Cushing Square MuniParking Lot Closes Sept. 29

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Surveying equipment at the municipal lot in Cushing Square.

The first concrete step in the construction of Cushing Village takes place next week as the municipal parking lot at Trapelo and Williston roads will close temporarily on Thursday, Sept. 29.

The closure comes a day before Toll Brothers is scheduled to execute a purchase and sales agreement for the parcel of land adjacent to Starbucks. Even before next week’s events take place, engineers and surveyors have been seen in the lot making measurements and preparing for the building of fencing.

With the closure, Cushing Square-area businesses can purchase monthly parking passes from the Belmont Police for access to the Cushing Square parking lot. During the time the municipal parking lot is closed, permit holders will be allowed to park in the Cushing Square area free from time restrictions on parking with the exception of the following roadways:

  • Trapelo Road
  • Horne Road
  • Common Street

The Belmont Police will work closely with monthly pass holders and neighbors to minimize the impact that additional parked vehicles will have on the neighborhood. A similar plan was successfully put in place during the reconstruction of the Waverly Square municipal parking lot during the renovation of the Trapelo Road/Belmont Street Corredor.

Residents who have questions regarding enforcement should call:

Belmont Police Traffic Sergeant Ben Mailhot at 617-993-2538.

All other questions should be directed to the Town Administrator’s office at 617-993-2610.

Selectmen Question Proposed Liquor License Transfer to Star Market

By 11 Comments

Photo: The Loading Dock’s Fuad Mukarker (left center, arms folded) before the Belmont Board of Selectmen Monday. 

At a meeting that grew more impassioned as the night wore on, the owner of a Belmont business came before the Belmont Board of Selectmen on Monday evening, Sept. 19, seeking its approval of a deal that could change the face of alcohol licensing in Belmont for years to come.

Before the three-member board was the unlikely pairing of Fuad Mukarker, the owner of the popular dining location The Loading Dock on Brighton Street and the regional supermarket heavyweight, Star Market, which Mukarker is hoping to transfer his business’ full-liquor license for $400,000 in “compensation.” 

Bringing hundreds of signatures and approximately 40 supporters to make passionate pleas allow their “friend and neighbor” to bank nearly half a million dollars for the license the town provided him almost 18 months ago, the selectmen were noticeably wary of possibly creating a precedent of rubber stamping a deal that disregards what the three said is the all-important application process.

“This is not about [Mukarker],” said Mark Paolillo, Selectmen chair who said the board would attempt to help him continue operating the Mediterannian-theme cafe that has received excellent reviews in local media. ‘This is about the applicant [Star Market].” 

The town established retail “to provide a license to local business such as the Loading Dock” and not to provide “Star Market with 2,000 sq.-ft. of alcohol sales.” 

“So I’m uncomfortable with the transfer,” said Paolillo. “I’m leaning to deny this.” 

That did not sit well with some members of the public.

“Can we help out an average small time guy. Can we do the right thing here?” said Stephen Kerins, of Sandrick Road and Precinct 8 Town Meeting member. 

After another resident had suggested the board was unfairly targeting the store/cafe, Paolillo lashed out uncharacteristically to the citizen. (He would later apologize via a Facebook posting to the resident.)

While the transfer of a license is a standard business practice across the Commonwealth – last month the Selectmen approved one to the new owner of Vintages in Belmont Center – the issue is the location and who benefits from the transaction.

Full alcohol licenses are coveted by merchants as only two are set aside for retail/store operations in Belmont. The number was purposely limited in an attempt to discourage large retail liquor stores coming to Belmont. 

The selectmen said the intention of past town meetings which approved the lifting of the 140-year ban on alcohol in the late 1990s was to use the licenses approved by the state legislature to “create economic diversity in vulnerable communities and not to establish package stores in Belmont,” said Paolillo. 

The last time a new license was presented in 2014, Mukarker beat out applications from Waltham-based D&L Liquors and the Craft Beer Cellar of Belmont Center to sell beer, wine and spirits at his store, The Loading Dock, which the Belmont resident transformed from a White Hen Pantry franchise and later an independent convenience store.

