Football: Belmont Drains SpyPonders, 17-14, on Final Play Field Goal

Photo: It’s good as Aidan Cadogan (#3) is congratulated after hitting the winning points vs. Arlington.

After the final whistle blew, a person on the sidelines said, “Belmont doesn’t win games like this.”

It does now.

A 31-yard field goal by junior kicker Aidan Cadogan splitting the uprights on the final play of the game gave the Belmont High Marauders a thrilling 17-14 victory over Arlington High in a Middlesex League football matchup before a large, boisterous crowd at Belmont’s Harris Field under the Friday night lights, Sept. 23.

“I’m just so proud of our guys. They live what we preach; ‘Big Play, Next Play’, ‘Livin’ in the Reap.’ All credit is due to them. I just call the play, and they go out and execute it,” said Belmont third year head coach Yann Kumin.

“It’s a new era,” said Ben Jones, the team’s workhorse who smashed 200 rushing yards for the game.

“Coach Q started it, my brother [Max Jones] started it, everyone started it who was before us. We couldn’t have done this without them. This is a new Belmont,” he said.

Belmont is currently 2-1 and 1-1 in the Middlesex League with a two-game winning streak.

On the final drive of the game as the Marauders’ was driving down the field in the closing three minutes, kicker Cadogan said he was thinking “just get it in field goal position and the team did and I’m just excited to hit the field goal.”

As he was preparing for the kick, Arlington called a timeout in an attempt to “freeze” the junior. “Normally I don’t really get iced, that’s just me. When they tried it, I said, ‘I’m going to hit this!'”

For the second consecutive week, the night’s star was senior back Jones who carried the ball 40 times for 242 yards and running in both of Belmont’s touchdowns.

“I was able to do this is because of the [offensive] line. They’ve given me holes, given me places to run,” Jones the Belmontonian outside the White Field House after the game.

“We just kept pounding it down their throats and they couldn’t stop us,” Jones said, who has scored seven touchdowns and gained 576 yards in the past two games.

“It’s just keeping up with the Jones’. That’s all we’re trying to do,” said Kumin.

The game did not start out as planned as Arlington’s junior running back Alijah Woods took the ball on the game’s third play 54 yards down the sideline to Belmont’s 6.

But on the next four plays, Belmont’s defense stood firm – led by Adam Deese, Dennis Crowley and Ryan Noone – halting the SpyPonders on Belmont’s two-yard line.

For most of the night, the preferred option was only given Jones the ball and let him pick up four, five or six yards a carry. Mixing up the plays, QB Cal Christofori hit receiver Dylan Ferdinand down the middle for 32 yard to the Arlington 33. But as Belmont was preparing to score, they lost a fumble at the 8. But two plays later, they recovered an Arlington miscue leading to Jones scoring with 12 seconds remaining in the first quarter. 

Despite having the ball for most of the second quarter, Belmont could not convert. But Arlington did in spectacular fashion. After punting with 30 seconds left in the half, Arlington’s junior Jaden Dottin took a slant pass from sophomore QB Adam Bowler and simply outran the Belmont defensive back to score with 20 seconds left in the half to tie up the game at 7.

If Arlington was hoping its fast strike would shift the momentum, it simply wasn’t coming this time in Belmont. Getting the ball to start the second half, QB Cal Christofori handed the ball off to Jones who would pick up five to seven yards with each carry, ending when Jones went to his favorite right side and popped into the end zone to give Belmont a 14-7 lead.

“Arlington’s a tough team, but I think we are a little bit tougher. We have been preaching that all season. We want to be the hardest hitting team by far and they felt it and that’s why we went took the lead,” said Jones.

But Belmont enjoyed the lead for a mere 20 seconds when senior John Nascimento ran the kickoff – which was pushed back due to a knocking the kickoff out-of-bounds – down the right sideline 70 yards for the equalizing TD.

The remainder of the game until the final drive was each defense took charge. Belmont’s Tyler Reynolds knocked away a 40 yard pass from Bowler to Dottin that would have given Arlington the ball deep in Marauders territory with three minutes remaining. 

The last drive, with only 2:17 left in the game, saw a trio of big plays: a pitch to Jones who rounded the left side for 28 yards to the Arlington 37, a quarterback sneak by Christofori on fourth down to the SpyPonder’s 23 with 23 seconds left and dump pass from a scrambling Christofori to junior fullback Adam Deese who hugged the slideline going out on the 8 with only five ticks on the scoreboard.

