Departing Light Advisory Chair Slams Light Board, Solar Advocates; ‘Pay to Play Politics’

By 23 Comments

Photo: Ashley Brown, former chair of the Municipal Light Advisory Board. (Youtube.com image)

In an incendiary farewell address, Ashley Brown, the departing chair of the Municipal Light Advisory Board, blasted members of the Light Board – made up of the Board of Selectmen – and advocates of a progressive solar power policy in Belmont for trading political contributions and influence to advance an energy plan which would force Belmont Light consumers to pay an unjustified subsidy to a small number of “solar zealots.”

In a 20 minutes statement at his final meeting as chair of the advisory board, Brown targeted his wrath on the Light Board’s Sami Baghdady and its newest board member, Jim Williams, who “pay attention to the Light Board only when politics and campaign contributions are involved, and pay little or no attention to matters of much greater financial stakes and risks,” said Brown.

“Their actions clearly demonstrate that their primary concern is self-interested politics not the best interests of Belmont and its citizens,” said Brown, who along with fellow veteran, Robert Forrester, were informed last week by the Light Board, made up of Baghdady, Williams and Mark Paolillo, they would not be reappointed.

When asked after the meeting about the harshness of his comments, Brown said “it’s the truth. I stand by every word.”

Read Brown’s full statement at the end of the article.

Brown and Forrester, who have served on the advisory board for more than a decade, were strong advocates for a modest payment to solar power household – which number less than 20 in a town of nearly 9,000 consumers – for energy recaptured by Belmont Light while asking for payments for infrastructure and maintenance. 

Solar advocates have said Belmont is an outlier to other neighboring communities who have long held robust payments (or tariffs) to solar users – representing “pennies” to consumers while supporting alternative clean energy – which attracts solar installers to those towns. They point to hundreds of homes in Arlington, Lexington and Concord who are taking advantage of their town’s policies. 

For Brown, the debate over solar policy has been hijacked by money and politics to a degree that it will impact the running of Belmont Light, which is considered a “well-run” utility by nine of ten consumers, only four years after a managerial scandal that threatened the utility’s existence. 

Brown weighed in on Baghdady and Williams, saying “they have zero interest” on the operations of Belmont Light, noting that Paolillo has taken the time to understand electrical rate structures and the need for strong management. 

Brown claimed Williams “cut a Faustian bargain to get himself elected” in April’s town election with the support of “the solar lobby” to advocate policy that in a round about way violated a central tenant of his run for selectman, supporting an unfunded mandate to solar advocates.

Brown said Williams has been promoting “a solar tariff that was surreptitiously written by the founder of a solar company with the objective of maximizing the author’s profits by unnecessarily raising the rates of consumers in Belmont and elsewhere, and, indeed, the costs of installing solar itself.”

Since Williams’ campaign treasurer – while unnamed by Brown, public records identify as Claus Becker of Poplar Road – who was also the leading campaign contributor is a member of the solar lobby and would benefit from a progressive tariff, Brown claimed that involvement is a clear violation of “conflict of interest” laws.

The exiting chair said Baghdady has shown an “astonishing lack of decisiveness, backbone, and policy direction” as board chair, his position on solar power dictated by reading the “political tea leaves.”

Brown specifically pointed to an April meeting with the Light Board and the staff of Belmont Light, coming a month after the Light Board voted to indefinitely delay the start of a new rate schedule – known as the Residential Rate APV –which was approved by the board in December. 

Brown said Baghdady “resorted to  unconscionably berating and humiliating in public, a dedicated young women staff member at Belmont Light” (later identified as Lauri Mancinelli, Belmont Light’s energy resources manager), for “thoughtfully [trying] to implement the very policies on which [Baghdady] had himself signed off before becoming the head of the Board.”

“At no point, in this dramatic reversal of position did, did he ever offer a rationale that was based on policy, economics, or anything else of substance. It was raw, money and influence-driven politics,” Brown claimed. 

Brown was equally scathing in his view of  “a tiny fraction of customers who have been heavily subsidized by their neighbors because of a flaw in the tariffs, hold[ing] the town hostage to their demands for continued subsidies from their neighbors.”

“They have propagandized, spread misinformation, made innumerable and completely fabricated, ad hominum attacks,” in their efforts to secure a solar policy that could provide upwards of $20,000 to each solar household over a decade, financed by Belmont Light consumers. 

Brown claimed the solar advocates “turned to the traditional, and ethically suspect, methods of special interests, namely pouring even more cash into a political campaign to buy themselves a seat on the Light Board,” referring to Williams. 

The result of the politicizing of the town’s electrical utility is when “Belmont consumers receive their electric bills they may well be paying not only for electricity, but also involuntarily contributing to a funds that Light Board members use to reward campaign contributors,” said Brown.

Belmont Light will not and cannot survive such a regime, he said, advocating that the Light Board be transformed into an independent body whose charge “is held accountable for quality of service, productivity, and sensible policy.”

The town’s government structure review committee drafted legislation in Dec. 2012 an outline in which the Advisory Board would be a separately-elected commission. While it was received with a great amount of support from the Board of Selectmen at the time, the proposal was never advanced to Town Meeting.  

“Politics, especially of the cash and carry type is neither tolerable nor sustainable in running a municipal electric system,” said Brown.

Ralph Jones, a former Light Board member and soon to be a new member of the Advisory Board, agreed with Brown that solar advocates have dominated the agenda – “swallowing up all the oxygen in the room” – so that ambitious and creative carbon reduction programs, such as a climate action plan being developed by the town’s Energy Committee “can not get traction.”

In his final statement, Forrester said the Belmont Light “brand is sound” with its finances “is much improved” since he came on board.

“We have come a long way since the time when respected citizens of Belmont were advocating the sale of the department,” he said.

But he joined Brown in criticizing “the divisive and petty issue of small time politics” in which he unfortunately found himself at the end of his tenure. 

For the handful of surprised solar advocates attending the meeting, the Brown’s “rant” was “largely unsubstantiated,” said a solar proponent who wished to speak off the record. 

