issue is very important to a lot of people and of no real consequence to me. Hey, knock yourself out and good luck – that was my final verdict.<br /><br />Article 35 – Accountability for WFCR. Petitioner Jeff Lee talked about the need for the station’s accountability to the public. The program changes in January left people feeling deprived, bewildered and dispossessed. WFCR should have a Community Advisory Board, as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting recommends for public licensees of public radio stations and requires for private licensees. The station gets Federal tax support through the CPB, State tax support by being housed at UMass, and Town tax support through benefiting from Town services. The program changes are an erosion of cultural diversity and have had negative economic impact on local musicians and venues. The station has a couple of advisory committees that aren’t about programming or community input. Other stations have Community Advisory Boards and WFCR should also.<br /><br />Gerry Weiss spoke to the Select Board’s 4-1 recommendation. Their mission statement says they serve as an outlet for the community, and we’re part of the community and this is our chance to offer input. Only with a Community Advisory Board can they live up to their mission. Because it gets tax dollars, it is our business.<br /><br />A member spoke about how upset she was by the program changes. No one was consulted; there was no way to make our concerns known. They should have a Community Advisory Board and that could lead to people being more generous in their support of the station.<br /><br />A member moved to dismiss the article. Said the motion wasn’t a judgment of the article’s legitimacy or legality, but a question to the body about whether this is something we should be dealing with now. Said WFCR is a business and should we really be involved in their business decisions? Might TM legislate what can be sold at Hastings? Said the dismissal motion is a procedural question for the body.<br /><br />Among the arguments for dismissal: the first amendment – a legislative body shouldn’t be able to pressure tax-payer funded institutions; so many other communities and even States are within the listening area – Amherst shouldn’t speak for them; article not what it purports to be – is about meddling with programming while claiming that it isn’t.<br /><br />Among the arguments against dismissal: it’s been supported by Pelham and Shutesbury; the public airwaves belong to all of us; need transparency, accountability and public access; public broadcasting was supposed to be an alternative to commercial pressures.<br /><br />There was a standing vote to dismiss: 82 Yes, 90 No. I voted Yes.<br /><br />A non-member had the audacity to insult the body that just allowed him to address it, saying that he had never seen such a stunning display of ignorance as the vote to dismiss this article. Clearly, he doesn’t get out much. He then went on about who we are as a community and how that is represented on our airwaves, and how everything is nationally syndicated except the voices that introduce the music and those that do local reporting.<br /><br />Another member said that listeners could vote with their contribution dollars and shouldn’t have TM do that for them, and said that if this really is a legal compliance issue, it should be dealt with by lawyers and courts. Another member had expected to oppose the article but changed his mind because of the necessity of diversity in broadcasting, and not wanting economics to be the only means of exerting influence.<br /><br />The standing vote was 91 in favor of the motion and 77 opposed. I voted to oppose.<br /><br />You may want to scroll down a bit to skip my personal rant on this.<br /><br />How am I annoyed by this topic? Let me count the ways…<br /><br />1) Town government seeking to impose its will on a wholly independent organization and using its tax support as justification… hmmmm, where have I heard that before? Oh yes, the Survival Center debacle!<br /><br />2) This idea that one group’s loud dissatisfaction trumps the quiet satisfaction another. Another Survival Center refrain. Why must X conform to your standards?<br /><br />3) The notion that a mission statement is some kind of official binding oath that can be used against an organization. Yet another Survival Center refrain. A mission statement describes a body’s work to people on the outside, and helps guide the work of people on the inside. External judgment of whether or not it is being adhered to has no relevance.<br /><br />4) This assumption of moral authority any time the word “diversity” is invoked. Doesn’t matter what the subject is or details are – all is justified by the magical D word.<br /><br />5) The whole <em>evil money</em> thing. How exactly do you think programming happens? And the station only has X-amount of air time. They need to have some threshold of listenership and support to rationalize one program over another. Some call that elitist; I call it practical.<br /><br />6) Another moral authority thing: <em>responsibility to the public</em>. Do you mean a responsibility to people who like folk music? Or people who like African music? Why exactly is that a responsibility? And if it is, how far does it go? How about a responsibility to play Japanese music, harp music, disco, big band, French music, Portuguese music, Klezmer? Is it that WFCR has the responsibility to play exactly the shows that were cut, and that those shows just happened to represent an optimally diverse mix? Says who? And what about the people who prefer the new programming – does WFCR have a responsibility to them too?<br /><br />Switching gears: what the heck is the matter with WFCR? First of all, shouldn’t a Community Advisory Board be a no-brainer? Why wouldn’t that be an ideal way to engage your support base and take the pulse of your listenership? As a member mentioned – wouldn’t a more engaged and satisfied support base lead to more generous contributions? But here’s the real biggie: Why did no one from the station come to speak on its behalf at Town Meeting?!? Let’s see, the issue is that some listeners feel you aren’t responsive to the community. How better to prove their point than to disregard a significant community discussion on the topic? Just because you aren’t obligated by the discussion or the outcome doesn’t mean it wouldn’t behoove you to participate. A little p.r. goes a long way.<br /><br />And for goodness sake, how could you cut <em>Afropop</em>?? Bring back Georges Collinet!<br /><br />Alas. Just like with the Survival Center, I support their right to be clueless.<br /><br />OK, deep breath. Moving on.<br /><br />Article 36: Seeking smoking restrictions at Village Park Apartments. Speaking for the Select Board, Hwei-Ling Greeney moved to refer this article to the Board of Health. Petitioner Marianne Jakus spoke of her inspirations in bringing this article and all her research on the related health and legal issues. She will pursue other avenues with the Board of Health and possibly report back on any progress in the fall or at a later meeting. The vote to refer was unanimous.