Star Market’s attorney Joseph Hanley, a partner at Boston-based McDermott, Quilty & Miller, noted that it is “common custom” for the owner of the license to be “compensated” for the purchase and sale of his license. 

“This happens in towns and cities in the Commonwealth routinely,” said Hanley.
 
Hanley said his review of Belmont’s 2014 Home Rule petition that provided for full alcohol licensing indicated no prohibition on transfers which the could have included two years ago but did not.
 
“We are here to provide economic and community development in the town of Belmont,” said Hanley, noting several times that Star Market has been a fixture in town for a quarter century and is about to undergo a $2.4 million renovation in which the transfer is an essential component.
 
Handley said with this investment into the store, “customers will come to expect a certain amount of amenities, and the alcohol license is critical to that [economic development] and folks who live in this town,” said Hanley.
 
Handley said the Belmont store has an experience manager in Steve Duran who ran the Cambridge store which has a thriving retail liquor operation. Additionally, the four current Star locations in Massachusetts – in Cambridge, Franklin and two in Boston – has been cited by the state’s alcohol control board just once in a decade for a violation of sales to minors.
 
With this transfer, the area of alcohol sales will triple from 700 to 20,000 sq.-ft. (although Handley believes the actual square footage to be utilized is far less) and move from a fledgling business area along Brighton Road to Waverley Square, a highly-traveled location in Belmont.
 
Asked why Star did not apply for a license in 2014, Duran said the company was limited to four licenses in Massachusetts due to state statute protecting small liquor retailers from large entities that have greater pricing advantages. That ceiling has been raised recently, allowing the corporation to pursue these licenses.

A $400,000 lifeline

While the transfer would be a great addition to a newly remodeled store, the transaction would be a lifeline for Mukarker, who indicated Monday that he needs the $400,000 to “keep the Loading Dock afloat” as the turns around his operation into a full-time restaurant.
 
Mukarker told the board “I loved this license from day one” and always wanted to keep it. But due to money spent on the building and other expenses, the former banker who became the owner of White Hen Pantry that once stood on the site needed some way to increase sales at the cafe. 
 
Determining that serving beer and wine with meals would meet his cash flow issue, Mukarker applied to the town for a beer and wine “pour” license that he could use at his expanding restaurant. 
 
But according to Mukarker, just days before his “pour” application was to be presented before the Selectmen earlier this year, his attorney was told by Belmont’s Town Counsel George Hall about “an absurd law” from 1964 preventing retail owners to have both a retail and pour license in the same establishment. (Selectman Jim Williams would later say that calling a state law “absurd” “is a silly one. It’s on the books, and we don’t do things that violate the law.”)
 
Hall, who attended Monday’s meeting, told the Selectmen a state’s high court ruling of a Cambridge case confirmed the law’s intent preventing such a dual arrangement.

When he heard  the decision, Mukarker said the full liquor license “was like hot lava in my hand; I wanted to get rid of it.”

Mukarker proceeded to reach out to both Foodies – the supermarket slated for a 2017 opening in Belmont Center – and D&L, which the selectmen rejected two years ago, but could not come up with a deal. With limited options before him, Mukarker received a call from Star Market. 

Later in the meeting, Mukarker said the transfer “is a crucial thing” and any delay in the conveyance “has a lot of bad implications for the business.”

While for Mukarker, Star and the residents in the audience, the license transfer is a win-win-win for the Loading Dock, the local supermarket, and fans of great meals, the implications of signing off on the deal looks dicier from the other side of the conference table, according to the Selectmen.

One issue that troubled the selectmen was when Hanley told Selectman Sami Baghdady that a list of restrictions placed on the license in 2014 preventing the sale of tobacco products and lottery tickets at the location “do not transfer automatically … with the license.” Hanley attempted to placate the board by saying lottery sales and tobacco products would be sold far from the alcohol area.

Paolillo told Hanley the restrictions have “always been a condition that we have taken in consideration on rewarding all license.” 

“Very consistent.”