In fact, Becker, who was singled out by Brown, told the Advisory Board that he hoped that each side “could see each other as opponents and not as enemies, and I do note that when we talk one-on-one, it centers on what would be good for Belmont.”

Statement by Ashley Brown, former chair, Municipal Light Advisory Board. 

The governance structure for Belmont Light is dysfunctional.  We now have two boards, the Light Board made up of the Board of Selectmen, and the Municipal Light Advisory Board composed of appointees who are well versed in business, energy policy, and in the electricity market. One board holds all the power and virtually no expertise, while the other has vast experience and knowledge but no authority. 

When MLAB was established, the members of the Light Board realized that the electricity market had become increasingly complicated and that the town needed a governance structure that included industry- and business-specific expertise. The Selectmen concluded that a board of laymen was simply inadequate to protect Belmont ratepayers and the town’s investment in the system. It created MLAB to serve that purpose, with the expectation that eventually it, rather than the Light Board, would become the governing body.

While that never happened, the members of both Light Board and MLAB collaborated very closely.  While there may have been disagreements from time to time, members of both bodies shared a common objective of acting in the best interests of the town in overseeing a commercial enterprise entirely owned by our citizens. It was a shared sense of serving the public interest, not narrow political objectives, that forged an effective oversight arrangement.

That shared dedication to the public interest has now evaporated into a highly politicized, and frankly, ethical , morass, that threatens the viability of Belmont Light. What is particularly troublesome about this development is that it has developed at a time that Belmont Light is doing extraordinarily well. A very recent customer survey indicated a 91 percent satisfaction rating by customers, the record of service quality and reliability is absolutely superb, the energy portfolio is above the state’s standards for renewable energy, even though it is not legally obligated to be in compliance, and it is managing the biggest capital project in the Town’s history on an on schedule, on budget basis.

The management team, led by [General Manager] Jim Palmer, that has been assembled is highly competent and highly motivated. Moreover, because of management’s commitment and because of the frequent public meetings of MLAB and Light Board, the operations and finances of Belmont Light are more transparent than they have ever been.  Finally, Belmont Light has developed, in collaboration with the Energy Committee and very effective demand side management/energy efficiency program, as well as in the process of deploying smart meters and a new billing system that will enable customers to use energy even more efficiently and with less adverse environmental consequences. It is a record to take pride in.

Rather than taking pride in these accomplishments, we have seen a tiny fraction of customers who have been heavily subsidized by their neighbors because of a flaw in the tariffs, hold the town hostage to their demands for continued subsidies from their neighbors. They have propagandized, spread misinformation, made innumerable and completely fabricated, ad hominum attacks, … and argued, almost literally, that the planet would not survive if their Belmont did not continue to provide them with substantial cross subsidies from their neighbors, to help them pay for their investment in highly inefficient rooftop solar panels and to unjustly enrich the vendors who sold or leased them. 

They demand these subsidies even though they were already heavliy subsidized through tax credits and renewable energy credit programs, and despite the fact that  Elon Musk, the founder of the nation’s biggest solar vendor, Solar City, told the Edison Electric Institute last week that solar no longer required subsidies to compete once carbon was internalized into electricity prices, as all of new England has done. 

The debate over whether non-solar Belmont ratepayers should provide cash to solar customers (in some cases as high as $820 per year) has raged for four years. Despite the intensity, the governance system for Belmont Light remained intact and functional. In 2011, and then through implementing action last December, the Light Board made a decision that, would, over time, have phased out the local cross subsidies, while at the same time affording a seven year pay back for Belmont customers who chose to invest in solar.

In short, it would have lowered rates for non-solar customers while maintaining an attractive payback for solar hosts. At the urging of one member of Light Board, now the chair, there were also cash gifts bestowed on existing solar customers, compliments of the other ratepayers of Belmont.  Not coincidentally, several of those receiving the cash handouts, for which no economic justification was ever provided, were either contributors to his campaign or were relatives of contributors.

In a public meeting he said he was giving out the cash because the recipients were “pioneers.” That contrasted to his private statements, only minutes before, that those very same people were “bullies.”

The solar lobby, not content with getting a partial loaf, then turned to the traditional, and ethically suspect, methods of special interests, namely pouring even more cash into a political campaign to buy themselves a seat on the Light Board. 

They funded a very substantial part of the campaign of a candidate for the Board, who dogmatically supported the solar lobby’s party line in public, even though they were in direct conflict with his oft repeated opposition to unfunded liabilities and to local subsidies, and contrary to statements he made in private to members of MLAB. In effect, to get campaign contributions, that candidate cut a Faustian bargain to get himself elected.

Once elected, he tried, to have the Board adopt a solar tariff that was surreptitiously written by the founder of a solar company with the objective of maximizing the author’s profits by unnecessarily raising the rates of consumers in Belmont and elsewhere, and, indeed, the costs of installing solar itself. 

The Light Board member has also been trying to repeal a provision of the 2011 solar tariff that requires that solar generators eventually be compensated at market value rather than artificially high rates, paid for by imposing higher prices on non-solar customers. He quite explicitly advocated that non-solar Belmont customers should pay higher rates than they would otherwise be compelled to pay in order to heavily cross subsidize his campaign contributors. He has been doing so at the behest of his campaign treasurer, and biggest non-familial contributor to his campaign also a contributor to the campaign of the current chair of Light Board, who had the gall to state in an Light Board meeting, that solar pricing was a purely political matter, devoid of technical issues, in a public meeting of Light Board. That made transparently clear that his campaign contributions were intended to buy himself a subsidy, which in his case, amounted to approximately $820 per year for  the life of his solar panels, thus, probably amounting to  more than $20,000 paid entirely by his neighbors in town.

Curiously, the Light Board member pursuing the contributor’s agenda, never fully disclosed the identity of the person who provided the “tariff he provided. He also failed to disclose the fact that the “tariff” he was pushing, was written by a man whose business stood to be enriched by the measure being pushed. What is particularly striking about the Light Board member’s heavier is that he ran a campaign based on opposition to unfunded liabilities, but his first action as an Light Board member was to create even bigger unfunded liabilities by not allowing Belmont Light to recover all of its fixed costs from several of his campaign contributors.