<br /><br />Article 37: Seeking to make it so that one absence from a public hearing wouldn’t preclude a member of an adjudicatory board from participating in the decision. Gerry Weiss said the article had been brought by the Conservation Commission, but that the Select Board feels that because the rule change would affect many boards, there should be more discussion first.<br /><br />Andy Steinberg said the Finance Committee had supported the original proposal and had no position on the dismissal motion.<br /><br />The vote to dismiss was overwhelmingly in support, with just one or two Nos.<br /><br />Article 38 was dismissed because it was the Olympia Drive article that had been moved to the Special Town Meeting warrant we did at the beginning of the evening.<br /><br />Article 39: Commemorative Flags. Petitioner Larry Kelley made – let’s face it – a stunningly thoughtful and moderate presentation about the first and nearly-final casualties of September 11th, and how they were both gay men, and how broad the diversity was of innocent lives lost on that day. He said that that is what the flag stands for – not militarism or the war in Iraq, but the people of the U.S. He noted the contrast of the Select Board’s unanimous vote to fly the rainbow flag for the anniversary of the gay marriage decision, and how they then unanimously voted to take no position on this proposal to fly the commemorative flags at half-staff every 9/11, and said that the two people he had previously referenced might have found that ironic.<br /><br />Gerry Weiss said the Select Board would let Town Meeting decide. Anne Awad talked about being on the Board when 9/11 occurred, and all the various flag flying requests the board gets, and all the various tragedies that could be marked. She said that the main Town flag is lowered to half-staff on 9/11 and that it is a somber event. She said the commemorative flags seem more celebratory, and more suitable for Fourth of July. She urged members to oppose the article.<br /><br />A couple of members spoke to the multitude of tragedies all over the world and throughout history, including those perpetuated by town namesake Lord Jeffery Amherst. One suggested voting against the article in favor of establishing a committee to more broadly honor all such events, and another just wanted it defeated.<br /><br />A member speaking in support said the red flag stripes denote American blood shed for this country’s freedom. Another suggested that dates for commemorating other tragedies be brought forth as well. Another said that he regarded the article as a call for a day of reflection for a tragic event that affected all of us. Another said that we shouldn’t do what our government has done and link that event to the war.<br /><br />A member made a motion to refer the article to the Human Rights Commission, not as a way of defeating it, she said, but as a way of reshaping the article in a way that would be less inclined to divide the meeting.<br /><br />There was a standing vote on the motion to refer. It failed, and I apparently didn’t write down the totals. I voted against referral.<br /><br />Someone asked what the six holidays are for which the commemorative flags are flown, and if any of those had them at half-staff. The answer to the latter was no, and to the former was: Patriots Day, Memorial Day, Flag Day, July 4th, Labor Day and Veterans Day.<br /><br />There was a tally vote on the article – 41 Yes and 96 No. I voted Yes.<br /><br />This was the third issue of the night that made my brain hurt, and all for different reasons.<br /><br />First of all, I love the flag, and I have none of the compunctions about it that many do. My personal patriotism isn’t contingent on who occupies the White House or the state of our foreign policy. I recognize that many don’t feel that way.<br /><br />You get an article like this, and no matter how thoughtfully it was presented, and how thoughtfully it was both supported and objected to, it becomes bigger than the specific issue at hand. It becomes an issue of all the various ways people feel about the flag and the country. It becomes a mutual provocation. It becomes a test. Its significance gets blown out of all proportion by those on both sides of the vote.<br /><br />I didn’t really like the article. To me, it felt vaguely like using the 9/11 tragedy to provoke an expected reaction. So for a while, I thought I might oppose it. But I also think that people are terribly intolerant of more traditional and optimistic opinions of the flag, and I’m tired of that. How come being progressive and open-minded only applies to that with which you agree?<br /><br />So I went back to logic similar to that which I used in supporting the resident alien voting article: it is important to some, and should be of little consequence to others. I don’t need to have commemorative flags at half-staff downtown to mark my 9/11 remembrance, but it doesn’t hurt. If you strip away all the overwrought Amherst stuff that becomes part and parcel of this article, it is really saying, “Should we fly flags downtown every year on 9/11?” And to that, I say – “Sure! Why not?” To me, answers to “why not” were not compelling, but of course, I was in the minority.<br /><br />By this time, it was after 10:00, and we all expected those sweetest of words: “I move to adjourn until…” Instead, we got “I move to take up Article 40.”<br /><br /><em>GROAN!</em><br /><br />Gerry Weiss explained that the Select Board would be moving to dismiss, so the body approved taking up the article.<br /><br />Petitioner Larry Kelley said the goal of the article was to put some teeth into the Open Meeting Law by assessing fines for its violation. There were contradictory opinions from his lawyer and Town Counsel as to the legality of the proposal, and that pretty much sealed the deal. The Select Board spoke to its doubts and concerns and the Finance Committee did the same. The vote to dismiss was nearly unanimous, with a couple of requisite objections.<br /><br />So that was Wednesday – dealt with a technicality, sought legislation that will die at the State House, made a recommendation that can freely be ignored, rejected an article that was doomed to fail from the outset, dismissed a couple of articles and referred one to another body. Fantastic.</span>Stephanie O'Keeffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139345960579356043noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-63734524246679187212007-05-12T02:41:00.000-04:002007-05-12T10:43:18.282-04:00Does make you wonderThe theme of Thursday night’s session might have been “Things that are kind of screwy.”<br /><br />Among the Moderator’s first announcements: the tally vote cards all have Monday’s date on them, and the timer at the lectern that keeps track of each speaker’s time was out for repair. <em>Hmmmm.</em><br /><span id="fullpost" class='fold'><br />After a few other announcements (TMCC election deadline, check your listing in the “They Represent You” guide, no meeting on Monday the 14th, Special TM on Wednesday the 16th ) and moving around a few more articles (11 after 31, 33 after 11) we got down to business.