From: Alisa Brewer
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 10:28 AM
To: Select Board; Finance Committee
Cc: Town Meeting Coordinating Committee
Subject: Survival Center Press Conference Noon Wednesday May 30, 2007?
http://www.dailyhampshiregazette.com
Daily Hampshire Gazette, Wednesday May 30, 2007
Survival Center pushes for funding
By MARY CAREY Staff Writer
AMHERST - The Amherst Survival Center is in the spotlight again. It's
the site of a press conference today on human service funding and the
subject of a coming Town Meeting petition article requesting funding
for a clinical social worker to work there part-time.
Members of the center's board of directors, its Executive Director
Cheryl Zoll and Town Meeting member Isaac BenEzra will be at the noon
press conference at the 1200 North Pleasant St. food and clothing
distribution and drop-in center. Their subject is looming cuts in the
town's human services budget.
Town Meeting likely will try to sort through four competing
recommendations for funding at its sixth session on Thursday. Advocates
of spending more on human services planned to make their case today
that the town shouldn't cut back human service funding for residents
who are struggling already.
"To us it would have devastating effects," Ruth Wade, president of the
center's board of directors, said of a proposed reduction in funding
for human service agencies from $142,000 to $25,000.
Last year, the town contributed $33,000 to the Survival Center alone.
Zoll said the cut "would be hitting us at a time when we also have a
mandate to grow and change. We would have to cut around the edges."
Staff training, for example, likely would have to be cut.
"Another thing that would fall by the wayside are field trips," Zoll
said. "They're very modest, like going to a movie, but they mean a lot
to some people who never leave Amherst."
The $25,000 that the Finance Committee recommends spending this year
would be split among the center and other agencies such as Big Brother
Big Sister program, Family Outreach of Amherst, Center for New
Americans, Men's Resource Center, Not Bread Alone and University of
Massachusetts Commuter Services.
The Select Board recommends raising the Finance Committee's recommended figure by another $31,000.
"Even with a cut of 'only 85,000,' as the Select Board is recommending,
hundreds of residents will be adversely affected," board members wrote
in their report to Town Meeting.
The town's Community Development Committee, for its part, is requesting
$114,450 in funding for human services, while BenEzra has prepared a
motion asking Town Meeting to fund the full $142,000 contributed last
year.
The rules of Town Meeting this year, as outlined by Moderator Harrison
Gregg, require members seeking more funding for certain line items to
explain where the money would come from.
But BenEzra said he would not suggest where to find the money. That's
for budget writers to figure out, BenEzra said. "To ask the people who
are being cut by over 80 percent where is the money going to come from
begs the question of where the money is."
Meanwhile, Jon Nelms, a Survival Center client, is seeking to have Town
Meeting spend $9,000 to hire a part-time clinical social worker at the
center. Nelms was among clients whose criticisms of the center last
summer eventually led to wholesale changes there, including the
retirement of longtime Director Evangeline Westcott.
Since then, the center's board hired Zoll and is in the process of
hiring two other staff members and Zoll has instituted new programs,
including an open mic night. Things are going "extremely well "at the
center, Wade said, but a social worker would be a welcome addition.
"We've felt the need for a social worker. It's been a priority," she
said.
But if the $9,000 Nelms is suggesting to hire a social worker were to
come out of the $33,000 Wade and others are hoping the Survival Center
will receive, it would still amount to a cut from last year, Wade said.
Daily Hampshire Gazette (c) 2007 All rights reserved
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Article 16 Regional Agreement Assessment
From: Michael Hussin (Pelham SC Chair)
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 11:54 PM
To: Select Board
Cc: Kathleen Anderson (Amherst SC); Elaine L. Brighty (Regional SC
Chair); Maureen Ecclestone (Pelham SC); Michael Katz (Leverett SC); Sonia Correa Pope (Amherst SC); Tracy Farnham (Pelham SC); Andrew Churchill (Chair, Amherst SC); Marianne Jorgensen (Shutesbury SC); Westmoreland, Debbie; Brewer, Alisa
Subject: Pelham and Regional School budget
Dear All,
Below you will find two letters both written by me tho' at different times of the day! Forgive any repetitiveness!
May 30, 2007
I am dismayed at the tone expressed towards Pelham and its citizens
(and indirectly towards it's school committee and town boards) in Ms.
Greeney's letter to the Gazette this morning. While the letter may be
trying to explain the difficulties Amherst and our regional school system is
facing it unfortunately comes across as hostile and condescending. While
things in Pelham may have appeared somewhat confusing at times let me
try to explain what is in fact clear. Pelham residents had a long and
well-debated discussion about the implications of their vote at the Annual Town Meeting on May 5 and voted overwhelmingly to support the 3% budget proposed by their school committee. This was in no way understood by the voters to be simply a 'preliminary' meeting.