Given the conflict of interest and the failure to disclose – that fact was also not disclosed by another contributor to the same campaign in his transmittal of the proposal to the other Light Board members in which he describes the author as a “resident” of the town, and failed to identify the fellow’s business interests, an act typical of the dishonesty of the subsidy seeking  lobby in town – that member of the Light Board should be prohibited from voting on any measure having to do with solar pricing in Belmont. His conflict of interest is patently clear, as is his links to the “pay to play” tactics of those who seek to put their hands in the pockets of everyone else in our town.

Intimidated by the outpouring of money and a false reading of the political tea leaves, as well as an astonishing lack of decisiveness, backbone, and  policy direction, the new chair of the Light Board, decided, without giving any explanation of his rationale, to retract the December decision. 

While he was unable to publicly articulate any policy reason for doing so, in private, he fulminated about the political consequences for himself if Belmont did not reinstate heavy cross subsidies for solar hosts and their vendors.

To disguise his inability to articulate any reason his complete reversal of position, he resorted to  unconscionably  berating and humiliating  in public a dedicated young women staff member at BL, later telling her “it was just politics.”

The deed for which he berated her was that she had thoughtfully tried to implement  the very policies on which the chair had  himself signed off before becoming the head of the board. The young woman, as a result, felt compelled to resign her position, a critical loss for Belmont Light, because she was [its] central person in establishing and coordinating energy efficiency and carbon reduction programs. 

What made the [chair’s] posture so bizarre was that he took her to task for, among other things, limiting the town’s liability for flaws in privately owned solar units, for requiring performance in exchange for payment, and for documenting the size and scale of the solar units, a matter made necessary by the nature of the cash gift the [chair’s] has bestowed on solar hosts. In effect, he not only wanted to subsidize the solar hosts, but also to relieve them of any liability for unsafe operation and to pay them regardless of whether they performed. 

At no point, in this dramatic reversal of position did, did he ever offer a rationale that was based on policy, economics or anything else of substance. It was raw, money and influence driven politics. Moreover, he refused to follow a prearranged schedule of joint Light Board/MLAB meetings to discuss these matters. He made it clear that he, who by his own admission, knows virtually nothing about electricity was going to work his political agenda and would not tolerate any input from experts either MLAB or staff.  Simply stated he did not want his political objectives interfered with by anyone who knew something about the subject. In short, he was insisting on governance by the uninformed, and subject to being heavily influenced by those who opened their checkbooks to clueless politicians willing to commit themselves to the self-serving agenda of those writing the checks.

Largely at the urging of some prominent people in town, including the third member of the Light Board, the chair, looking for political cover in a storm caused by his move to rescind the December, 2014 decision, announced [at] Town Meeting that a special expert committee would be appointed to come up with a compromise between net metering and the December tariff approved by the Light Board. In effect, the chair was telling an as yet unknown committee of experts what conclusion they should reach. Subsequently, the Committee was appointed.

Obviously, its recommendations remain to be seen, and the final actions of the Light Board are not yet known. Given past performance by the two members of the Light Board, it seems highly unlikely, regardless of what the committee recommends,  there is little reason to be confident that the Light Board will do anything  other than what is politically expedient.

For that reason, Belmont residents who do not wish to pay cross subsidize the campaign contributors to members of the Light Board, who object to the toxic effects of money and politics, should make their positions clear. For two member of Light Board, politics is all that matters when it comes to electricity tariffs., and so far the only people who are lobbying are those seeking to dip into their neighbors’ pockets.

What makes all of this even a more terrible omen for the future of Belmont Light, is that neither of the two Light Board members discussed have ever asked more than cursory questions about the large substation project, never uttered a single question about gaining pool status for the new transmission line, a multi-million dollar issue for the town, nor have they ever made any inquiry into Belmont Light’s energy purchasing or hedging strategies, one of, if not the biggest procurement activity conducted by the town. They have never even asked about pricing policy and the basis on which our customers, their constituents, are billed. Neither has any experience in or knowledge of energy markets, and neither has ever expressed any interest in learning about them, and unlike their predecessors, make no pretense of exercising due diligence in the way that corporate directors are required to do. Their oversight is strictly limited to issues they find to be of political value. 

Watching their meetings, one would have to presume that the only issue of consequence is solar pricing and that that is a purely political matter devoid of substance. Simply stated, these two members of the Light Board pay attention to the Light Board only when politics and campaign  contributions are involved, and pay little or no attention to matters of much greater financial stakes and risks. Their actions clearly demonstrate that their primary concern is self interested politics not the best interests of Belmont and its citizens.

Belmont Light has been able to serve the town because it has been run on a business like, non political basis, with a sharp focus on community service. The current majority of the Light Board, are now attempting to use Belmont Light as a vehicle for political patronage and favoritism. Amazingly, they do so without regard to, or even acknowledgement of, public policy or equity considerations.

While the pricing of solar energy is a public policy issue, neither of the two Light Board members being discussed have ever shown any interest in or even articulation of a policy or economic perspective. They simply pursue a course that they think is in their political interest and which rewards their campaign contributors. 

So when Belmont consumers receive their electric bills they may well be paying not only for electricity, but also involuntarily contributing to a funds that Light Board members use to reward campaign contributors. Belmont Light will not and cannot survive such a regime. 

The governance of the system must be reformed to assure competent, informed, and apolitical oversight. There needs to be a Board put in place that is run on a fully commercial basis and is held accountable for quality of service, productivity, and sensible policy. Politics, especially of the cash and carry type is neither tolerable nor sustainable in running a municipal electric system. 

Petition to Restore Original Belmont Center Plan Coming to Selectmen

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The original plan for the Belmont Center Reconstruction project.

Residents and Town Meeting members are expected to present a Petition with 400 signatures to the Belmont Board of Selectmen Monday afternoon, June 15, requesting the board reject a series of controversial last-minute changes it approved last month to the $2.8 million Belmont Center Reconstruction Project.