<br /><br />Article 16 had been shaping up to be a little ugly. This is the article that accepts the Regional School District’s per pupil assessment formula for divvying up the costs among the four member towns. The agreement on this assessment method was the work of a multi-town task force a couple years ago, and was intended to simplify and make more equitable the determination of what each town’s contribution would be to funding the district. Paying an equal cost per pupil from each town was determined to be the most fair method and was certainly simpler than the convoluted State alternatives. The four towns agreed to this by approving it at their 2006 Town Meetings. All the towns have to approve it again. It should be a technicality, but …<br /><br />Then there’s the matter of the regional school budget. That was to be decided by approval of at least three of the four towns’ Town Meetings. With Pelham, Leverett and Shutesbury having already approved the budget at a 3% increase over last year, it appeared that Amherst was stuck – and inconveniently so, as we just failed to pass the override that would have funded a 3% budget. Hand-wringing over a new override scenario, taking money from reserves, or funding the extra $238,000 though new budget cuts was already taking place. Until the idea was hatched to reject Article 16.<br /><br />It seems that people found two different appeals to this scenario: A) Rejecting the regional assessment agreement would then force a default to the State formula, which is advantageous to Amherst but bad for the other towns, especially Pelham, which is why a new system was sought in the first place. Bottom line for Amherst is it would be cheaper – by about $200,000. B) Rejecting the assessment would force the other towns to reconsider the 3% budget. It would be a tactical move – they need our agreement on the assessment approval and we need them to approve a smaller budget.<br /><br />So to heck with agreements made in good faith. Some were willing to jettison all the work of the regional agreement regardless of its affect on the other towns, or were willing engage in gamesmanship to ensure that Amherst gets its way. Penny wise and pound foolish on multiple levels, but there you go.<br /><br />No wonder so many were saying that they didn’t trust Town Meeting and Town government to adhere to the three year plan. But I digress.<br /><br />So Article 16 was going to be a shoot-out. Never mind that it wasn’t directly addressing the regional school budget – it was going to be the de facto budget debate.<br /><br />However …<br /><br />The School Superintendent announced that it had just been learned that the State law about Regional School budget approval for regions using an alternate assessment method (like ours) had been changed in January such that all the towns – not merely the majority – now need to approve the budget in order for it to take effect. Now Amherst would get to have its say directly with the Regional budget, and would not need to deploy what Gerry Weiss termed “the nuclear option” of rejecting the assessment. Surely this was good news!<br /><br />But wait a minute. This law was changed in January. And you just found out about it Wednesday. <em>Hmmmm.</em><br /><br />So that was the new reality under which Article 16 was being considered. Whereas the assessment formula vote had been considered linked to the budget vote, that was no longer the case. As Andy Churchill illustrated – no thanks to a balky overhead projector – if the budget were a pie, the assessment formula only determines how that pie is divided; it has no effect on the pie’s size.<br /><br />The Regional School Committee Chair and the Finance Committee Chair explained the assessment and its history in great detail. The Select Board majority recommended it.<br /><br />A member moved to postpone the article until after the budget vote. He read a long list of reasons – new information, too many questions; too much “toxic propaganda” leading up to the discussion; can’t we all just get along?<br /><br />The Select Board chair emphasized that this was now totally separate from the budget discussion which will come later.<br /><br />Or now. A non-TM member said that by rejecting the override, voters said they wanted a 1% budget. The Superintendent made the point again – just the assessment formula – not the budget.<br /><br />The question was called, and that voice vote was just too close to call for some, so a standing vote was requested. 132 yes, 28 no. So close. Whatever. The vote to postpone was then rejected. A member who opposed the override spoke in support of the assessment article and its inherent rationality, with an apt analogy of two couples splitting a dinner bill.<br /><br />The vote to accept the assessment was overwhelmingly in support with just a handful of Nos. I voted yes.<br /><br />Next up: Article 8. This was to change the zoning bylaw on farmstands to reflect recent changes in State law. It was about Class 1 farmstands requiring site plan review and Class 2 farmstands requiring a special permit, and how the two classes have different threshold requirements for the percentages of produce sold to be grown on-site or elsewhere in Massachusetts and frankly, it isn’t worth explaining it all (but you’re welcome to read the <strong><em><a href="http://www.amherstma.gov/departments/Town_Clerk/town_meeting/warrantsandresults/050707_Additional_info/Article_8_Farm_Stands.pdf">Planning Board’s report</a></em></strong> about it,) because it is arcane and because we don’t actually have any of either in Amherst currently.<br /><br />Yes, apparently it is necessary to pre-regulate something that doesn’t exist, in the name of encouraging it for the future. <em>Hmmmm.</em><br /><br />All the relevant boards supported it and spoke to why it is positive: helps farms to directly market their products, supports local economic development, reflects state law.<br /><br />Zoning bylaw changes require a 2/3 majority. This vote was unanimous.<br /><br />Article 9 was also about farmstands, but this time it was creating regulation to allow them as accessory uses on a property. Because there were still details to work out, the Planning Board requested that this one be referred back to itself and the Agricultural Commission. And so we did, in unanimous fashion.<br /><br />Article 10 was an amendment to the zoning bylaw regarding by-right uses in the Flood Prone Conservancy district. It was explained to be a minor amendment seeking to reduce the Town’s legal exposure because State law requires that landowners must have at least one available land use that doesn’t require a special permit. This vulnerability was identified by the former Town Counsel, and the current Town Counsel agreed that this needed to be addressed. The goal was to choose a use that could be made by-right but not expose the FPC’s to unregulated development. Water impoundments – dams and other water flow containment – was selected because that use has many layers of State and Federal regulation before it reaches the local jurisdiction, so it was considered to be a safe option.