Due to other matters in the organizing of Pelham's warrant and town budget another Special Town meeting is planned for June 13. This is to finalize the details of the remaining town budget items as the Select Board wanted to wait and see if further funds might become available from the state. Yes, each line item will be voted again at this meeting but no one should be under any illusions. A formal vote has already been taken and the sentiments of the voters were very clearly expressed. Nothing has changed as a far as the school committee's support of this vote. Again, the citizens of Pelham and it's school board do understand and appreciate Amherst's concerns. I am sure we will be mindful again of these concerns. Still, I must express my disappointment and confusion at the language and attitude expressed in this letter.
Far from building the sense of community and cooperation
needed to find what is best for our schools and our children, the use of
such aggressive phrases as using 'the nuclear option' as well as the
overall threatening tone leads down the road to an unnecessarily adversarial relationship. It also seems presumptuous at best for a single board member to declare, "Amherst does not want to use this 'nuclear option' and vote down the per pupil assessment method ", as if this board member is the town. This is harsh rhetoric I'm sure not all the members of Amherst Town Meeting share. I also trust this does not reflect the sentiment of the rest of the Amherst Select Board.
We are all trying to make the best of a very difficult, trying situation and do the right thing for our kids and our communities. Everyone deserves to be treated with care, consideration, and respect.
Thank you for all the work and time I know each one of you puts in,
Michael Hussin
Chair
Pelham School Committee
Re: any misunderstanding about Pelham's approval of the 3% budget for
the regional schools:
On May 5th at the official annual town meeting the 3% increase for the
regional schools was approved overwhelmingly, as was the regional
assessment method and the school committee's elementary school budget
request. However, the rest of the town budget was level funded , as was
suggested by the the select board, pending any new information about
more funds being made available from the state. the select board had
already picked a date for a second, Special Town Meeting to be held
June 13th to vote on the rest of the budget. This would of course
include voting a second time on the already approved regional school
budget. While it is technically true that the budget ,including the
schools budget ,is not "over till its over", the same numbers already
passed by an overwhelming majority for the schools, including the 3%
for the region, will be brought forward again. This time those same
numbers, voted and passed, will be proposed not just by the school
committee but by the select board as well.
It is also true that any number could be lowered on the floor of the
second special town meeting, but the town did vote and approve the 3%.
The main point is that the May town meeting was indeed the official
Annual Town Meeting . The issues of the regional budget and the
situation in Amherst with all the possibilities and implications
regarding the assessment method were discussed and debated at length.
The town voted as it did. Those same proposals will be brought forward
again. The school committee has not changed its position regarding its
request for the 3% budget and the town select board has moved from a
'level' funded request for the schools to proposing the same numbers
passed on May 5. That is how it currently stands.
M
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 11:54 PM
To: Select Board
Cc: Kathleen Anderson (Amherst SC); Elaine L. Brighty (Regional SC
Chair); Maureen Ecclestone (Pelham SC); Michael Katz (Leverett SC); Sonia Correa Pope (Amherst SC); Tracy Farnham (Pelham SC); Andrew Churchill (Chair, Amherst SC); Marianne Jorgensen (Shutesbury SC); Westmoreland, Debbie; Brewer, Alisa
Subject: Pelham and Regional School budget
Dear All,
Below you will find two letters both written by me tho' at different times of the day! Forgive any repetitiveness!
May 30, 2007
I am dismayed at the tone expressed towards Pelham and its citizens
(and indirectly towards it's school committee and town boards) in Ms.
Greeney's letter to the Gazette this morning. While the letter may be
trying to explain the difficulties Amherst and our regional school system is
facing it unfortunately comes across as hostile and condescending. While
things in Pelham may have appeared somewhat confusing at times let me
try to explain what is in fact clear. Pelham residents had a long and
well-debated discussion about the implications of their vote at the Annual Town Meeting on May 5 and voted overwhelmingly to support the 3% budget proposed by their school committee. This was in no way understood by the voters to be simply a 'preliminary' meeting.
Due to other matters in the organizing of Pelham's warrant and town budget another Special Town meeting is planned for June 13. This is to finalize the details of the remaining town budget items as the Select Board wanted to wait and see if further funds might become available from the state. Yes, each line item will be voted again at this meeting but no one should be under any illusions. A formal vote has already been taken and the sentiments of the voters were very clearly expressed. Nothing has changed as a far as the school committee's support of this vote. Again, the citizens of Pelham and it's school board do understand and appreciate Amherst's concerns. I am sure we will be mindful again of these concerns. Still, I must express my disappointment and confusion at the language and attitude expressed in this letter.
