The stench worsens

When it comes to the smelly case of gifting over a half-million dollars in effluent to Umass (over 5 years), for once I agree with the Town Manager: My Ethics Commission complaint concerning two Umass connected Select board members does not endanger the “strategic agreement.”

Umass beat up the town manager so badly formulating this one-sided deal, there is simply no way in Hell they are going to take their toys and go home when the free effluent component gets vetoed.

And I find it a tad disconcerting that the Town Manager seems to suggest in yesterday’s Gazette article that the state ethics commission may not have the authority to “void member votes even if it does find a violation.”

Hmmmm. So Mr. Shaffer, if the state finds one or two Select board members acted illegally but lacks the authority to change that illegal vote you are still going to declare victory? Kind of the like the NE Patriots electronically stealing the opposing teams defensive signals.

And I also find it interesting that, after consulting with the new town attorney (at $150/hour) Shaffer states: “We don’t think the complaint has standing under that portion of the statute.” Sounds to me like it may have standing under some other portion of the statute.

I also completely agree with Mr. Shaffer’s closing quote: “The university and the town will continue to seek out opportunities to engage in agreements that can be to the benefit of both.”

This silly “strategic agreement” certainly doesn’t qualify!

No good deed...

Why didn’t Amherst College trumpet from the top of The Notch (which they own) the revelation they’re now paying Amherst $16,792 annually on the Dakin Estate—especially when Umass just absorbed Frat Row, forever draining $32,309 from town coffers?

And why NO effort whatsoever from Amherst College to promote the Zoning Change coming before Town Meeting next month (that requires a daunting two-thirds vote, and already has tree huger Selectman Rob Kusner and aging-activist-with-time-on-his-hands Vince O’Connor opposing it) allowing expansion of their quaint and cozy Lord Jeffery Inn?

Amherst College blog (Amerst.com: acknowledging how townies pronounce it) says when it concerns the $1.3 BILLION endowment, the Trustees mimic laconic graduate Silent Cal Coolidge: “Amherst College officials have traditionally been far quieter about such matters, releasing audited figures just once a year in August and steadfastly refusing to provide quarterly or unaudited figures.”

And their Public Relation’s folks spin far less stories per news cycle than their counterparts at Umass. For instance, not nearly enough has been written about the good deed Amherst College performed donating land to Habitat for Humanity creating four, taxpaying, “affordable housing” units in Amherst.

Perhaps Amherst College simply doesn’t want exposure about the Dakin Estate (and perhaps the blunder to have failed finding some sort of academic use) because they don’t want town officials auditing their vast holdings for perhaps another swath or two of property that may not fit the Academic Exemption or Chapter 61-B reduction.

My lovely wife Donna (with NO time on her hands) recently became a member of the Town Commercial Relations Committee that has met jointly 3 or 4 times now with the Planning Sub Committee on Zoning (Yes, Amherst has far too many committees) and she thinks some folks want Town Meeting to hold hostage the zoning change in exchange for other payments from Amherst College.

Short sighted of course, because in this particular case, what's good for Amherst College is GREAT for Amherst. If the valuation of the Lord Jeff doubles it pays twice the taxes to Amherst plus the spin-off effect promoting downtown business activity.

The time for Amherst College to, unconditionally, step up is quickly approaching. Our timid Town Manager warns that when the train wreck they call the Umass “strategic agreement” is completed (now bogged down because of my Ethics Complaint; and I only hope it becomes derailed) he plans to engage Amherst and Hampshire Colleges.

Of course at this point, either College would simply point out the Umass "deal" really only amounts to $75,000 in new money to Amherst. And since Umass has 25,500 students, that’s only a paltry $3 per head.

At that ridiculous rate, Amherst College and Hampshire College pays $5,000 each. Chump change indeed.

An expensive view

I honestly think our biggest landowner Amherst College, (named after the town not the General) doesn’t pay its fair share. And when you have $1.3 BILLION in reserves, it’s not like you’re forgoing food on the table. Then of course our #2 landowner, Umass, doesn’t carry its considerable weight either.

Since I live less than 10 houses down from this majestic view and cycle past it almost every day between St. Patty’s Day and Thanksgiving, I would certainly not want 20 houses to sprout or—God forbid—a neon, clownish Bank of America building.

Since my great, great Grandfather Tom Kelley, who carried Miss Emily—that would be Dickinson—to her grave, had a final job working as a night watchman for Amherst College, I take no joy in throwing stones their way.

And while I was impressed that Ms. Emily would honor Tom as her chief pallbearer, considering he only had one arm and a long way to carry her coffin; it also occurred to me that Amherst College showed him respect as well (ignoring his handicap) by giving him that night watchman job. After all, when was the last time you saw a one-armed security guard?
####


So I wondered how the newer property (Dakin Estate) Amherst College acquired 100 yards from this panoramic expanse could be valued at $1 million and this larger track owned forever by the college at four times less:

In a message dated 10/5/07 8:13:25 AM, BurgessD@amherstma.gov writes:
It consists of two parcels 1 at 20 Acres and under Chapter 61B is valued at $47,000 and the other at 30 acres at $189,500. These two properties would a lower value from the Dakin property as the rear portions are broken off by a brook and wetlands so we applied a discount to them. They also lack the access points that the Dakin property has so I considered that land more valuable.

(Chapter 61B means the property is used for recreation/open space and hence has a valuation of only 25% its real value).