<br /><br />So in order to provide a by-right use to a landowner that we don’t want him to have anyway, we do it by giving him one he is unlikely to be able to achieve. <em>Hmmmm.</em><br /><br />In response to a question, it was explained that the bylaw targets private landowners because public landowners – often the Town itself – are unlikely to be in the position of suing the Town for insufficient land use options, and entities like the University have broad abilities to do anything they want with the Town only dictating “how,” via site plan review.<br /><br />One member said he didn’t trust the article because it is purporting to provide a by-right use that he said will effectively be precluded by the State and Federal regulation. He said the situation would be humorous if it weren’t so serious.<br /><br />This vote also required a 2/3 majority. There were only a dozen or so No votes. I voted yes. If two Town Counsels believe this is a necessary step to keep the town from getting sued, that’s good enough for me.<br /><br />There was a brief recess to re-set the tables up front by replacing the Planning Board with the Finance Committee.<br /><br />When we resumed, it was with Article 7, allowing the Town to arrange easements for the Atkins Corner road redesign project.<br /><br />The double roundabout redesign was explained and illustrated, and the affected property owners have all been contacted and non-monetary compensation – by trading chunks of property made available by moving the road – has been agreed to by nearly all. The DPW Superintendent Guilford Mooring explained that the permission for these easements was needed now in order to advance through Mass Highway’s permitting process.<br /><br />The Select Board supported it because the easements didn’t require spending money, and the redesign would be safer and easier to use. The Public Transportation Committee deferred its position because they had not fully discussed the issues yet. The Finance Committee supported it because the redesign was conducive to appropriate new economic development activity in that area, and would improve public safety. The Historical Commission was not opposed, but had concerns about historic houses in the area. The Public Works Committee recommended the article but took no position on the details of the redesign and encouraged anyone with such concerns vote yes now and deal with the concerns later.<br /><br />People spoke in favor of and in opposition to the utility of roundabouts. In response to questions, it was explained that approving the easements does not lock us into this redesign plan, and that Massachusetts law gives right of way to traffic inside the roundabout. We learned that the three criteria the redesign had to meet were: 1) not to take Mrs. Ives’ house; 2) not to impact Epsteins’s pond; and 3) to contain the commercial development to the area it’s already in. Mr. Mooring said that moving the road to the east increases the development potential on the west, where Atkins is.<br /><br />Someone asked who is paying for this. Mr. Mooring said it was and still is supposed to be paid primarily by a Congressional set-aside which would have the Federal government paying most of it, with the State paying some. He said the Town would only have to pay if there were cost overruns.<br /><br />Only.<br /><br />A member told of how Bay Road and West Street have been moved as necessary throughout the Town’s history, so this would not be a new concept, and he suggested this would be confusing but people would learn, and it would improve a bad traffic area.<br /><br />So the best way to straighten the road is to add two circles, and the best way to improve traffic flow is with an element for which people aren’t clear who has the right of way. <em>Hmmmm</em>.<br /><br />The vote to approve the easements was nearly unanimous.<br /><br />We now skipped over all the articles that have been scheduled for specific future dates and times, and jumped to Article 32. This was Vince O’Connor’s petition article to abolish the Amherst Redevelopment Authority. He said he is bothered by people getting elected by write-in vote, and hence lacking public scrutiny, to a body of considerable power. He said the board had met infrequently over the last 6-8 years and hadn’t met at all in 2-3 years, though they have now scheduled a meeting for Monday night. He said the board has overlapping authorities with other boards and committees, and that those other bodies could take them over. He said that if Town Meeting doesn’t vote to approve his article, there will at least be discussion about what the Redevelopment Authority is and what it does, and that because it has appeared to fall apart, it should be thoroughly examined if it is to continue. He also said he just learned recently that he had received write-in votes for the ARA, but would have declined the seat if he’d won.<br /><br />So we are asked to abolish a committee that barely exists, because of fears that it is too powerful. <em>Hmmmm. </em><br /><br />The Select Board voted 2-1-1, with 1 absent, to have someone refer this article back to the ARA. Alisa Brewer said the “2” had concerns about the article because the ARA was not a regular board and not required to justify itself to the Select Board or Town Meeting, that Town Counsel had advised that Mass. General Laws state that Redevelopment Authorities dissolve by their own vote to do so, that the body may have potential utility to the Town, and that they wanted to have a report from the ARA itself before making a recommendation.<br /><br />The Finance Committee moved to defer consideration of the article until after Article 33, and said that they couldn’t offer a recommendation before hearing a report from the ARA.<br /><br />People had questions about whether the Governor’s appointment to the ARA is vacant (it’s not,) and if that person could individually have unchecked influence (she could not.) A member from the original ARA spoke of its history, remaining loose ends, and potential problems with its dissolution, and recommended knowing more before taking action to abolish it.<br /><br />The vote to defer Article 32 until after Article 33 was overwhelmingly in support with a couple of scattered Nos. I voted in support.<br /><br />The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.<br /></span>Stephanie O'Keeffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139345960579356043noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-21454786179144501882007-05-08T15:26:00.000-04:002007-05-09T15:02:29.038-04:00Opening night<p>And so we begin.<br /><br />Last night, the 248th Annual Town Meeting for Amherst got underway. Astonishingly, all Town Meeting seats are filled except one – a vacancy in Precinct 3. That is 239 regular TMers plus 14 ex-officio, for a total of 253. So our quorum is 127, which we reached easily, though I failed to note the time. What I did note though was how full the auditorium was. That was impressive.