“We plan on presenting our petition during the … Selectmen’s Office Hours at 6 p.m. [on Monday],” said Paul Roberts, a Cross Street resident and Precinct 8 Town Meeting member, being joined by Town Meeting colleagues and members of the Traffic Advisory Committee which developed the project over four years.

If the board ignores their concerns, Roberts said he will begin collecting 200 signatures that will allow him to ask the Town Clerk to call a special Town Meeting where it will debate the project’s changes before the 300-member legislative body.

Roberts petition comes after an unanimous vote by the selectmen on May 28 to change the project’s original design – known as Plan A – after 96-year-old Lydia Ogilby approached the board with 200 signatures in an effort to alter the project’s blueprint despite the knowledge that major work had commenced.

The changes – dubbed Plan B – restored a small number of parking spaces in front of the main branch of Belmont Savings Bank and preserving a “cut through” connecting Moore Street with Concord Avenue, allowing drivers to avoid Leonard Street when seeking parking.

The result of the new changes meant the elimination of a new “town green” located in front of the bank. Under the alternative design, the green space would remain an island surrounded by vehicle traffic and parked cars.

Since the May 28 vote, an increasing number of residents have expressed their dismay at the board’s action in comments to articles and on-line. The main complaint is as much procedural as esthetic, as the Plan A design was accepted by a majority of Town Meeting members eight months earlier.

“This was the only plan that was presented to [the Special Town Meeting] in November, with the understanding that it was a plan that would be put out to bid and completed,” Roberts said.

Also, Roberts said he and many Town Meeting members “voted for that plan specifically because of the Town Lawn feature and were shocked when the board simply removed it and submitted new plans.”

“We are hopeful the [Selectmen] will recognize this and restore it to the original plan” by the board’s June 22 meeting, said Roberts.

If the Selectmen refuse to reinstate Plan A, said Roberts, it could use its authority to call a Town Meeting into an emergency session, and allow the legislative body to choose between the competing plans.

“I would support that, as well, and think that this would have been the proper response to the May 26 hearing, especially since Town Meeting was in session at the time,” he said.

If the board refuses to pursue either of the options, Roberts and his supporters can collect and submit the 200 signatures and call Town Meeting into session to clarify that the vote to fund the reconstruction was a vote to fund Plan A and not any other plan.

Roberts is confident that he could raise the number of signatures to bring Town Meeting back into session.

“I don’t believe you can simply repurpose signatures; you have to use a special form. But, again, with [more than] 400 signatures, getting 200 to request a special Town Meeting to resolve this dispute shouldn’t be a problem,” he said.

Angered, Resident Petitions To Restore Belmont Center’s Town Green

By 5 Comments

Photo: The face page of the online petition concerning Belmont Center Reconstruction project.

After expressing their anger in on-line comments and message boards to a Belmont Board of Selectmen decision to approve a last-second petition driven design change to the Belmont Center Reconstruction Project, one resident has started his own petition in an attempt to have the Selectmen change their vote.

“I am circulating a petition calling for the restoration of Plan A and will be asking my fellow Town Meeting members and neighbors to join me in signing it,” wrote Paul Roberts, a Cross Street resident and Precinct 8 member, who placed his petition on the change.org website.

Roberts said he hoped the petition will spark the selectmen to reverse its earlier decision and call another public meeting, this time “to clear the air, explain their actions and discuss ways to make sure this doesn’t happen again.”

So far, there is no word from individual selectmen on this petition.

Roberts joined others expressing their surprise, discontent and disappointment to an unanimous vote by the selectmen at an unusual Thursday night meeting, on May 28, prompted by a petition drive led by 96-year-old Lydia Ogilby who sought to make changes to the project’s blueprints as work had already begun on the plan.

The changes Ogilby advocated restores a small number of parking spaces in front of the main branch of Belmont Savings Bank that supporters claimed are needed by the bank’s elderly customers. Also, the modification would also preserve a “cut through” connecting Moore Street with Concord Avenue, allowing drivers to avoid Leonard Street when seeking parking in the area.

The result of the new changes would eliminate the creation of a new “town green” in front of the bank. Under the altered design, the green space would become an island surrounded by vehicle traffic and parked cars.

The alterations came seven months after a November 2014 Special Town Meeting approved the drawings and the project’s financing package.

Despite opposition to “Plan B” by residents and some stinging comments from Linda Nickens, Traffic Advisory Committee chair, which held four years of public meetings before approving the design which was approved by the Selectmen and Town Meeting, the Selectmen voted 3-0 for the changes.

The resulting comments – online in the Belmontonian and Google’s Belmont Moms community and public conversations – to the selectmen’s decision were quick to come with some pointed political jabs included.

“This seems like a poor precedent to set and an incredibly dangerous one that. I am very disappointed to be so poorly represented. Perhaps if my pedigree were better documented, I could bring about some real change… ” wrote Miriam Lapson in a Belmontonian comment.

“We have a major process problem if a small (and the apparently well-connected) group can make arbitrary last-minute changes to a plan that has been developed over years with broad community input,” wrote Mike Campisano.

“The result of these arbitrary changes to the plan will be to make Belmont Center less welcoming to pedestrians and more efficient as a pass through for drivers. How does that help any of the stakeholders?” he said.

Two days ago, Bonnie Friedman of Hay Road and Precinct 3, wrote a letter to the editor in the Belmontonian addressed to the selectmen in which she scolded the board for allowing it to be swayed by a small minority of residents in town.

“If a change is to be made at this point, a public process must be offered once again; no last minute substitutions to appease one small vocal minority. If this is not done correctly, the whole process is tainted and will be very difficult for the Selectmen to gain the confidence and monetary support of the town again,” she said.

For Roberts, the selectmen’s vote was “disgraceful” as it threw out the window “a months-long process out the window” hundreds of hours of volunteer time Traffic Advisory Committee.

“Their decision makes a mockery of this Town’s efforts to create a transparent, consensus-based, bottom-up process for planning and investment. Instead, it sends the clear message that the word of the Selectmen is written in sand. That even the most straight-forward projects in this town are political footballs to be kicked around and subject to the whims of powerful constituencies, rather than the will of the majority of voters and their representatives at Town Meeting,” he said.