“I understand your point of not transferring, but if you have watched our public hearings, we have been very consistent with this board in rewarding licenses,” said Paolillo. 

Hanley countered by saying that Star would follow each of the standard conditions the selectmen placed on the all-liquor license presented to Foodies including a detailed alcohol sales plan and a ban on the sale of kegs, single bottles and flashing neon lights.

But when it came to lottery and tobacco, “we would ask for, after 25 years, a little bit of flexibility with respect to the current restrictions,” said Hanley. Later, Dolan said the store would drop cigarettes from the store with the transfer. 

Mukarker said he understands Star’s reluctance to accept the limitations, saying he lost “over 50 percent” of his customers by giving up his lottery and tobacco businesses, a comment Paolillo found wanting of sympathy. 

“You’re saying that we put a burden on you when we granted you this license? That was a huge benefit to you,” said Paolillo.

“If I knew what was going to happen [accepting the license], I would have not even applied for [the all-liquor license],” said Mukarker.

To those who spoke – overwhelmingly for the transfer and in support of Mukarker – any delay in allowing the transaction to take place was threatening the livelihood of a local family and denying the public an opportunity to purchase alcohol in a convenient location.

“This is a no-brainer,” said Erin Lubien of Unity Avenue. “There are things we do in Belmont that are just difficult for business owners. They are families who live here … who employ our people here. You have to do this,” she said to loud applause. 

But it appeared a majority of selectmen were unwilling to OK the transfer without further discussion and input from more residents and businesses.

“We need to continue the hearing and talk to Star Market some more,” said Williams. 

Mukarker’s attorney Thomas Orlandi informed the board of his client’s displeasure for not voting immediately to approve the transfer, noting “you are elected officials” not to ignore the people in the gallery and the numerous signatures in support.

“We also represent the entire community,” said Paolillo. 

After Williams had explained the delay, Orlandi said that considerable amount of money had been spent by Star Market on architectural designs while Mukarker needs the transfer funds to continue his business. 

“How can you rely on the transfer [funds] when it hasn’t been approved?” wondered Williams. “I think as a matter of business practice, you should not rely on an approval unless you have it.”  

As Orlandi and Williams bickered, the public began chiming in and the meeting came close to resembling a cable news debate. Paolillo then stepped forward to tell everyone to “calm down.”

With everything that needed to be said, the Selectmen scheduled an additional meeting on Oct. 3 to finalize a decision on the possible transfer. 

Belmont Voters Reject Minuteman Funding As District Passes New School Plan

By 1 Comment

Photo: Belmont Town Clerk Ellen Cushman reading the results from the special district referendum.

It wasn’t even close.

Belmont voters rejected by a near three-to-one margin a $100 million-plus funding plan for the construction of a new $145 million Minuteman Tech Regional High School on Tuesday, Sept. 20, part of a special district-wide referendum held in the 16 member communities which make up the Minuteman School district.

The “Minutexit” decision by Belmont residents now clears the way for a Special Town Meeting in October where the legislative body will decide whether or not Belmont remains in the newly constituted 10 member district.

For one of the leading “no” proponents, the vote total spoke volumes on Belmont residents reluctance to pay for what many believe is far too big a building to house the 33o student who attend from district cities and towns.

“I was not expecting such a large margin [of victory],” said Belmont Selectmen Chair Mark Paolillo, who arrived at Belmont Town Hall Tuesday night to hear the results announced.

According to Town Clerk Ellen Cushman, Belmont resident voted down the funding measure 2,327 to 901, 72 percent to 28 percent.

While Belmont said no, an almost equal majority of district voters came out for the plan of borrowing $101 million to build a modern structure house 635 students. 

The final vote in the district’s 16 communities was 12,158 in favor and 5,320 against. 

The special district-wide referendum was called by the Minuteman School Committee after Belmont’s annual Town Meeting rejected the funding proposal, the only district community to do so. 

Paolillo said he and the selectmen will issue a warrant for a special town meeting, already penciled in for Oct. 19, to vote on remaining or exiting the district. Advocates for leaving will need to garner a 2/3 margin to formally break ties with Minuteman. 