<br /><span class="fold" id="fullpost"><br />Before we really began, we had to go through all the introductory stuff – the call of the warrant, swearing in new members, handicapped parking, listening devices, non-members sit in the back, how to be recognized, etc. One interesting part was remembering the current and former members who died during the past year. We stood as the Moderator read those names: Ken Mosakowski, William C. Atkins, Charles Jacque, Robert McClung, Leverne Thelen, Aaron Wilson. I hope I didn’t miss any.<br /><br />After more procedural stuff – League publications, Special TM May 16th, how much time speakers get (5 minutes if you are making the motion, 3 minutes otherwise,) announcement of Town Meeting Coordinating Committee elections (nominations due to the Town Clerk’s office by close of business Friday,) and so forth, we finally got started.<br /><br />With more procedural stuff.<br /><br />The Moderator said there was no consent calendar, because nothing on the warrant was sufficiently non-controversial to assume it would pass easily. Indeed.<br /><br />The Select Board Chair then moved some articles around. Article 16 – the Regional School Assessment – will now be considered early, as the first order of business on Thursday, just in case… In case of what? In case the SB wants to schedule another override to cover the fact that we’re stuck with a 3% budget for the region, as voted by the three other towns. Or in case we want to start fortifying our perimeter to ward off the angry marauders from Leverett, Pelham and Shutesbury should Amherst TM, <em>in its infinite wisdom,</em> opt to disregard the regional assessment agreement that was so long in the making.<br /><br />I’m going to give us the benefit of the doubt and assume that we couldn’t possibly be short-sighted enough to do that. Hold a good thought.<br /><br />Other stuff from the SB Chair: move the zoning articles 8 -11 to Thursday, right after 16. There was some discussion about whether 11 should or shouldn’t be part of this grouping. It was left in, with the plan to then postpone it to a later date. Someone moved to add Article 7 to Thursday as well. Articles 15 and 17-31 – the budget stuff – was scheduled for May 21st. With all that done, we were really ready to get started.<br /><br />Article 1: To hear any reports that aren’t available in written form. This is standard procedure, and it passed unanimously, or nearly so. Then we heard those reports.<br /><br />First up was a report from the Town Manager. This is his first Annual TM in Amherst (he ain’t seen nothing yet…) and he said he’s happy to be here, been a great 9 months so far. He took the opportunity to recognize volunteers and citizens who have performed extraordinarily on behalf of the Town. He cited Alan Root for the beautiful photography he has provided to the Town for publications and for the Master Plan process. A wonderful slide show of his images was playing before and during the meeting. Mr. Shaffer also cited Gail Weston for her great work since replacing Joyce Karpinski in the Town Manager’s office, and praised Health Director Epi Bodhi for acquiring a $300,000 Health Department grant for addressing social justice principles in public health. He said Amherst was one of four grant recipients. The others were our peer communities of New York City, Houston, and Louisville. Impressive!<br /><br />In a report from the Select Board, Gerry Weiss said that steps were being taken to determine how to proceed with the budget in the wake of the override failure last week. He said the Budget Coordinating Group would meet on the 9th to plan a joint meeting of the Select Board, School Committee, Library Board and Finance Committee on the 14th. The joint meeting will be at 7:00 p.m. and the Select Board will meet at 5:30 to discuss its priorities.<br /><br />Rob Kusner also announced the dedication of the UMass bike connector, which will be named in honor of a former member of Town Meeting and the Finance Committee, and former chair of the Public Transportation and Bicycle Committee, Art Swift. The dedication ceremony will be at 11:00 a.m. on Sunday, May 13th, and the northern end of the connector, where it meets Mass. Ave.<br /><br />The next report was from the La Paz Centro Sister City Committee. Anne Stanek, the Committee Chair, talked about how humbling and enriching Amherst residents have found their cultural exchange visits to be, and how important support from the committee has been to that area. Scholarships have been established, houses and a community center have been built and more. She said the support is helping to grow a strong economic base there.<br /><br />Helene Ver Eecke presented the report from the Public Transportation and Bicycle Committee. She talked about the committee’s work to improve service to East Amherst while saving money, by arranging a new route for the #45 Belchertown bus, which will replace the #36 Gatehouse Road bus on July 1st. She said that by paying $11,000 for a “detour” of the #45’s route, Amherst will improve its service to that area at 1/3 of the original route’s cost. She also talked about the new #32 bus, which goes from Puffer’s Pond to Atkins, and is intended to take people to the prime destinations in town on a convenient schedule. She said that route’s new Saturday schedule just started with the opening of the Farmers Market this past weekend, and that it is hoped that this route will help to attract new riders to the system.<br /><br />That was the end of the reports. Back to the articles.<br /><br />Article 2 was to transfer money to pay unpaid bills. This was quickly dismissed because we don’t have any unpaid bills.<br /><br />Article 3 was to approve the maximum property tax exemption for eligible homeowners who are elderly, veterans or blind. The Select Board and Finance Committee both spoke to this being a valuable way of helping people to stay in their homes. It was noted that the program costs the Town about$114,000 in uncollected tax revenues, but that about $26,000 is reimbursed by the State. Responding to questions from the body, the Town Assessor said he wasn’t certain of the percentage of eligible people utilizing the program, but said that it is underused and that the Town does try to promote it with outreach via the Council on Aging, web site information, and by including details of the program with tax bill mailings. He also spoke of the assessor’s discretion to allow participation by active-duty military personnel overseas and of the increased State money for veterans.<br /><br />The vote to approve the article was unanimous, or nearly so.<br /><br />Article 4 was to allow the Finance Director to enter into banking relationships for the Town, whereby some benefit might be gained by maintaining certain minimum balances on deposit. It allows flexibility for moving Town money around. In response to a question, the Finance Director said that State law requires that reserve funds be held in savings vehicles with terms not to exceed a year, and that Amherst’s are in CDs of varying terms earning 5-5.5% interest.<br /><br />The vote to approve this article was unanimous, or nearly so.