Zoning Board Tells Developer to Finalize Starbucks Move Before Returning

By Leave a Comment

Eric Smith had enough.

The Zoning Board of Appeals member had been unhappily listening to the representatives of Cushing Village – the proposed 186,000 square foot, three building residential/retail/parking complex in the heart of Cushing Square – who is seeking to temporarily relocate the popular Starbucks Coffee Cafe at 112 Trapelo Rd. up the street while the development is being built.

He, his fellow board members and about 40 residents who filled the Belmont Gallery of Art in the Homer Building Monday night, June 16, were hearing from Development Consultant Gerry Pucillo, representing Cushing Village developer Chris Starr’s Smith Legacy Partners, discussing a last minute agreement with Belmont officials to construct temporary parking spaces – how many remains a matter of dispute – on the traffic island across from Moozy’s Ice Cream in an attempt to resolve concerns of parking and traffic many in the nearby residential neighborhoods have with Starbucks coming to the new location across from Trapelo Road and Pine Street.

(Smith Legacy Partners is representing Starbucks before the ZBA in requesting a pair of special permits at 6-8 Trapelo Rd., the first to retrofit the facade and window and the second is to operate a restaurant in a non-conforming zoning location.

But as Pucillo and Cushing Village architect Peter Quinn discussed the proposed parking solution which was “agreed to” earlier in the day with Belmont’s Town Engineer Glenn Clancy, it became apparent to White that the board’s request to the development team at the May public meeting to return with solutions that could be discussed and voted on would not be forthcoming at Monday’s June meeting.

“From what I was hearing, we were going to spend a lot of time and end up going nowhere again,” said Smith to the Belmontonian after the meeting.

About 25 minutes into the discussion, Smith spoke up, suggested to ZBA Chairman William Chin that despite what was being said, Pucillo was not presenting “an actual parking proposal in front of us right now” nor was he addressing Board of Health  concerns on placing a second dumpster in the area.

“We have spent a lot of time this evening hearing a lot of comments but it seems to me that we don’t have a concrete enough plan to act upon,” said Smith, asking that Smith Legacy return once again to the ZBA at which time they can finally resolve the ongoing concerns from neighbors and town boards and officials of the propose move.

It was a decision that Chin wasted little time in agreeing to, asking that, once again, a parking plan be developed, the issue with trash collection, deliveries

What was learned during Monday’s meeting was:

IMG_1264

• A proposed parking solution agreed to between Smith Legacy and the Office of Community Development would create a limited number of angled parking spaces – the developer is claiming they only need six spaces to meet zoning requirements while the ZBA believes the number closer to eight – in the town-owned traffic “island” that borders the entry to Watertown’s Oakley Country Club and is across from Moozy’s. No trees will be harmed in the construction of the spaces – which would be on the Oakley side of the island – according to Pucillo, and the spaces would be removed after Starbucks is relocated.

But as a town official noted to the Belmontonian, while Community Development can suggest this solution, it would ultimately be up to the Belmont Board of Selectmen whether to approve the use of town-owned land for this proposal.

• Once Starbucks returns to its new “home” in Cushing Village, the site will “revert back to retail spaces” and not remain a site for a new restaurant or cafe, said Pucillo.

• Starbucks employees will be reserved five parking spaces at the VFW lot, at 310 Trapelo Rd., across from the Belmont Fire Department headquarters and take the MBTA’s Route 73 bus to the relocated site.

• Pucillo said that construction on Cushing Village will begin in October, the same month Starbucks “must relocate at the latest.”

While residents did get to speak on many of the same issues they expressed a month before, Oak Avenue’s Rickland Powell and David Alper both asked if Starbucks will benefit from the special permits, that it should come before the residents to “give concrete answers” to their questions, said Alper. 

Starbucks Temporary Relocation On Zoning Board Agenda Tonight

By Leave a Comment

The Belmont Zoning Board of Appeals tonight, Monday, June 16 will reconvene its hearing from last month on the temporary relocation of the Cushing Square Starbucks Coffee Cafe to the intersection of Belmont Street and Trapelo Road, a meeting that brought out nearly 40 residents voicing concern on the possible increase in traffic and parking as well as questioned trash migrating into the abutting neighborhoods.

The meeting will take place at 7 p.m. in the Belmont Gallery of Art, on the third floor of the Homer Building, located in the Town Hall complex in Belmont Center.