“I never wanted to leave the district, but when we could not convince the Minuteman leadership to revisit the size of the school and the long-term funding formula, we had no other choice but to reject this plan,” said Paolillo.

Toll Bros. Agrees to Parking Lot Sale Sept. 30; Cushing Village Under Way

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Cushing Village.

If you were not listening for it, the announcement would have quietly passed by without much notice.

But the news from the Board of Selectmen on Monday, Sept. 19, that national developer Toll Brothers will sign the purchase and sale agreement to obtain the municipal parking lot adjacent Trapelo and Williston roads on Sept. 30, has brought to an effective end more than three years of delays and controversey that has haunted Cushing Village, the 164,000 sq.-ft. apartment/retail/parking complex set to be built in the heart of Belmont’s Cushing Square.

After a brief unceremonial signing of the documents by the selectmen concerning easement rights and updated land and parking agreements, the town will wait for a check for reportedly $1 million while Toll will soon retain the deed to the property, said Town Consel George Hall. 

“This is the light at the end of the tunnel we have been waiting for,” said Belmont Selectmen Chair Mark Paolillo.

There was no representative at the signing from Toll Brothers’ Apartment Living subsidiary that will construct and own the property for the Horsham, Penn.-based firm.

It is believed demolition of the existing structures on the site – the former S.S. Pierce & Co. building at the corner of Common and Trapelo and the First National/CVS at Common and Belmont – will proceed within the next two months. Speculation is that Starbucks, which is adjacent to the parking lot and is a key tenant for the new complex, will continue to operate at its location for the time being. 

Bill Lovett, a senior development manager at Toll Brothers’ Apartment Living, said in August the earliest date for construction to begin on Cushing Village is late spring of 2017 with a completion date of the summer of 2019.

The development consists of three separate buildings with approximately 38,000 square feet of commercial space, 115 dwellings units – 60 two-bedroom units and 55 one-bedroom unit – and 225 parking spaces including 50 municipal spaces provided as a result of the sale of the municipal parking lot.  The development will also include 12 affordable housing units.

After more than two-and-a-half years of delays and broken promises to begin construction, the long-troubled multiuse development was sold in March to Toll Brothers which purchase of the project’s development rights and two land parcels from the original owner, Smith Legacy Partners.

It was Smith Legacy which shepherd the project through an 18-month permiting process, winning the right to build the complex in July 2013. But a failure to find the necessary funding doomed the project for the owner.

State’s ‘October Surprise’ As Minuteman Throws Wrench into Election

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The new school, image from KBA Architects.

In politics, a news event deliberately created or timed, or sometimes occurring spontaneously, to influence the outcome of an election, is called an “October Surprise.” 

While the majority of those “surprises” are usually seen in presidential campaigns, a last-minute decision by the commissioner of the state’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, requiring non-district students attending Minuteman Regional Career and Technical High School to pay a larger share of the new building’s capital cost has given some Belmont residents pause on how they will vote Tuesday, Sept 20.

On Thursday, Sept. 15, Mitchell Clifford, DESE Commissioner, reached a decision that will require non-district students attending Minuteman to pay a greater amount of the capital costs being incurred by the ten remaining district cities and towns. That single issue has been one of the most contentious issues Belmont officials – along with the size of the building, built to house 635 students while in-district communities send less than 350 – have been fighting over the past five years when it became apparent the aging Minuteman building had outlasted its usefulness. 

Under the current tuition plan, Belmont spends approximately $30,600 per student to attend Minuteman while an out-of-district community such as Watertown, which pays roughly $19,700 in tuition per student a year or $10,900 less on a per student basis. Minuteman supporters claim the current gap is closer to $7,000 if including costs of transportation and other expenses. 

In 2020 when the new capital ‘increment” takes place, out-of-district student tuition will jump by $6,000 for towns with fewer than five voc/tech classes in its school district. A community with at least five tech programs would pay a reduced rate of $4,500.

Under the new formula, Minuteman officials contend the financial advantage of leaving the district and then returning to “rent” seats as a non-member town is nearly completely nullified. 