<br /><br />Article 5 was to allow the Town to enter into a lease agreement of up to 20 years for a proposed cell phone tower at the dump. (Hey, I’m old-fashioned – I can call it that.) Despite repeated assurances that this was a technical step to begin a long process that will include public hearings and various permitting hurdles, and was not the actual approval of a cell phone tower, that of course was what set people off. <em>We didn’t know! It will wreck our view! Put it someplace else! What about the honeybees? </em><br /><br />The DPW Superintendent explained that this was before Town Meeting because the Town Manager can enter into contracts lasting only up to three years without Town Meeting approval. Even if TM were to reject this, the process would go forward, but perhaps with only a three-year lease. The benefits to the Town, besides, presumably, better cell phone signals for some, is the lease fee paid to the Town for the tower itself and for fees from the antennas other companies would pay to locate on it. Maximum revenue projections for the tower would be about $60,000 per year.<br /><br />There was talk about how many other towers are in town (a lot, but many are hidden and all but the Ruxton tower are on private property;) the ability for the Town to get out of the contract if desired (not so much, but the bigger concern is keeping the telecom company from getting out of it, not us;) and the bad science and good hype that generated the recent bee stories.<br /><br />After a failed amendment attempt to change the language to shorten the allowable contract term, the article was ultimately approved, and I was among those voting to approve it.<br /><br />Article 6 was also about cell phones, but it was about banning their hand-held use while driving. Vladimir Morales was the petitioner for this article which sought to recommend that the legislature enact such a ban at the State level. He said it was modeled after a resolution Northampton had passed. He said he had been rear-ended by someone talking on a cell phone, and that phones are dangerous because they distract the driver’s attention. He spoke of Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and California all having such bans.<br /><br />The Select Board was unanimous in its recommendation of the article. The Finance Committee took no position. There was discussion about whether the language was specific enough to apply only to the person actually driving the car, as opposed to passengers who have the ability to drive, and changes were made to ensure that. Less successful was the argument that the new language could be interpreted as no one being allowed to use a hand-held phone while the car was being driven by somebody.<br /><br />People spoke in opposition to the article, saying that it presumed all cell phone use was frivolous and that legitimate use shouldn’t be prevented, and that this was a slippery slope of over-regulation which could lead to bans on driving while pregnant or while on heart medication. Someone pointed out that it was only to prevent hand-held cell phone use and not hands-free use, and someone else said the distractions of both are equally dangerous and that the ban should be more broadly targeted.<br /><br />A very wise gentleman emphasized that this was really about asking the legislature to look into the issue, and that they would hash out the nitty-gritty details if they were to pursue it.<br /><br />The vote to approve the article, with the amended language about drivers, was successful. I was among those voting in support.<br /><br />Article 12 was about a proposed bylaw from the Shade Tree Committee for preserving the Town’s tree canopy. Due to earlier discussions at the Select Board meeting, Mr. Weiss recommended that the article be referred back to the Shade Tree Committee, with that committee’s blessing.<br /><br />The vote to approve referring it back to the committee was successful, perhaps unanimous.<br /><br />Article 13 was to change the name of the Solid Waste Committee to the Recycling and Refuse Management Committee, which had to have Town Meeting approval because TM had originally created the committee. Pat Church, Committee Chair, gave a humorous explanation of why the committee seeks the name change, which is partially to better describe its work, but mostly because people find the name off-putting, and it may be hindering them from attracting committee members. And per chance the proposed name change was not a sufficient lure, Ms. Church tried to tempt potential members with the promise of snacks at meetings and gifts from the Take it or Leave it shed at the dump.<br /><br />One TMer apparently didn’t get the whole off-putting thing, and amended the motion to instead change the name to the Waste Management Committee. About five people supported that when it came to a vote.<br /><br />Ultimately, the vote to change the name to the Recycling and Refuse Management Committee was unanimous, except for the lone opposition vote from Wayne Huizenga on the far side of the auditorium.<br /><br />Who would have thought that the Sister City article would be the longest one of the night?<br /><br />Sure enough, Article 14 sought to establish a Sister City relationship with Nyeri, Kenya. Anne Awad began by stressing that such a relationship would require no tax support or other Town resources. She described the city and its beauty and vibrancy and how nice the people are and how warmly she was received on her visit. She said she has visited Africa multiple times because her daughter-in-law is from there, and through visiting her family, Ms. Awad has had the kinds of experiences tourists don’t usually have, and by doing cultural exchanges as a Sister City, others could do that as well. She said any participation would be voluntary, and that among the opportunities were pen pal exchanges and teaching exchanges via e-mail. She said it would be a unique and mutually beneficial opportunity for Nyeri and Amherst.<br /><br />The Select Board support was unanimous and the Finance Committee took no position.<br /><br />Someone asked about staff time being used for greeting visitors or making arrangements. Ms. Awad said her experience with other Sister City committees has been that staff time is very minimal – arranging a town meeting room, for example – and that the committee and other volunteers do most of the work.<br /><br />Someone else spoke about the La Paz Centro committee and the necessity of committed volunteers. Someone else spoke about the colonizers of that area having committed genocide, and that a book about it is available at the library.<br /><br />Then an amendment was proposed to add language specifying that no public funds would be expended and no staff time committed on behalf of the Sister City relationship, and that a Sister City committee would be appointed by the Select Board to undertake all the Sister City activities.<br /><br />If this seemed like splitting hairs, it was just the beginning.<br /><br />People quickly seized on the “no money or time” part, saying that it was worth a little of the Town Manager’s time to greet Sister City visitors, or for staff to engage in e-mail exchanges. One person suggested that because the Select Board gets a stipend, they would be precluded from appointing the committee because that would use Town money.