Far from building the sense of community and cooperation
needed to find what is best for our schools and our children, the use of
such aggressive phrases as using 'the nuclear option' as well as the
overall threatening tone leads down the road to an unnecessarily adversarial relationship. It also seems presumptuous at best for a single board member to declare, "Amherst does not want to use this 'nuclear option' and vote down the per pupil assessment method ", as if this board member is the town. This is harsh rhetoric I'm sure not all the members of Amherst Town Meeting share. I also trust this does not reflect the sentiment of the rest of the Amherst Select Board.
We are all trying to make the best of a very difficult, trying situation and do the right thing for our kids and our communities. Everyone deserves to be treated with care, consideration, and respect.
Thank you for all the work and time I know each one of you puts in,
Michael Hussin
Chair
Pelham School Committee
Re: any misunderstanding about Pelham's approval of the 3% budget for
the regional schools:
On May 5th at the official annual town meeting the 3% increase for the
regional schools was approved overwhelmingly, as was the regional
assessment method and the school committee's elementary school budget
request. However, the rest of the town budget was level funded , as was
suggested by the the select board, pending any new information about
more funds being made available from the state. the select board had
already picked a date for a second, Special Town Meeting to be held
June 13th to vote on the rest of the budget. This would of course
include voting a second time on the already approved regional school
budget. While it is technically true that the budget ,including the
schools budget ,is not "over till its over", the same numbers already
passed by an overwhelming majority for the schools, including the 3%
for the region, will be brought forward again. This time those same
numbers, voted and passed, will be proposed not just by the school
committee but by the select board as well.
It is also true that any number could be lowered on the floor of the
second special town meeting, but the town did vote and approve the 3%.
The main point is that the May town meeting was indeed the official
Annual Town Meeting . The issues of the regional budget and the
situation in Amherst with all the possibilities and implications
regarding the assessment method were discussed and debated at length.
The town voted as it did. Those same proposals will be brought forward
again. The school committee has not changed its position regarding its
request for the 3% budget and the town select board has moved from a
'level' funded request for the schools to proposing the same numbers
passed on May 5. That is how it currently stands.
M
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Finance Committee Article 17 Update
[NOTE from Alisa: this is from the TMCC one-way listserv]
The following information is from the Finance Committee and will be posted as a document on the Town web site on Thursday.
From: Finance Committee
To: Town Meeting
May 30, 2007
ARTICLE 17. SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS AND FUNDING SOURCES
As Town Meeting continues its work on Article 17, the operating budgets for municipal services, libraries and schools, there are several remaining parts of the budget for which amendments to Finance Committee motions are anticipated. This is the list, as we know it today. There may be others.
Planning/Conservation/Inspection Services – Recommendation of the Select Board to increase the appropriation for Conservation Services by $12,000 for seasonal staff at Puffers Pond and trail work.
Community Services – Recommendation of the Select Board for $77,812. Within the Community Services budget, that board would like to see $31,000 added to Human Service Agencies; a decrease of $24,000 in tax support for LSSE; and an increase of $70,812 to open War Memorial Pool and the wading pools for the summer. There are two other expected amendments. One would request an increase for Human Service Agencies of $117,000; the other would reduce the Community Services budget by $100,000, presumably from LSSE.
Library Services – a proposed increase in tax support of $19,000 to reflect new fine receipts.
Regional Schools Assessment. The amount of money required for the Amherst assessment in support of Regional Schools is still unsettled. There are conflicting views as to whether Amherst is already obligated to fund assessments at the 3% increase level Recent opinions seem to support that it is. The recommendation in the Finance Committee Report to Town Meeting is for a 1% assessment increase. Last week, the Regional School Committee (RSC) proposed a compromise calling for 2% assessment increases for all of the towns of the Region, and the Finance Committee voted to recommend the compromise. If Amherst Town Meeting votes the 2% amount, the RSC would need to vote to approve assessments at that level by a two-thirds vote, something that might or might not happen. A 3% Amherst assessment requires $238,081 above the amount currently budgeted; a 2% assessment requires an additional $119,041.
Funding the increases.
If Town Meeting were to approve all of the additions and neither of the reductions, the result would be a total increase in spending of $337,853 to $456,893, depending on the amount of the Regional Schools assessment. At present, the only existing source of funds to cover this amount is the $100,000 made available when Town Meeting reduced the General Government budget by that amount. Two other potential sources are reserves (Free Cash) and a Proposition 2 1/2 override.