The pro-financing side goes so far as proclaiming on its website – mmvote.infor – that Belmont residents who have long sought a “fair share of capital costs” from communities outside the district convinced the state to its argument.

“Congratulations …  — you won!” said the site.

The DESE decision prompted a significant defection from the “no” side – which has been pushing for Belmont to leave the district – when Roy Epstein, a member of the town’s financial watchdog Warrant Committee, wrote Friday, Sept. 16 that he had changed his vote just days after writing of his support for the town to take a strong stance to force the state’s hand on the capital expenses.

“I changed my mind on this vote because Belmont won a major victory this week,” said Epstein in a letter to the Belmontonian. He stated Belmont would “pay the same capital charge even if we became a non-member town. That is the outcome we demanded — an equal per-student amount for the cost of the new building.”

While one of the leading voices of the “no” vote is “glad to see that they have allowed for a substantial capital fee to be assessed by Minuteman,” Ellen Schreiber said “I still recommend that Belmont vote “No” on the Minuteman debt.”

“I don’t think that the DESE policy changes anything,” Ralph Jones, a former Belmont Selectman who created a group to promote a “no” vote, told the Belmontonian.

For both Shrieber and the “no” leadership, the DESE decision answers just one of Belmont’s questions: what is the maximum allowable capital fee, said Schreiber, but does not reduce the risk Belmont would accept if we agree to the debt.

At a League of Women Voter’s Forum last Monday, Jack Weis, Belmont’s representative to the Minuteman School Committee, described Belmont’s portion of the debt as “unknowable” due to three reasons, countered Schreiber:

Non-member tuition is substantially less than member operating costs, and if Belmont agrees to the debt, the town is locked into that significant financial disparity for the next 30 years. And the debt remains perilous, she said, the amount that Belmont owes will change year-to-year based “on factors that are out of its control.” 

Jones agreed with Schreiber that the new capital increment “is a wise and fair policy,” but it can only work if non-member towns continue to send their students to Minuteman to fill the 300 empty seats and if the Minuteman School Committee will enforce the new policy “and not revert to their traditional policy of discounting tuitions for non-member towns until the empty seats are filled.”

Putting one’s faith into those assumptions coming to pass, contend, Jones, is simply too risky for a town that is facing several high-cost capital projects including a $100 million high school renovation.

Jones points to State Sen Will Brownsberger’s argument that towns such as Watertown and Waltham have good options at the cost of about $18,000 – $20,000 per student to find an alternative to Minuteman which will cost the town’s $26,000 a year in tuition in 2020. 

“If I were an official in either Watertown or Waltham, I would do two things,” said Jones. “First, I would be working collaboratively with other non-member towns to ensure a robust set of alternatives for my students.  After that, if Minuteman asked me to send students, I would demand a substantial discount in tuition cost,” he said. 

“I appreciate the idealism of many Belmont residents who are trying to make the Minuteman District work,” said Jones.

“After 25 years of meeting with Superintendents and Minuteman School Committees, I agree with Brownsberger that the district is broken.”

Belmont voters join the 15 communities (Acton, Arlington, Bolton, Boxborough, Carlisle, Concord, Dover, Lancaster, Lexington, Lincoln, Needham, Stow, Sudbury, Wayland, Weston) which are members of the Minuteman School District to vote on the $100 million in financing on Tuesday, Sept. 20, from noon and 8 p.m.

Letter to the Editor: Minuteman – A Tale of Two Cars

By 3 Comments

Photo: A minivan.

To the editor:

I’m voting No on the Minuteman debt tomorrow even after DESE’s ruling. Here’s why.

Imagine you have a family of, say, six kids and you need a car to drive your little scholars to school each morning. Naturally, you buy a minivan. Then, for years, you take the kids to school, paying down the cost of the van, and of course paying all the operating expenses – gas, oil changes, repairs, etc. – as you go along.

After a while, some of your kids graduate, so you agree to take along some children from the neighborhood. You want to be a good neighbor. Besides, the van is big enough, so it’s no big deal.