<br /><br />A member wanted to know if the language that established other Sister City relationships had this provision – not because she was pointing out that it has proven unnecessary, or that everything should be consistent, but rather, because this language was suggested for a Sister City in Africa, she thought it seemed racist. A groan rumbled through the auditorium.<br /><br />The amendment was voted down, and I also voted against it.<br /><br />Another amendment was proposed, identical except that it removed the offending absolutes of <em>no</em> this, <em>all</em> that.<br /><br />The vote on that amendment was close – so close that a standing vote was required, though one member unsuccessfully sought the meeting’s first tally vote. I think the outcome was 89 in favor, 70 opposed, but the numbers in my notes don’t quite add up. This amendment was successful, and I voted to support it. While I didn’t think the original motion needed any amending, this one seemed like a compromise. The subsequent vote on the article to establish the Sister City relationship was overwhelmingly in support, with a handful of scattered Nos. I voted in support.<br /><br />The meeting adjourned just after 10:15 p.m. The next session begins at 7:30 on Thursday, May 10th.<br /><br /><br /><strong>Random Bits</strong><br /><br />I was kind of rusty at the beginning. I’ve been taking copious notes at some other meetings lately where no participation is required. In the early part of this meeting, I kept forgetting to vote.<br /><br />What is the deal with the person or persons who <em>always</em> vote against calling the previous question? Always. Do they really think there is more to say? Is it just to be contrary? Are they not actually paying attention, and getting lulled into the call and response of “All in favor say aye – AYE! All opposed say no – NO!” Perhaps they just vote for and against everything.<br /><br />One of the odder elements of the meeting: the Hamden County reference in the cell phone tower article. How did that happen? How could it have gone this far without being corrected? Someone had noted that in a <a href="http://www.inamherst.com/2007/04/town_meeting_warrant_now_avail.html#comment-217"><em><strong>comment</strong></em> </a>when I put up a link to the warrant on <em><strong><a href="http://www.inAmherst.com">inAmherst.com</a></strong></em> about a month ago. Funny how you read stuff the way you expect it to be, not how it actually is. I do it all the time – such are the perils of lacking an editor. But you’d think someone would have caught that.<br /></p></span>Stephanie O'Keeffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139345960579356043noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-69803042353958415332007-05-07T23:23:00.000-04:002007-05-07T23:48:38.344-04:00Time fliesHere we are again.<br /><br />I had hoped to freshen up the blog for a new year of Town Meeting, but that didn’t happen. Alas. Of course, we might well be meeting into July, so there’s still time.<br /><br />One change though is that this front page will now only provide the beginning of the post, and you’ll have to click on the part that says “Continue reading…” in order to – <em>you know</em> – continue reading. Two benefits of this: the front page won’t be a mile long and should load quicker; and any comments will appear at the end of the post, instead of on a separate page.<br /><br />OK, so let’s practice…<br /><span id="fullpost" class='fold'><br />Very good! Technically, if you clicked on the title of each post before (and still,) you would bring it up on its own page, with the comments at the bottom, but I don’t know if anyone ever did that. <br /><br />In order to get back to the main page, you can always click on the “Stephanie’s Town Meeting Experience” title at the top, or click on the word “Home” at the very bottom of the page. <br /><br />Also, the posts now have labels at the bottom, like “Spring 2007.” If you click on that label, you will get all the posts from that TM season. But really, if you are going back and reading my posts about last year’s Town Meetings, you are probably in need of a good hobby. <br /><br />Why haven’t I incorporated this blog into the <strong><em><a href="http://www.inAmherst.com">inAmherst</a></em></strong> site? I don’t really have a good answer for that. For now, I’m keeping them separate. Might change. You never know. In the meantime, you are stuck trying to remember or find the singularly awful address I gave this blog way back before I realized anyone was actually going to read it. Sorry.<br /><br />This year is 180-degrees different from last year. Back then, I knew nothing and no one. Now I probably know more than I want to, or at least enough to be dangerous, and the knowing people thing – well, it’s nice and all, unless you’re writing about them. Not knowing them makes that part easier. Can blog and blogger adapt to more information and less anonymity? Time will tell. <br /><br />Thanks for coming back. The post on the first meeting will be up as early on Tuesday as I can manage. <br /></span>Stephanie O'Keeffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139345960579356043noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-1163518904549692262006-11-14T10:36:00.000-05:002007-05-06T18:58:42.716-04:00Prometheus boundWe would finish last night. The question was <em>when</em>. We got started at about 7:45.<br /><br />Article 14 pertained to the Town acquiring an easement for land on Main Street where the parking garage encroaches on private property, but details are still being worked out with the land owner, and so the Select Board asked that this article be dismissed.<br /><span id="fullpost" class='fold'><br />Article 15 – was to see if the Town would accept the report of the Fire Station Study Committee, and to ask that the Town Manager create long range plans for financing two of its recommendations – one for two stations, and the other for three. The Chair of the Fire Station Study Committee described the group’s work to date. Last time the committee came before TM was to request money to hire a consultant to study the current system, consider its future needs, and identify possible sites for a new station and the associated costs. TM appropriated $20,000 for that purpose. The committee issued an RFP and received 11 responses. They chose a company and developed a report, and the summary of that was presented last night. (The full 46-page report is available <strong><em><a href="http://www.amherstma.gov/departments/Town_Clerk/town_meeting/warrantsandresults/Amherst-Final_Fire_Study_Report.pdf">here</a></em></strong>.) The gist of the report is that there are challenges to providing fire protection and emergency services within adequate response times in a long skinny town. The current two station set-up provides inadequately for the southern part of town and needs to be rectified. The Committee’s report provides several options, and their recommendation that the three station option be pursued.