Fore! PGA Tour Brings Street Closure, Parking Restrictions Beginning Tuesday

By Leave a Comment

Photo:

The Belmont Country Club is hosting the PGA TOUR Constellation Senior Players Championship beginning Tuesday, June 9.

Working with state and other municipalities, the Belmont Police Department has developed a traffic plan that will help keep traffic delays and parking issues to a minimum during the 

Road and exit closures:

The most prominent feature of the plan is that Winter Street in Belmont will be CLOSED to traffic on the following dates and times. These times are subject to change. 

  • Tuesday, June 9: 7:30 a.m. – 7:30 p.m.
  • Wednesday, June 10: 5:30 a.m. – 8:30 p.m.
  • Thursday, June 11: 6:30 a.m. – 7:30 p.m.
  • Friday, June 12: 6:30 a.m. – 7:30 p.m.
  • Saturday, June 13: 6:30 a.m. – 7:30 p.m.
  • Sunday, June 14: 6:30 a.m. – 7:30 p.m.

In addition, the state will close the Exit 56 ramp from Route 2 East (onto Winter Street) during the event hours.

The detour for motorists who use Exit 56 will direct them to use Exit 55 onto Pleasant Street in Lexington, so residents may anticipate that much of the traffic that usually would be on Winter Street will shift to Concord Avenue between Pleasant Street in Lexington and the intersection with Winter Street in Belmont. The reverse detour will bring motorists on Concord Avenue west to Pleasant Street in Lexington, where a right turn will bring vehicles to an entrance to Route 2 West.

Marsh Street will be closed for motorists intent on getting to Winter Street, Route 2, Lexington, or Waltham. Motorists headed for Belmont Center, Concord Avenue, or Mill Street may find it quicker to gain access via Route 60/Pleasant Street. Residents will be able to enter Marsh Street from Concord Avenue and proceed north on Marsh Street.

Robinwood Road will be posted as “do not enter” at Concord Avenue, since Robinwood Road will be used to send some event traffic away from the country club.

Residents of Hough Road and Robinwood Road will be asked to come on to Marsh Street from Concord Avenue. Hough Road residents may turn left onto Hough Road. Robinwood Road residents will turn left onto Winter Street and then turn left onto Robinwood Road.

To improve traffic flow with all of the detours, Mill Street will be diverted into a T style intersection at Concord Avenue. Motorists westbound on Concord Avenue will not be permitted to turn left onto Mill Street. Motorists driving east on Concord Avenue will be permitted to turn right onto Mill Street or continue on Concord Avenue in the normal manner.

Residents of the area:

All residents near the Winter Street Road closure will be able to get to and from their homes by motor vehicle at all times during the event. Some brief delays in doing so and parking restrictions on their streets should be anticipated.

For residents on the streets listed on the reverse, your driver’s license with the street address will be sufficient to allow you through any road closure to get to your home. In addition, for visitors you authorize, the Police Department will have a printed pass system available. To prevent improper use, there will be a limit to the number of passes each address will be permitted. This pass will not authorize on street parking. Passes for resident visitors will be available starting June 1 by visiting the police station.

Parking:

There will be temporary “no parking” restrictions on the streets listed below. Some of these parking restrictions are needed because of the detoured traffic flow. Other restrictions are intended to discourage event parking that might cause problems for emergency vehicles, add unsafe pedestrian trips to the event, and be inconvenient for residents:                                               

  • Rayburn Road                                
  • Country Club Lane
  • Dundonald Road                               
  • Grey Birch Park
  • Partridge Lane                                  
  • Greybirch Circle
  • Winter Street                                    
  • Greensbrook Way                              
  • Robinwood Road                                
  • Concord Avenue        
  • Hough Road                                      
  • Marsh Street (between Concord Avenue and Country Club Lane)

In addition, there will be no private parking available for purchase at or near the event at Belmont Country Club and no public or on street parking at or near the location. 

For more information about the event from the PGA TOUR:

http://www.pgatour.com/champions/tournaments/constellation-senior-players-championship.html 

or  cspgolf.com  or  781-205-2040

Belmont High Will Be In Session Tuesday Despite Early Morning Fire Monday

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Crews cleaning the room where a floor cleaning machine was destroyed by fire early Monday morning, May 25.

Belmont High School will be open on Tuesday, May 26, a day after a fire in a storage room next to the school’s auditorium destroyed a floor-cleaning machine and damaged the room.

“The fire started shortly before two o’clock this morning and [the entire] company went down there for an alarm investigation,” said Belmont Fire Chief David Frizzell.

“When they got there, they found smoke coming from a custodial storage room underneath the back end of the auditorium outside the hallway that runs from the cafeteria and the music department,” said Frizzell.

In flames was a battery-operated floor maintenance machine used to clean and wash the school’s floors. It’s suspected an overheated battery caused the fire. The arriving companies stretched hose lines into the building to reach the area.

The blaze destroyed the machine and resulted in smoke and water damage to the room and a thick, smokey odor throughout in the auditorium and the immediate area, said Frizzell.

In an unrelated issue, a water pipe in the recirculation system in the adjacent room “let go” resulting in the water being shut off, he said.

By early Monday afternoon, building maintenance had opened all the doors to the school and positioned fans to clear the smoke from the premise. 

“Early this morning, the odor was overpowering. Now it’s so much better,” said Angela Braun, Belmont’s Health Department Director, as she visited the site.

Inside, members from a professional service company were scrubbing the walls and floors of the damaged room as water service was returned to the building. 

The fire comes as the town’s Capital Budget Committee prepares to replace the existing 40 year old alarm system the Fire Department said is past its useful life. The $1 million price tag to replace the system drained the entire bonding capacity provided to Capital Budget in this year’s $4.5 million Proposition 2 1/2 override. 

Belmont Selected 200th Best High School in 2015 USN&WR Rankings

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Belmont High School ranked “Best” High School by USN&WR.

The grades are in for this year and Belmont High School, once again, is receiving a gold star.