While the neighbors pitch in a little for the gas, it is not as much as you do. It’s a little unfair, but you’re trying to be nice. It won’t be forever.

Are those neighbors poor? Not at all. They could pay the full fee if they had to. But it’s obviously cheaper for them to send their kids with you, so that’s what they do. You’re a bit irked, but you say okay.

Cut ahead a few years. Your minivan is crumbling, and it’s time to get a new car. Do you buy another van – or do you downsize? You only have three kids of your own to drive now, so it’s obvious: downsize.

But then you get a letter from the school. They say you have to buy another minivan – not downsize – because you have to keep driving the neighbor kids.

Say what? Those families never paid for the first minivan (you let them come with you because you had the room) and now you have to pay for another minivan? You are forced to perpetuate what had been an act of generosity on your part into an unending subsidy?

You’re understandably irritated. Now is the perfect time to change things to reflect the current reality, but it looks like you have to institutionalize a broken setup where you pay a lot and these neighbors don’t pay their fair share.

Then the school says, “Wait, we’ve thought about it, the neighbors can pitch in more or less equally to pay for the new car.” Well, maybe. You do want everyone to get to school, not just your kids.

But what about paying their fair share of the operating costs (gas, repairs, etc.). “Um, no, that you still have to subsidize.”

How is that fair?

You’re tired of all this. Why do you have to continue subsidizing these neighbors for 30 more years?

A right-sized vehicle (just your kids and no neighbors) would be okay. Or a large vehicle that is paid for fairly (everyone pays equally for both capital and operating costs) would also be OK.

But a large vehicle for which you’re still on the hook for the operating costs while the neighbors get a deep discount? That is simply unfair.

That’s the Minuteman district in a nutshell. A new building, though certainly needed, does not resolve the fundamental unfairness of the payment structure. While I’d love to get a new building, we can’t afford to be part of the district if it means paying an unfair share of the money for the next 30 years.

That’s why I’m voting No.

Lisa Gibalerio

TMM Precinct 4

Football: Jones Records Record Breaking Run in Home Opening Win [VIDEO]

By Leave a Comment

Photo: An exhausted Ben Jones at the end of a record-breaking effort vs. Medford.

Under the Friday Night Lights of Harris Field, Belmont High’s Senior Running Back Ben Jones scorched Medford as the running back ran for five touchdowns – four for more than 50 yards – as he piled up 334 yards in the Marauders’ biggest home opener victory in recent memory, 34-6, over the Mustangs Sept. 16 before a large crowd of residents and students.

Ben’s performance tops older brother Max’s game against Salem in 2014 in which the Belmont back ran for 261 yards and five TDs. 

“Ben had a great day off tackle,” said Belmont’s third-year Head Coach Yann Kumin. “He got to the holes and off he goes.” 

Jones’ 334 yards is an unofficial Marauders’ rushing record, breaking Makhi Johnson’s 280 yards set against Somerville last year. 

“To be honest, it wasn’t that hard to do because I wasn’t touched on most of those runs,” said Jones, crediting his offense line for creating “huge holes” in the Mustang defense. 

“All I needed to do was go straight. I was a track runner,” said Jones. 

After a disappointing 21-6 loss against Stoneham last week, this past Friday was the chance for the Marauders to prove it was capable of moving the ball against a Medford team coming off an emotional win over rival Revere, 30-28. It didn’t take long after the National Anthem for the Marauders to dominate on both sides of the ball. 

The Marauders bottled up Medford’s senior QB Ben Antoine who ran for 248-yards and three touchdowns against Revere, forcing the Mustangs to punt after running five plays. 

On its second offensive play, Belmont QB Cal Christofori (4-7, 54 yards) handed off to Jones who made a quick move through a gap on the left side of the line and ran 59 yards for the first of five trips into the end zone at the 6:12 mark.

After a Mustang three and out – facilitated by junior OLB Adam Deese forcing a seven-yard loss on first down – Belmont took over at their 46. The next time the ball was downed was again in the end zone after Jones took the ball 54 yards to the house at 2:14 in the first quarter, giving Belmont a 14-0 lead.