Amherst College is, indeed, the #1 taxpayer in town. Homes they lease to professors at reduced rates are valued and taxed like any other housing in Amherst. And the Amherst Golf Course (unlike the town’s) pays taxes as does the Lord Jeffery Inn—unlike the Umass Campus Center Hotel.

Yet they rent their (untaxed) opulent recreation fields and dormitories during the summer to private businesses offering expensive summer camps for soccer, cheerleading, ultimate Frisbee etc. The assessor considers that “incidental use” and doesn’t pro rate the academic exemption to reflect this 2 or 3 months of business activity.

Of course the same scenario applies to Hampshire College, one of the most expensive schools in the country) and other non profits like Churches, the VFW, American Legion and the Amherst Women’s Club, for wedding receptions, anniversary parties, etc.

Umass, however, is a totally different critter. The assessor can’t tax them PERIOD (so that critter would be a Ten-Ton Godzilla). Thus removing Frat Row—that paid Amherst $32.000 in FY07—FOREVER eliminates that revenue no matter what Umass does with it.

Amherst College had two years to implement academic use of the Dakin Estate before the assessor hit them with a $1 million valuation, resulting in a $16,000 tax payment. Umass has no such deadline with the former Frat Row properties.

Although I still think odd to ONLY value the property at $1 million when Amherst College paid $4.3 million. My 25 years of selling experience tells me the value of something is whatever somebody is willing to pay. The assessor however considers Amherst College a “motivated buyer” that does not necessarily reflect the true value of the property.

But obviously others drove the bid beyond $4 million. If Amherst College dropped out and a private developer won the bid for the Dakin Estate, the valuation would instantly have escalated to $4 million (and then five times that when development occurred)

And remember, every $1 million of value equals $16,000 in taxes to the town.

To be continued: Immediately above (Yeah, I work Sunday's)

“Signs, signs...EVERYWHERE signs”

Now you would think, of ALL people the Amherst League of Women Voters (who go by the wordier League of Women Voters of Amherst) would respect town regulations and not plant lawn signs on town property—even if it is advertising a liberal, do-gooder cause.

But hey, some folks think the League—like those evil corporate bankers who pilot black helicopters and meet secretly in an underground bunker in an undisclosed location—actually pulls the strings on town government from behind (or would it be above?) the scenes.

I did hear that his Lordship, Select Board Chair Gerry Weiss (champion of all things Social Service) was unhappy with the DPW for policing the sign ordinance.

Look who paid their taxes!

So Mr. Keenan (99 cents in reserves), finally, coughed up $63,243.30 in back taxes and legal fees over his “shack” in an otherwise cozy neighborhood.
http://www.masslive.com/hampfrank/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-11/1191396044137400.xml&coll=1




And even Amherst College ($1.3 billion in reserves) paid $17,000 in taxes for the property they purchased three years ago for $4.3 million to protect their golf course. I’d be a tad more impressed if they had donated $10,000 to the schools those two years they were allowed the freebie but hey, that’s just me.


In a message dated 10/1/07 10:21:26 AM, Amherst AC writes:


Hey David,

So what did the Dakin property (355 South Pleasant St.) pay the town 2 or 3 years ago when it was still on the tax rolls?

Have you started charging Amherst College for simply sitting on it?

Larry


In a message dated 10/1/07 10:35:05 AM, BurgessD@amherstma.gov writes:

Hi Larry,

The property was exempt for FY’s 2005 and 2006 and has been taxable again since FY 2007. In FY 2004 it was assessed for $652,400 and paid $11,351.76 and FY 2003 it was assessed at $652,200 and paid $11,159.14, in FY 2007 the value was $1,070,900 and the taxes were $16,791.71. The rates were $17.40, $17.11 and $15.68 respectively for 2004, 2003 and 2007.

David W. Burgess
Principal Assessor, Town of Amherst

"Miss the forest for a tree, or a little bush..."

Okay so I’m still having a hard time getting exact numbers on how much effluent the new Power plant will consume when it goes online this coming March, but the UMass PR folks republished a couple of puff pieces that use the figure 200,000 gallons per day.

Last year Umass paid us $37,800 to feed the old steam plant at a super discount rate of $1 per 1,500 gallons (when it would have been $6 for normal potable water) or 155,342 gallons per day. So based on a consumption rate of 200,000 gallons per day it would come to $48, 666 or a 13% increase.

Just for the new, admittedly quite cool, Powerplant.

However Umass also has four new buildings coming on line in the near future that use effluent to run “chillers” (air conditioning) and their consumption is projected to about equal that of the new Powerplant.

And since the beancounters in the White Castle (Whitmore) are now keeping track of water consumption by the Athletic Department they are more motivated to start watering their playing fields with effluent.

Hence in the near future (certainly well within the five year period of the “strategic agreement”) Umass use of effluent will double. And hey why not, it’s now FREE!

Video below is Professor Kusner selling the deal.

Say What???

“Unless the matter is resolved publicly, you should be aware that we will not be able to inform you of what action we take regarding your complaint. This is because our enacting statute, G.L. c. 268B, and our procedures impose strict confidentiality requirements on all aspects of our review of complaints. We trust you can understand that protecting the confidentiality of our investigations and our sources is essential to our effectiveness, and to complainants’ and subjects’ legitimate privacy concerns.”

Okay, so let’s resolve this publicly: the 9/17 Select board free water for Umass vote was so fraught with foul ups, why don’t they just do it over tonight (with Mr. Kusner and Ms Brewer abstaining of course).