For the sixth-year running, Belmont High has been named by US News & World Report as one of the best high schools in the country, according to the latest edition of the annual review of schools across the country.

This year, the 9th-12th grade school is ranked 200 out of 21,000 public schools surveyed by the magazine, earning a “gold” medal based on students performance on state assessment tests and how well the students are prepared for college.

(Here is the full methodology on ranking schools.)

According to the ranking, seven out of ten students takes at least one Advanced Placement course while attending Belmont High, with nearly all the pupils proficient or advanced in English and math. The school does lag behind nearly 80 percent of Massachusetts high schools in terms of student/teacher ratio at 16 to 1. 

When looking at schools with “open enrollment” – in which all residents are accepted – Belmont is the second-highest ranked high school in Massachusetts, trailing only Lexington High School (194th nationally).

Taking out charter, magnet, test, academic achievement and other schools which limit admissions, Belmont is one of the few “regular” high school that can claim a top 250 ranking in this year’s report.

Belmont outpaces some of the test schools as the Concord Avenue school achieved a 103rd ranking for top schools in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) education.

Last year, the organization ranked Belmont 151st among all high schools nationally and third state-wide. In 2009, Belmont High was named the 100th best US public high school. 

White Knight to the Rescue: Cushing Village Partnering with Cambridge Firm

By 1 Comment

Photo: Cushing Village on the Chinese-language website, Jei Wi. 

After more than 21 months since the town approved its construction, the developer of the multi-use Cushing Village project has apparently found his “White Knight” to help rescue the 167,000 square foot project that has been floundering since 2013. 

In a press release dated April 27, Cushing Village’s developer, Smith Legacy Partners said Cambridge-based Urban Spaces would become its “development partner” in constructing the three-building complex comprising 115 apartments, about 36,000 square feet of retail/commercial space and a garage complex with 230 parking spaces. 

Urban Spaces’ “development expertise will help to ensure that the vision we have for the Cushing Village project becomes a reality,” said Chris Starr, the managing partner of Smith Legacy Partners located in Acton.

Movement on the long-stalled project at the corner of Trapelo Road and Common Street was met with approval from town officials.

“We welcome any news suggesting that the Cushing Village project is progressing,” said Sami Baghdady, chair of the Belmont Board of Selectmen. Baghdady was chair of the Planning Board, which spent nearly 18 months reviewing Starr’s plans for the project before approving the development plans in July 2013. 

Reports have yet to reveal the exact relationship between Starr and Urban Spaces, in terms of an equity stake, or which party has the controlling interest currently or in the future. In Urban Spaces’ past developments, the still young firm – it was founded in 2005 and completed its first major development in 2010 – has a history of continuing to hold onto properties once they are completed. 

“Unlike most developers, who are there to get projects built and move on, we manage all of our own properties,” said Urban Spaces’ Vice President of Operations Jeff Hirsch.

“We’re in it for the long haul,” Hirsch said in an article in the trade journal Construction Now.

The press release announcing the partnership said Urban Spaces “acquires, develops, and manages high-end residential properties in close proximity to urban centers.” 

Town officials are not aware of the partnership arrangement between Starr and Urban Spaces. 

“I am not aware of the nature of Urban Spaces’ participation in the project, but I am sure we will learn more before the developer purchases the Cushing Square parking lot property from the town,” said Baghdady. 

The initial step forward to begin construction of the complex will be the sale of the municipal parking lot adjacent to Trapelo and Williston roads by the town to the partnership for $850,000. That sale will be completed once the new team meets a series of provisions in the development agreement, once of which is identifying the development’s financing. 

The town can expect to receive about $1.5 million in the parking lot sale and fees and permit costs. 

But despite the announcement, nothing has taken place between the partners and the town with no firm date for the beginning of construction, according to Glenn Clancy, the town’s director of Community Development. 

The partnership announcement appears to bring an end to a tumultuous 21 months for Starr – who personally sued each of the Board of Selectmen in 2010 in a dispute over the municipal parking lot – as proclamations to the town of quick start on the project quickly turned into a series of delays and broken promises. 

Stalled by financing

In January 2014, Starr made public statements that construction would begin in the late winter or the early summer with the first stores opening by the spring of 2015. Yet the next time the development team was before town officials was in March 2014 when Starr’s representatives  negotiated with the Board of Selectmen a month-to-month extension to purchase the Trapelo Road  municipal parking lot by paying a $20,000 monthly non-refundable fee.

So far, Smith Legacy has sent nearly a quarter of a million dollars into town coffers. This month, the fee is scheduled to increase to $30,000. 

Discussion within the local business circles indicated that Starr – whose previous development experience has been building a small retail development in his hometown – was finding it difficult finding the necessary development financing to come before the town to purchase the parking lot. 

In addition, Starr had parted ways with his previous development partner, Porter Square’s Oaktree Development before finalizing the building rights with the Planning Board, which many business insiders said only made it more difficult finding a financial backer.

By August 2014, Starr hired Boston Realty Advisors, a commercial deal maker, offering up Cushing Village as a “pre-sale or joint venture development opportunity.”

By the beginning of 2015, the development showed up on the leading real estate website in China, JuWai.com, where it was seeking investors willing to pay up to $8 million to become a financial partner.

While the development stalled, the project lost an opportunity to lease the anchor retail space to a grocery store Starr has longed sought, when Foodie’s Urban Market decided to rent about 30,000 square-feet in the former Macy’s site in Belmont Center. 

It appeared activity was about to occur at the development with the news that the popular laundromat E-Z Duz It at the corner of Horne Road and Common Street was closing on April 30. 

What Urban Spaces brings to the partnership is just about everything needed to start, complete and run the development. The firm, founded by Paul Ognibene (who incidentally is the chair of the Cohasset School Committee), has experience developing Cushing Village-like projects. A recently completed building is a commercial development at 159 First Street in Cambridge’s Kendall Square, totaling 126,000 square feet housing 115 apartments with an underground parking garage and ground floor retail.