In the second quarter, Medford found themselves with a fourth down and 16 for the first down on Belmont’s 29. But Antoine showed poise facing the Belmont rushers to toss a TD to sophomore WR Nathan Brand to cut the lead to 14-6. 

“If that’s how they’re going to beat us, it’s going to be a good night for us,” Head Coach “Q,” told his team. 

The touchdown would be the last time Medford threatened as Belmont’s line and linebackers – led by Ryan Noone, Dennis Crowley, and Dylan Ferdinand

Just before the half, Christofori marched the team down the field with a minute remaining on the clock. With 26 remaining, Jones took the rock and scampered 23 yards for his third TD on of the half, giving Belmont a 21-6 lead.

In the third quarter, Jones struck again, going 56 yards for his fourth of the night. The senior who is a state track finalist in the 200 meters sprint, took off for 83 yards in the fourth, stumbling over the goal line with cramps as she equaled his brother’s five TDs in a game.

“That was the best offensive and defensive schemes” the team had for a game in his three years at the helm, said Kumin, praising his coaching staff in preparing the varsity for the game. 

“We are going to enjoy this for one night, then watch film and prepare for Arlington,” said Kumin.

To the Globe: Paolillo Responds to Columnist Minuteman Op-Ed

By 1 Comment

Photo:

[Editor’s note: The article below is a letter to the editor in the Boston Sunday Globe, Sept. 18]

DANTE RAMOS missed the point of Belmont’s opposition to the Minuteman High School referendum (“Oh, Belmont! Local control fetish hurts vocational schools,” Opinion, Sept. 11).

The Minuteman district is broken. A substantial percentage of the approximately 600 students come from nonmember towns.

The funding mechanism severely disadvantages member towns. Belmont has tried for years to fix the problem, as recently as this summer. But nonmember towns are not joining.

In 2017, Belmont will pay $30,602 per student, as compared with $19,702 by nonmember towns, and it will only get worse with the new, $144 million Minuteman debt. This is an unfair financial burden on member towns.

Ramos praises Dover for its willingness to overlook the unfairness. But let’s put that in context. Belmont spent $13,029 in 2015 per pupil in our public schools, as compared with $24,263 in Dover. Additionally, Dover sent only two students to Minuteman; Belmont sends an average of 30. The disadvantage of Minuteman membership does not significantly affect Dover; that is not true of Belmont.

Belmont has legitimate concerns. Without fixing the unfairness of the district, we should not approve an oversized school that will make it worse.

Mark Paolillo

Chairman, Board of Selectmen

Belmont

Letter to the Editor: Despite State’s Move on Capital Costs, ‘No’ Remains Best Course

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Michael Libenson

To the editor:

Last Monday [Sept. 12] I served as a panelist for the League of Women Voters information session on the Minuteman referendum. I explained why there is a clear and compelling financial case for a “no” vote on the Minuteman referendum.

A broad group of Belmont town leaders agree. The Board of Selectmen and School Committee have voted unanimously to recommend a “no” vote, as has our State Sen. Will Brownsberger. The Warrant Committee voted 13-1 to recommend a “no” vote.

Some have asked me whether the subsequent Department of Elementary and Secondary Education ruling that allows Minuteman the option to charge non-member towns between 75 percent and 100 percent of the member town capital cost alters my perspective. It does not.

Belmont residents should vote “no” on Tuesday. It remains true that Belmont should save over $200,000 each year, and perhaps more, as a non-member town and yet still generate the same educational outcomes for our children.

The Minuteman district is broken and the recent DESE ruling doesn’t change that. The district is broken because nearly half the students come from non-member towns – including Watertown, Waltham, and Cambridge – and non-member towns are treated differently in the form of lower costs, most importantly with tuition, and secondarily with capital. 

The primary cost difference is due to non-member towns paying substantially less in tuition than member towns like Belmont. Belmont’s tuition cost this year will be $30,602 per student and Watertown will pay $19,702 per student on average. This large difference does not change and there is no clear path to change.