The original meeting, held on Monday, May 19, brought out residents who heard the popular Cushing Square Starbucks would temporarily move for about a year from its present location at 112 Trapelo Road up the road to 6-8 Trapelo which is less than a block from the intersection of Belmont and Pine streets. 

The move is necessary due to the construction of Cushing Village, the 186,000 sq.-ft. multi-building residential/retail/parking complex being constructed by developer Chris Starr of Smith Legacy Partners. Starr’s company also owns the two storefronts which the cafe would move into.

Smith Legacy is seeking a pair of special permits for the relocation; one to performs renovations to the exterior and the second to run a restaurant at the site.

Residents of the nearby neighborhoods told the board at last month’s meeting of their worries that the cafe, with nearly 50 seats, will aggrandize parking problems facing the adjacent residential streets that are currently being used by commuters. They also voiced worries of greater trash and litter in their community and other nuisances.

Belmont High’s Harris Field Closed Until August

By Leave a Comment

Belmont High School’s Harris Field and its running track at the Concord Avenue Athletic Complex, a favorite destination in Belmont for youth teams, runners and for pickup games, are now officially “closed” for long-anticipated renovations beginning today, Monday, June 16, according to Judi Carmody, business manager of the Belmont Department of Public Works. 

The work is expected to last until Aug. 15, a week before the beginning of practice for the fall High School sports season. 

The $960,000 job, in which the synthetic turf “carpet” will be replaced, fencing and walkways repaired and the track resurfaced and relined, was authorized by the special Town Meeting in November 2013. The funding is coming from an extension of bonding that paid for the uni-vents at the High School. 

“We regret any inconvenience that these improvements may cause,” said Carmody. Residents who have any questions can call the DPW at 617-993-2680 or email at BelmontDPW@belmont-ma.gov

A November Override Vote Now ‘Nil’ Due to State, Town Deadlines

By Leave a Comment

The hope of advocates for Belmont schools and town services to place a multi-year operational Proposition 2 1/2 override on the November ballot has been quashed by a combination of a tight state deadline and insufficient time for a committee reviewing the towns financial health to complete its work in time, according to the Selectmen’s chair.

According to Brian McNiff, spokesperson of the Massachusetts Secretary of State office, the secretary’s deadline for reviewing and approving the Proposition 2 1/2 override language so it can be placed on the November 4 state election ballot is August 6.

“[The town] has to have all the work done by that date so we can do the legal review required,” said McNiff.

Andy Rojas, chair of the Belmont Board of Selectmen – the municipal body under state law that must approve both the language and determine whether the town requires an override – told the Belmontonian Wednesday, June 11, a summer cutoff point from the state on top of notification requirements on the Town Clerk all but dooms the proposed November override ballot question.

The early August state drop dead date will not allow the Financial Task Force, a 13-member “mega” committee created last year to conduct a comprehensive review of the town’s finances, highlight possible revenue streams and develop a long-range financial and capital improvement plan, any chance of completing the analysis the Selectmen would require.

“The chances that the Financial Task Force … finishing any of its work to the point where we can reach any clarity on an override is now apparently nil,” said Rojas.

Municipalities must follow a precise list of procedures mandated by the state Secretary of State and the Department of Revenue to place an override question on the ballot.

“It is a very strict on what we require from the towns,” said McNiff, as municipalities follow a template on the why, how much and when of an override request.

Under state law, a Proposition 21⁄2 referenda questions can be placed on the state biennial – every two years – election ballot which has become an important point by Belmont override advocates who hope to benefit from strong voter turnout in a November election with state-wide races – including what many predict will be a competitive race for governor – on the ballot.

“However, those questions must be submitted to the Secretary of State for certification by the first Wednesday in August preceding the [biennial] election. G.L. c. 59, § 21C(i),” according to language on the Revenue Department’s web site. (http://www.mass.gov/dor/docs/dls/publ/misc/prop2.pdf)

In addition to state requirements, Belmont’s Town Clerk “must receive written notice of the referendum at least 35 days before the date of the election. The vote to place a question on the ballot must take place in sufficient time to meet this advance notice requirement,” reads the regulations.

While the Task Force has been working since the beginning of the year on the town’s finances, “they are still working through the facts,” said Rojas.

Rojas said he continues to support placing an override on the ballot “once we have all the information” to determine the need to permanently raise the tax levy.