Screen Shot 2015-04-29 at 8.51.54 AM

159 First Street, Cambridge, built by Urban Spaces.

Another, currently being planned on the Brighton and Brookline line on Washington Street, would include 130 units on five floors, first-floor retail space with 80 underground parking spaces. In that project, Urban Space acquired a 99-year lease on the property. 

Urban Space is also very active in the property management field and has financed projects it builds such as 7 Cameron Ave. in North Cambridge, and 30 Haven St. in Reading, built in 2012.

Coincidently, Urban Spaces partnered with Oaktree Development in the Reading development. 

“We’re in a big growth stage,” Urban Spaces’ Hirsch said in the Construction Now article.

“We’ve tripled in size in the last year and a half, and our property management business has quadrupled. We have been able to bring in some amazingly talented people with the same core values towards value, quality, and plain old hard work,” he said.

After Review, PGA Rejects Rock Meadow for Golf Tournament Parking

By 3 Comments

Photo: Rock Meadow Conservation Land. 

A plan to use town conservation land off upper Concord Avenue to park nearly 1,000 vehicles during an upcoming professional golf tournament at Belmont Country Club in June has been abandoned, according to an email from the town’s conservation agent to a resident.

“At this point in time, the Conservation Commission will not be using Rock Meadow as a parking area for the Constellation golf tournament,” Mary Trudeau, Belmont’s conservation officer, wrote to Jeff Miller today, Tuesday, April 21.

Trudeau did not return a call from the Belmontonian for comment. 

According to Belmont Town Administrator David Kale, the PGA decided after reviewing the anticipated traffic coming to and from Belmont and the “complications of the site” on the number of vehicles onto the site, to relocate the majority of the parking to another area nearby. 

“The PGA is always looking at alternatives and they found one that suits their needs a little bit better,” said Kale.

It is unknown where the parking will be situated. 

The change comes a week after the Belmont Conservation Commission narrowly approved a conditional agreement to allow the Professional Golf Association Tour (PGA) to use approximately 11 acres of Rock Meadow Conservation Land for up to 1,000 parking spaces to support crowds attending the Constellation Senior Players Championship, one of the five “major” tournaments of the PGA’s Champions Tour for players over 50 years old.

The tournament will take place from Thursday, June 11 to Sunday, June 14 at the Belmont Country Club. 

During the debate whether to approve the conditional agreement – any fees to use the meadow would be placed in the ConCom’s Victory Garden reserve account to pay for the biannual mowing – Trudeau said the town forces her “to go begging” for grants and other funding to maintain the land as Belmont does not provide monies to the ConCom.

After news of the agreement was made public, several residents questioned the vote to place upwards of 1,000 cars in three locations on the meadow.

The PGA’s decision was welcomed news to those who felt the number of vehicles could lead to pollution and damage to nearby wetlands. 

“For both public policy and environmental reasons, I’m pleased that the decision appears to have been reversed.  Now I’d like to see the town add a budget item for meadow maintenance, and I also encourage all users to donate to the Friends of Rock Meadow,” Miller, a Precinct 1 Town Meeting member, told the Belmontonian. 

[Update] BREAKING: Fire Destroys Jimmy’s Food Mart, Damages Block of Stores

By 2 Comments

Photo: The fire at Jimmy’s Food Mart that occurred on Saturday, April 18. 

A three-alarm fire destroyed the convenient store Jimmy’s Food Mart and damaged a business block – including a new restaurant days away from opening – at the corner of Belmont and School streets on the Watertown line.

At this time, no one is thought to have been injured in the fire that occurred just after 7:30 p.m., Saturday, April 18. 

Belmont Fire Department Fire Chief David Frizzell told the Belmontonian the department received a call reporting a fire in the store.

“When we arrived, there was heavy fire in the back of the market. We don’t know if the store was open but there was someone there,” Frizzell said.

The inferno and smoke could be seen blocks away as flames reached high into the twilight sky as dozens of firefighters battled the conflagration so it would not spread to an abutting residential building at the corner of Lewis Road. Bystanders flocked to the scene as sirens and a helicopter brought attention to the scene. 

The blaze halted traffic on the normally busy thoroughfare as fire equipment from neighboring communities – including Watertown, Cambridge and Waltham – lent mutual aid, sending vehicles and the MBTA 73 bus onto Fairview Avenue. In addition, electricity was cut off in the blocks near the fire. 

“A Watertown engine arrived when we did so we had help from the start,” said Frizzell.

It took about half-an-hour to knock down most of the flames.

“Jimmy’s is heavily damaged, the roof has come in and there’s heavy fire damage. It’s a loss,” he said.

Parmjit Singh, owner of Jimmy’s, located at 297 Belmont St., was watched from across the street as his business burned.

“I put all my dreams in this town,” Singh told the Belmontonian. “A lot of people supported us. Now my business, everything is gone.”

Singh and his wife and partner, Surinder Kaur Dhaliwal, bought the shuttered site of the former Shore Drug in 2013 and opened it as a convenience store in January 2014. The store is managed by their son and business partner, Jimmy Singh.

Since opening, neighborhood reaction has been overwhelmingly favorable, with residents commending the owners for operating a clean and inviting business. Earlier this year, the Belmont Board of Selectmen rejected a beer and wine license to Singh and Dhaliwal. 

“I was here until 10 a.m. when I went home to sleep. Then my wife called to say the business was on fire,” Singh said. He does not know what the future holds for Jimmy’s.

“I want to open. I need to open. But I don’t know right now,” he said.

The fire caused heavy smoke and water damage to the other retail establishments on the block, said Frizzell. The businesses including Shine on Salon, Parmagian & Marinelli Law Office, Dr. Edward J. Burns Optometrist, Hemmingway Tailoring-Alterations, and a new eatery, “Tony G’s Barbecue,” in the former location of Gustazo Cuban Restaurant at 289 Belmont St. It was reported to open soon with new furniture and fixtures already installed.  

The fire is currently under investigation by the Belmont Fire and Belmont Police departments as the Massachusetts Fire Marshall was also at the scene, said Frizzell.  

“We’ll be here for the rest of the night. There’s pockets of fire we still need to get to. There’s quite a bit of work ahead of us,” he said. 