“Adam just popped out of his protection and gave [Christofori] an outlet and that abled us to get down inside the 10 [yard line]. We got the best kicker in the Middlesex [League], and he proved that for us tonight,” said Kumin

After Cadogan hit the ball through the uprights – the kick would have been good from 40 plus yards – all that needed to be confirmed with the end of the game which came after half a minute of discussion from the refs. The whistle blew and the celebration commenced.  

“Ask me when it becomes real. It’s not real!” said an ecstatic Kumin, who high-stepped across the field after the traditional handshake a-la Michael Flatley.

img_8732 img_8748 img_8755 img_8762 img_8775 img_8781 img_8788 img_8790 img_8801 img_8829 img_8831 img_8853 img_8883 img_8887 img_8897 img_8906 img_8930 img_8942 img_8967 img_8985 img_9011 img_9016 img_9024 img_9029 img_9076 img_9121 img_9151 img_9168 img_9191 img_9194 img_9239 img_9241 img_9260 img_9272 img_9287 img_9298 img_9332 img_9337 img_9353 img_9355 img_9363 img_9370 img_9373 img_9380 img_9386

Belmont Yard Sales: September 24

Photo: Yard sales in Belmont.

Here are this weekend’s yard/moving/garage sales happening in the 02478 zip code:

Permitted yard sales by the Belmont Town Clerk are in bold:

92 Bartlett Ave., Saturday, Sept. 24, 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.

25 Carleton Rd., Saturday, Sept. 24, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.

48 Concord Ave., Saturday, Sept. 24, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.

104 Cross St., Saturday, Sept. 24, 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.

56 Dartmouth St., Saturday and Sunday, Sept. 24 and 25, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.

41 Waverley St., Saturday, Sept. 24, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

285 Waverley St., Saturday, Sept. 24, 8:30 a.m. to 2 p.m.

Stroll The ‘New’ Belmont Center Saturday Afternoon

Photo: Poster for the Stroll.

Just a little grass at the newly constructed “triangle” is all that’s needed to finally finish the Belmont Center Reconstruction Project.

So why not commemorate the completion of the $2.8 million project with a walk around the place?

On Saturday, Sept. 24, from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m., the Belmont Savings Bank is sponsoring a “Fall Stroll” to celebrate Belmont Center’s Grand Re-opening and rediscover the shops and restaurants in the “Center” while enjoying sales, outdoor dining, live music and promotions.

“We welcome town residents and families to Belmont Center this Saturday as part of our sponsorship for this year’s Fall Stroll,” said Bob Mahoney, CEO and president of Belmont Savings Bank. 

“In particular, we are thrilled to support an event that will drive traffic to the Center’s many vibrant businesses, especially through Belmont Savings’ ‘Stroll the Center’ game where attendees can earn a free area merchant gift card,” Mahoney said.

The “Stroll the Center” game will allow attendees earn a free merchant gift card, plus be entered to win an additional $100 gift card. 

People can pick up a game card from the BSB tent:  

  • As they visit merchants they should ask for a sticker to be placed on their card.
  • When they come back to the Bank’s tent, they can RANDOMLY pull a gift card out of a basket. These cards were donated by the merchants and range in value from $5-$20.
  • In addition, their card enters them to win 1 of 10 $100 gift cards from the stores on the game card. Winners will get to pick which store they would like a gift card.

Opening Reception for ‘Three Artists: Voices Surface’ Friday at Gallery of Art

Photo: “OUT ON THE TOWN” by Anne Johnstone.
The opening reception for THREE ARTISTS: VOICES SURFACE, the new show and exhibit at the Belmont Gallery of Art takes place Friday night, Sept. 23 from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the Gallery in the Homer Building in the Town Hall complex.
The exhibit of mixed media collage art features the distinct styles from three unique women artists: Anne Johnstone and Belmont Art Association members Helen Canetta and Carol Wintle.
screen-shot-2016-09-23-at-3-52-33-pm

“SECRET SPACES” by CAROL WINTLE

Live acoustic jazz by Charlotte Dumont and Daniel Shapiro will be featured on an evening of vibrant art, interesting people and live music.
A gallery talk about the show will be held on Sunday, Oct. 23, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. 
The show will run ’til Nov. 20.
screen-shot-2016-09-23-at-3-50-57-pm

“APRIL” by HELEN CANETTA.

Cushing Square MuniParking Lot Closes Sept. 29

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

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

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

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

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

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