The Finance Committee recommends that all of the available $100,000 be used as partial funding for the Regional assessment. Doing so means any of the other amendment increases would have to be paid for with budget cuts, spending reserves or funds from a successful override referendum. None of the alternatives is a good. Budgets are all very tight already. The Finance Committee’s recommendation to use no reserves to balance the FY 08 budget is an important element in maintaining the financial well being of the Town. An override referendum this year would surely decrease the possibility of including an override next year as part of a carefully thought out financial plan for the Town. The cost of an override election – about $12,000 – is not included in the FY 08 General Government appropriation, and this functional area has already been reduced significantly.
The Committee’s recommendation on how to fund any increases that Town Meeting might vote would have to take into account the specific amount and the practicalities of raising that amount. Our first preference is that the need for additional funds not be voted, except for any necessary amount over $100,000 for the Regional Schools assessment.
The following information is from the Finance Committee and will be posted as a document on the Town web site on Thursday.
From: Finance Committee
To: Town Meeting
May 30, 2007
ARTICLE 17. SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS AND FUNDING SOURCES
As Town Meeting continues its work on Article 17, the operating budgets for municipal services, libraries and schools, there are several remaining parts of the budget for which amendments to Finance Committee motions are anticipated. This is the list, as we know it today. There may be others.
Planning/Conservation/Inspection Services – Recommendation of the Select Board to increase the appropriation for Conservation Services by $12,000 for seasonal staff at Puffers Pond and trail work.
Community Services – Recommendation of the Select Board for $77,812. Within the Community Services budget, that board would like to see $31,000 added to Human Service Agencies; a decrease of $24,000 in tax support for LSSE; and an increase of $70,812 to open War Memorial Pool and the wading pools for the summer. There are two other expected amendments. One would request an increase for Human Service Agencies of $117,000; the other would reduce the Community Services budget by $100,000, presumably from LSSE.
Library Services – a proposed increase in tax support of $19,000 to reflect new fine receipts.
Regional Schools Assessment. The amount of money required for the Amherst assessment in support of Regional Schools is still unsettled. There are conflicting views as to whether Amherst is already obligated to fund assessments at the 3% increase level Recent opinions seem to support that it is. The recommendation in the Finance Committee Report to Town Meeting is for a 1% assessment increase. Last week, the Regional School Committee (RSC) proposed a compromise calling for 2% assessment increases for all of the towns of the Region, and the Finance Committee voted to recommend the compromise. If Amherst Town Meeting votes the 2% amount, the RSC would need to vote to approve assessments at that level by a two-thirds vote, something that might or might not happen. A 3% Amherst assessment requires $238,081 above the amount currently budgeted; a 2% assessment requires an additional $119,041.
Funding the increases.
If Town Meeting were to approve all of the additions and neither of the reductions, the result would be a total increase in spending of $337,853 to $456,893, depending on the amount of the Regional Schools assessment. At present, the only existing source of funds to cover this amount is the $100,000 made available when Town Meeting reduced the General Government budget by that amount. Two other potential sources are reserves (Free Cash) and a Proposition 2 1/2 override.
The Finance Committee recommends that all of the available $100,000 be used as partial funding for the Regional assessment. Doing so means any of the other amendment increases would have to be paid for with budget cuts, spending reserves or funds from a successful override referendum. None of the alternatives is a good. Budgets are all very tight already. The Finance Committee’s recommendation to use no reserves to balance the FY 08 budget is an important element in maintaining the financial well being of the Town. An override referendum this year would surely decrease the possibility of including an override next year as part of a carefully thought out financial plan for the Town. The cost of an override election – about $12,000 – is not included in the FY 08 General Government appropriation, and this functional area has already been reduced significantly.
The Committee’s recommendation on how to fund any increases that Town Meeting might vote would have to take into account the specific amount and the practicalities of raising that amount. Our first preference is that the need for additional funds not be voted, except for any necessary amount over $100,000 for the Regional Schools assessment.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Article 25 Community Preservation Act: Historical Preservation
{Material Scanned In & Copied for Select Board News & Read Mail}
PETITION ~ Amherst MA ~ May 2007
TO: Town of Amherst Town Meeting,
Select Board,
Historical Commission, and
Community Preservation Act Committee
We residents of the Town of Amherst ask that a perimeter fence not be installed at South Amherst Cemetery.