ConCom Approves Parking on Rock Meadow for Major Golf Tournament

By 1 Comment

Photo: The location on Rock Meadow where parking will be located for a golf tournament in June.

The Belmont Conservation Commission narrowly approved a conditional agreement to allow the Professional Golf Association Tour (PGA) to use approximately 11 acres of Rock Meadow Conservation Land off upper Concord Avenue for up to 1,000 parking spaces to support a major golf tournament taking place at Belmont Country Club during the second week of June.

The 3-2 vote came after an hour in which the commission members and Conservation Agent Mary Trudeau debated whether the land – never used for such an activity – would be damaged by vehicular pollution or whether a “yes” vote would set a bad precedence versus the commission’s real need for outside funding to continue the upkeep of the land and the nearby Victory Gardens.

“I am literally begging to find grants and money as the [Town Meeting] doesn’t give [the Conservation Commission] a penny,” said Trudeau, in an impassioned plea to the board to pass the proposal.

The approval came with the proviso that all fees for using the meadow will be placed in the Conservation Commission’s Victory Garden Revolving Account to provide money to mow the meadow.

With the Commission’s approval, the PGA and the town – through its Town Administration Office – will begin negotiations on a contract that will include both fees for parking and for other town services. In addition, the PGA has made considerable charitable contributions to municipalities and

The PGA is scheduled to meet with the Belmont Police Department on Thursday, April 16, to discuss required traffic control and details.

Rock Meadow is 70 acres of public conservation land that includes a meadow, wetlands, streams and woods. It is a part of the Western Greenway, a corridor of undeveloped green spaces that connects the towns of Belmont, Waltham and Lexington. It is a favorite place for hiking, birding, biking, picnicking, cross-country skiing, and community gardening.

The meeting began with a presentation from the PGA’s Joe Rotellini and Geoff Hill to give a highlights of the Constellation Senior Players Championship, one of the five “major” tournaments for older (those on the PGA’s Champions Tour for players over 50 years old) but still very popular golfers such as Bernhard Langer, Tom Watson, Fred Couples and Vijay Singh.

Rotellini, who oversees the day-to-day operation of the tournament, told the commissioners that people will come out to see the marque players and it’s critical to have parking in the area. He stated that the PGA was also in negotiations with other nearby communities for parking.

As part of its extensive management plan, the PGA will require parking from Tuesday, June 9 to Sunday, June 14 with the number of vehicles “ramps up” during the four days of the actual tournament, starting on Thursday, June 11, said Rotellini.

The temporary parking lot will begin to accept cars at approximately 7:30 a.m. with most vehicles departing by sunset. During the week, Winter Street from Concord Avenue to Route 2 will be one-way towards Lexington.

IMG_1160

The parking plan will be laid out by a professional management firm hired by the PGA. Under the plan envisioned by the Tour, a pair of temporary curb cuts will be placed along Concord Avenue near the intersection of Winter Street (see image) that will allow a one-way circular loop where a shuttle bus will pick up attendees and deliver them to the country club. The cut will require moving large rocks that occupy the spaces.

“It is a temporary roadway that may require stones if it rains,” said Trudeau.

That portion of the North Meadow will be the location of the largest of three parking areas, used by 700 vehicle spaces from June 9 to 14. The activity will likely require moving a proposed sheep grazing site. (see image)

IMG_1159

The second lot, expected to be used from June 12 to June 14, is what most residents recognize as Rock Meadow adjacent to the Mill Street entrance and the Victory Gardens. Up to 250 vehicles can use this location.

A final, and smallest, parking area will be located to the south of the first two sites, accompanying 150 spaces. Rotellini said if it does rain during the event, it’s unlikely to use the second and third areas as crowd numbers will be dampened.

In addition to setting up and roping off the parking areas, the PGA is insured up to $10 million, is set to acquire all permits, will bring in public restrooms and trash containers which will be cleaned at the end of each day, and have the necessary number of shuttle buses available to allow for 10 minutes between trips.

Rotellini said he and Trudeau have had discussions on repairing and restoring the meadow for any damage beyond the normal wear and tear expected from the activity that week. He said the property will be video recorded before the land is used to resolve any problems.

“We are the PGA tour. We do things the right way,” said Rotellini, saying the PGA hopes to create a working relationship with Belmont so when the tour hopefully returns – the Senior Players Championship will be in other locations in 2016 and 2017 – “we can rekindle those partnerships.”

Trudeau said she had discussed the proposal with Belmont Town Counsel George Hall, who judged that there didn’t appear to be a conflict using conservation land, granted to the town via state charter, for this activity.

Commissioner Margaret Velie asked if it wouldn’t be prudent to request a review with the state’s Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs “because it is conservation land.”

In addition, she expressed concern for restoring the land and the possible release of pollution by the vehicles while on the meadow for up to six days.

Following on Velie’s line, David Webster said Rock Meadow was created “for passive recreation uses,” and by approving the plan, “how do tell our neighbors they can’t use the meadow for another uses?”

“This will set a bad precedence. What’s next? Soccer fields? Dog parks?” he said.

But Commission Chair James Roth said he didn’t see any long-term problems from having the vehicles on the site as the “hard and firm” soil is similar to farmland “just that we’re growing grass.”

For Trudeau, the concerns of conservation and possibly opening the area for other activity were trumped by the desperate financial state the commission finds itself. She noted that Belmont is an outlier from surrounding communities as it does not fund the Conservation Commission – what she called “our zero budget” – to pay for the necessary upkeep of the land.

“We’re in a tight spot, and there is no willingness by Town Meeting to fund us,” said Trudeau.

The PGA’s Rotellini reiterated that through the Tour’s “charitable side” that gives to locales where events take place, a donation to fund two years of necessary mowing – approximately $2,000 – could be forthcoming.

“That’s what interests us,” he said.

When it appeared that the commissioners were evenly split 2-2 on the measure – with Miriam Weil joining Roth willing to vote to approve the plan – Commissioner Charles Chiang arrived and immediately voted “yes” to move the plan forward.

The plan now goes to the town where a contract is expected by April 28.