<br /><br />The Select Board unanimously supported the article. Robie Hubley commended the committee’s work and talked of visiting Vernon, Conn., when interviewing Larry Shaffer, and seeing the new fire station and emergency center built there under his tenure. Hubley said that made him confident that Shaffer knew his way around this kind of financing plan. Alice Carlozzi, Finance Committee chair, said they too were unanimous in their recommendation for support, and appreciated this step as a progress report and chance for TM to express opinions.<br /><br />A member then moved to divide the motion – any member’s prerogative if the sense of the article lends itself to division. This one divided easily into A and B – receiving the report, and having the Town Manager create financing plans. We quickly vote on the first part, and the vote to receive the report is unanimous. On to the second part.<br /><br />A member sought to amend the motion, eliminating the part that asks for a plan for a two station concept, leaving only the three station option on the table. He tells a story about a bad fire in his apartment building in South Amherst in 1987, and how it took the fire department more than 7 minutes to arrive because of traffic downtown, how much worse the fire was because of the delay, and how scary it was to imagine a loved one being trapped in the fire.<br /><br />Several people spoke against the motion to amend, saying that presenting plans for both options would be instructive. After some procedural confusion about which order to vote on the motions (and did this meet the inscrutable requirements of “voting the higher number first?” – it did not,) we vote on the amendment. It fails in a voice vote. I didn’t vote (I was still taking notes at that moment, and somehow spaced on the voting) but I had intended to not support it. I do feel like the three station concept is almost a foregone conclusion – or should be – so I kind of liked cutting to the chase and sparing the Town Manager’s time by not going through the motions of creating a two station financing plan. But I was persuaded by the arguments that the comparison of the two will be instructive. When the contentious issue of funding this comes before TM, one expensive three station plan would be easy to ridicule. Comparing it to a less-expensive but less-optimal two station plan will provide perspective and help frame the argument in terms of X-dollars buying Y-additional coverage, and whether it is more worth saving or spending that difference.<br /><br />A member then complained about the irresponsibility of any such plan when we’re already looking at another significant budget shortfall, and we have other capital needs. He then invoked that familiar TM refrain – “Make the colleges pay!” Just think of all we could do if they – read: UMass – paid their “fair share.”<br /><br />A few questions about timing on the project (we’re in year 2 of a multi-year timeline – what happens when depends which option we pursue,) and which maps show which options, and why some options aren’t even being considered (some options were immediate no-gos because they defied national standards and practices or involved locations with traffic impracticalities) and then we voted. The Yes votes were overwhelming, with just a few scattered No votes. I voted Yes.<br /><br />Article 16 sought to create an emergency access bylaw whereby new and renovated buildings – except single-family dwellings – with supervised alarm systems would be required to install lockboxes with necessary keys or access codes, enabling the Fire Department to gain entry. Currently they either have to wait for a key holder to show up, which wastes a ton of the Fire Department’s time, or they have to break down a door or window, which costs the building owner a lot of money to fix. Both the Select Board and Finance Committee were in unanimous support. There were a couple of questions from the body about whether the Police Department could access the boxes also (no) and whether the Fire Department rather than the building owner should initiate the annual inspections (apparently not – no one opted to respond to this suggestion) and we quickly voted unanimously to support this. So quickly did we vote in fact, that some people were confused and thought the vote was about calling the question, but that hadn’t happened, so it wasn’t.<br /><br />On to Article 17 – making non-permitted, hence illegal, open burning a ticketable offense. This is intended as a deterrent against and punishment for student bonfires. The SB supports it. The FC supports it. A couple of members support it for its very obviousness. Then other members talk about Native American ceremonies, the role of fire in human history, and the pleasures of playing guitar around fires in the woods back in college, or toasting marshmallows with your kids, and suddenly it appears that in Amherst illegal burning is considered a civil right. So passionate are these bonfire devotees that we actually have a counted standing vote on calling the question, which requires 2/3 majority. It passes 90 Yes, 31 No. We then immediately have a standing vote on the main motion. It too passes 93 Yes, 30 No. I vote Yes to both.<br /><br />Article 18 – the end is in sight! This is a technicality – granting an easement for wires and cables to connect to the cell phone tower being erected on Pulpit Hill Road. Everything about the cell phone tower and its contract are a done deal. This is just to grant the necessary but overlooked easement. SB and FC support it. Members are concerned that we got shafted in the deal with Verizon, and we ought to be soaking this rich company. "Too late" is the response. Giant ovation (thank goodness!) for DPW Superintendent Guilford Mooring, recently back from National Guard duty in Iraq, who explains that we get the money from Verizon, plus 50% of additional antenna rentals on the tower, which together may total up to $60,000 per year if fully-utilized. The Town also gets to use the tower for its own antennas, and gets a storage facility. We vote. It gets nearly unanimous support, with the requisite couple of Nos thrown in for good measure.<br /><br />And then at about 9:15, the fall Town Meeting was dissolved.<br /><br /></span>Stephanie O'Keeffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139345960579356043noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-1163294778717991342006-11-11T20:20:00.000-05:002007-05-06T18:56:02.493-04:00Updated attendance and voting resultsThe attendance and tally vote records have been updated to reflect the 11/8 session. They are sorted <a href="http://www.inamherst.com/tm/2006-Fall/2006FallTMTallyVotes-Name.pdf"><strong><em>by name</em></strong></a>, <a href="http://www.inamherst.com/tm/2006-Fall/2006FallTMTallyVotes-Precinct.pdf"><strong><em>by precinct</em></strong></a>, and <a href="http://www.inamherst.com/tm/2006-Fall/2006FallTMTallyVotes-Vote.pdf"><strong><em>by vote</em></strong></a>.Stephanie O'Keeffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139345960579356043noreply@blogger.com0