I don't envy any of the officials – Select Board, School Committee, Library Trustees, and Finance Committee – who have to reduce budgets to present to Town Meeting. I've been there, and it's no fun. Few people run for office in Amherst on the platform of reducing spending; even fewer get elected. But, there you are: the income doesn't cover the proposed outgo. Cuts must be made. Do voters understand? Some do, some don't.
The recent ballot questions in Amherst gave mixed signals about what to do. Basically, everyone could vote to (1) cut programs to fit the budget; (2) raise taxes enough to fund level services; (3) mix some cuts and some or fee increases.
Or, to do all of the above. Or none. Since the wording allowed a person to vote yes or no on every question. One could vote for #1 (cuts) and #3 (mix); or against #2 (tax increase) and for #3. The results seem to say: don't do it all by cuts, don't raise taxes, but do balance the budget with a mix of cuts and increases. Realistically, that means fees can go up, but not taxes.
On April 3, at the end of a long meeting, the Select Board tried to discuss how they would consider what to cut (or what fees to raise) but didn't make a decision. In the meantime, the Library Trustees, School Committee, and Finance Committee have each come up with a list. Since I happen to be on the Burnett Gallery Committee and the Gallery is in the Library, I hear a bit about the cuts the Library is facing. The School Committee did a presentation to the Select Board on April 3, which seemed to be saying the school has a budget proposal ready to meet the cuts requested by the Finance Committee; but it also has a budget that is much higher in case Amherst is willing to increase the percentage of its budget that pays for education (a couple of the smaller towns in our region are willing to pay more for a higher Regional budget if Amherst is).
For the municipal part of the budget, the Finance Committee, as usual, has come up with suggested savings. Not hiring five new police officers: over $200,000. Cuts that would save over $40,000 each: eliminating a program director in the Senior Center; reducing support for human service agencies by 50%; and eliminating some bus routes. Other proposed reductions include closing one of the two pools, reducing staff in several offices, among them the Finance office, Human Resources, Town Clerk's, LSSE- Performing Arts Director, animal welfare, and overtime for fire fighters. Also, highway and sidewalk maintenance, litter pickup, special needs, and a whole bunch of projects that wouldn't get done because staff wouldn't have time to do them.
In the meantime, the town committee I am on, the Community Preservation Act Committee (CPAC) has found itself confronted with a question on the Town Meeting warrant to approve a ballot question asking voters to increase their taxes for the CPA. The question, if it is approved by Town Meeting, would be on the ballot in November, 2006. This proposed increase was initiated by Vincent O'Connor, who brought it to the CPA committee when he was appointed to the committee last fall. He referred to the many worthy projects we don't have funds for and urged us to support a ballot question to double the rate from a 1% surcharge on the real estate tax to a 2% surcharge. Initially he wanted to earmark the increase for affordable housing. The CPAC considered the issue and decided not to support it, given the budget difficulties facing the town at this time. We also thought it is not possible to earmark the funds beyond what is required by state law.
So, Mr. O'Conner apparently took his request to the Select Board, and got them to put it on the warrant for Town Meeting to consider, without any specifics about how much increase to ask for, or why. At the most recent meeting of the CPAC, Gerry Weiss from the Select Board was present, but he emphasized he was speaking for himself, not the Board, when he argued for a 0.5% increase. He wants to use the additional funds for maintaining historic public buildings, like the Town Hall and the Jones Library. Since CPA funds cannot be used to replace regular budgetary expenditures, it's not clear if that use is possible. Mr. Weiss did not answer my question about which Board members had voted in favor of putting the question on the warrant, nor tell us what the others' reasoning was.
I continue to think that now is not the time to ask for an increase in the CPA percentage. What do you think?