[Article 25 of the 2007 Annual Town Meeting includes a request for $40,000 of CPA funds for a perimeter fence at South Amherst Cemetary]
NAME ADDRESS
Alfred H Mathieson XXX Shays St
Anne Mathieson XXX Shays St
Lucy L McMurrer XXX Shays St
Daniel P McMurrer XXX Shays St
Please see attached note from Jean Jeffries
{Letter dated 5/24/07 from Jean Jeffries, XXX South East St}
PETITION ~ Amherst MA ~ May 2007
TO: Town of Amherst Town Meeting,
Select Board,
Historical Commission, and
Community Preservation Act Committee
We residents of the Town of Amherst ask that a perimeter fence not be installed at South Amherst Cemetery.
[Article 25 of the 2007 Annual Town Meeting includes a request for $40,000 of CPA funds for a perimeter fence at South Amherst Cemetary]
NAME ADDRESS
Alfred H Mathieson XXX Shays St
Anne Mathieson XXX Shays St
Lucy L McMurrer XXX Shays St
Daniel P McMurrer XXX Shays St
Please see attached note from Jean Jeffries
{Letter dated 5/24/07 from Jean Jeffries, XXX South East St}
Article 22 Capital Program Buildings & Facilities
From: "Musante, John"
Date: May 29, 2007 8:20:10 AM EDT
To: "Seaman, Katherine", "Gregg, Harrison", "Shaffer, Larry", "Ziomek, David" , "Town Clerk", "Tucker, Jonathan", "Weiss, Gerald", "Awad, Anne", "Brewer, Alisa" , "Greeney, Hwei-Ling" , "Kusner, Rob", "Steinberg, Andrew", "Blaustein, Marilyn" , "Bobrowski, Paul", "Carlozzi, Alice", "Moran, Kay", "Morton, Brian", "Slaughter, Doug"
Cc: "Weston, Gail"
Subject: RE: Amendment to Article 22
The $30,000 for shade trees is already on the JCPC cut list and will not be part of the motion for Article 22 because of the defeat of the override (see JCPC Report on page A95 of FC Report). Nancy Gordon probably was not aware of that when she wrote her 5/25 letter to H Gregg.
-----Original Message-----
From: Seaman, Katherine
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 2:59 PM
To: Gregg, Harrison; Musante, John; Shaffer, Larry; Ziomek, David; Town Clerk; Tucker, Jonathan; Weiss, Gerald; Awad, Anne; Brewer, Alisa; Greeney, Hwei-Ling; Kusner, Rob; Steinberg, Andrew; Blaustein, Marilyn; Bobrowski, Paul; Carlozzi, Alice; Moran, Kay; Morton, Brian; Musante, John; Slaughter, Doug
Cc: Weston, Gail
Subject: Amendment to Article 22
Attached please find an amendment to Article 22 that Nancy Gordon dropped off this afternoon. Some of you may receive hard copies.
Enjoy the long weekend!
~Kate
Kate Seaman
Administrative Assistant
{unable to attach letter; asked that $30,000 item be dropped from Article 22 Capital Program Buildings and Facilities}
Date: May 29, 2007 8:20:10 AM EDT
To: "Seaman, Katherine", "Gregg, Harrison", "Shaffer, Larry", "Ziomek, David" , "Town Clerk", "Tucker, Jonathan", "Weiss, Gerald", "Awad, Anne", "Brewer, Alisa" , "Greeney, Hwei-Ling" , "Kusner, Rob", "Steinberg, Andrew", "Blaustein, Marilyn" , "Bobrowski, Paul", "Carlozzi, Alice", "Moran, Kay", "Morton, Brian", "Slaughter, Doug"
Cc: "Weston, Gail"
Subject: RE: Amendment to Article 22
The $30,000 for shade trees is already on the JCPC cut list and will not be part of the motion for Article 22 because of the defeat of the override (see JCPC Report on page A95 of FC Report). Nancy Gordon probably was not aware of that when she wrote her 5/25 letter to H Gregg.
-----Original Message-----
From: Seaman, Katherine
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 2:59 PM
To: Gregg, Harrison; Musante, John; Shaffer, Larry; Ziomek, David; Town Clerk; Tucker, Jonathan; Weiss, Gerald; Awad, Anne; Brewer, Alisa; Greeney, Hwei-Ling; Kusner, Rob; Steinberg, Andrew; Blaustein, Marilyn; Bobrowski, Paul; Carlozzi, Alice; Moran, Kay; Morton, Brian; Musante, John; Slaughter, Doug
Cc: Weston, Gail
Subject: Amendment to Article 22
Attached please find an amendment to Article 22 that Nancy Gordon dropped off this afternoon. Some of you may receive hard copies.
Enjoy the long weekend!
~Kate
Kate Seaman
Administrative Assistant
{unable to attach letter; asked that $30,000 item be dropped from Article 22 Capital Program Buildings and Facilities}
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)