With 26 students at Minuteman, Belmont currently paying approximately $280,000 more than we would if Belmont were a non-member town like Watertown. This tuition disparity is the main reason no non-member town has joined the district in more than 30 years.

Tuition cost is also an important factor in why six of the sixteen towns have recently voted to leave the district.

Second, despite DESE’s recent ruling, capital costs remain unknown. The one thing we do know is that non-member towns will never pay more than member towns.

Minuteman now has to decide how much to charge non-member towns for capital. Imposing the full capital charge of $8,460 will likely cause non-member towns to explore sending some or all of their students to other schools that are substantially cheaper (as Minuteman is already the most expensive voc/ed school in the Commonwealth, even without any capital charge). Minuteman needs these non-district students to fill the school.

If a number of non-member students go elsewhere – or those towns even threaten to go elsewhere – Minuteman will have to choose between an underutilized school (and therefore even higher operating and capital costs borne by the remaining members) or a lower capital fee for non-members. For member towns, this means risk without reward and Belmont need not bear this risk.

Here is the bottom line: the reason why the current decision is so consequential is that a “yes” vote will lock Belmont into a bad deal for 30 or more years. We have an opportunity on Tuesday [Sept. 20] to avoid locking ourselves into a broken system for generations.

The financial case remains clear and compelling that Belmont should vote “no”.

Michael Libenson
Town Meeting Member, Precinct 1
Chair, Belmont Warrant Committee

Letter to the Editor: State Action Results in My Vote Changing From No to Yes

By 5 Comments

Photo: The site

To the editor:

A new Minuteman High School is essential for Belmont. We should vote YES in the Sept. 20 election.

I changed my mind on this vote because Belmont won a major victory this week. DESE, the state agency that oversees all public schools, finally did the right thing this past Thursday [Sept. 15] and set a capital charge that is fair for the member towns. This answers nearly all of the criticisms of the building project. With the capital charge resolved, it is time for Belmont to approve the debt for a new school and remain a member town.

The opponents of the debt argued through the spring and summer that the proposed new school is too large for the member towns and DESE could not be trusted to set a fair capital charge. This argument is no longer valid.

Belmont will pay the same capital charge even if we became a non-member town.  That is the outcome we demanded, an equal per-student amount for the cost of the new building.  DESE has accepted this principle with a small adjustment for non-member towns that already provide a significant level of vocational/tech programs.

In recent weeks the opponents of the debt have changed their focus. They now seem to be making the vote a referendum on the tuition charged to non-member towns for operating expenses. By leaving the district, they say Belmont will save money even with the fair capital charge because the non-member towns pay lower tuition.

The new regional agreement as discussed in Town Meeting allows a district to withdraw, subject to unanimous approval by the remaining members, to avoid the debt obligation.  Tuition was not the reason for this provision.

Non-member towns are a part of Minuteman.  This not ideal but it reflects circumstances unique to this district.  The practical difficulties in getting new towns to join as members may be solvable in the future.

If Belmont pays less in tuition, the remaining member towns have to pay more.  It is a zero sum game at that point and I do not support shifting costs to our neighbors in this way.  The amount at stake is something we can afford.  In a perfect world of equalized tuition, Belmont might save $150,000 when our total town budget is over $100 million.

In addition, leaving the district is not automatic even if Town Meeting votes to withdraw.  The remaining member towns also have to vote unanimous approval for Belmont’s exit.  Reduced to a naked economic calculation, they have an incentive to deny a request to leave.

A member of Arlington’s Finance Committee has already signaled that Belmont can expect opposition to an exit request. Withdrawal is probably not the windfall that some have intimated.

There should be a thorough debate over tuition for non-member towns but it should not be used to avoid approving the debt.  If Belmont withdraws, our economic incentive will be to free-ride on a flawed tuition policy.  Instead, the right course is to remain in the district and help lead that debate.  That debate should also include how to make sure Minuteman is run efficiently and controls its operating costs.

Belmont won the big battle over the capital charge.  I urge you to vote yes on Sept. 20.

Roy Epstein

Cushing Ave.