“I think … the earliest voters will have a chance to vote on the override will be the [annual] Town Election in April,” said Rojas.

Get In Line: Community Preservation Set Dates for Applying for Funding

By Leave a Comment

Do you have a project that could use a few dollars to complete?

Well, you may want to get in line to apply for what will be the third funding round from the town’s Community Preservation Committee which distributes the total of a 1.5 percent surcharge on property taxes and state funding for a wide-range of proposals involving acquiring or improving open space and recreation land, rehabbing or preserving historic sites and supporting community housing.

Preliminary applications for CPC funds will be available on July 1 from the committee. But already “eight or nine” groups have made inquires on the process, according to Floyd Carman, Belmont’s treasurer and committee’s clerk.

“Residents have seen the process work and now are thinking about it for their proposals,” said Carman.

And the committee will be holding a tidy amount of cash to help jump start projects.

At its monthly committee on Wednesday, June 11, the CPC estimates it will have a little more than $1.1 million to distribute to organizations or town agencies in the 2016 fiscal year beginning July 1, 2015, said Michael Trainor, the CPC coordinator.

That total could increase with the approval of an additional $25 million in additional state matching funds distributed across the state that could up Belmont’s total to $1.4 million, said Trainor.

But groups which believe simply by applying for CPC funding guarantees the money in their bank account will benefit attending the public meeting on Sept. 18 where the committee will answer questions and review the extensive process in which projects are evaluated.

Preliminary applications are due in on Sept. 30. A week later, on Oct. 8, the committee will make the first round of cuts. Groups whose proposals past muster will make a five-minute presentations and answer questions from the committee on Nov. 13. Final applications are due on Dec. 1.

The CPC will make its final decision on accepting or rejecting applications on Jan. 14, 2015.

In April, the CPC made its largest distribution by providing $2 million for the new Underwood Pool. But the committee usually allocates smaller amounts to such projects as $165,000 for the electrical upgrade of town housing, $8,700 to improve the irrigation system at the High School’s “JV” field and $67,000 for the second phase of the Butler School Playground project.

This fiscal year, Carman is advising the committee to create a “reserve” account, setting aside a specific amount annually to build up a funding source to use on acquisitions or projects exceeding the entire funding amount in any future year.

For more information, contact the Community Preservation Hotline at 617-993-2774 or Trainor at mtrainor@belmont-ma.gov

Two (Maybe Three) Routes Recommended by Community Path Committee

By Leave a Comment

As final reports go, the one produced by the 11-member Belmont Community Path Advisory Committee on building a two-to-three mile multi-use trail through the heart of the town is 103 pages of painstaking thoroughness. 

The assessment, delivered to the Belmont Board of Selectmen on Monday, June 9 at the board’s regular meeting at Town Hall, is chock full of photos, surveys, studies, comments and questions from public forums, analysis, detailed research and investigations that requires two appendix and 59 footnotes.

Committee Chair Jeffrey Roth, who has led the committee since it began in 2012, held up a paper-laden binder to the board, noting that it was one of four “just to give you an idea of the volumes of documentation and work that went into this report.”

Highlighting the report’s recommendations, the committee concluded that there are two routes – scoring highest using an evaluation criteria developed by the committee – from the Waltham line to the Brighton Street in east Belmont; one, dubbed the “priority route” relies on staying close to the existing, active rail beds including the north side of the commuter rail tracks adjacent Channing Road while the other, known as the “secondary” route, would go “off road” into the McLean property and utilize the southern (High School) side of the commuter rail tracks.

The report also goes into detail on mitigating the effects of the path on residential abutters specifically those homeowners along Channing Road, including the building of privacy barriers, a metal rail-with-trail fence, drainage and no lighting to name a few.

In addition to the paths, the report recommends the creation of a tunnel under the tracks at Alexander Avenue to Belmont High School – an idea first broached by town officials and residents in the late 1970s to create a safe passage from the Winn Brook neighborhood – as well as a possible pedestrian “underpass” beneath Brighton Street connecting the current community path from Alewife Station with the east Belmont section.

For more specific information on the routes and the recommendations from the committee, go to the Community Path Advisory Committee’s web page.

Unlike earlier reports and studies in the past two decades that failed to move the concept of a trail forward, it appears the committee’s report is not destined to be stashed away into a drawer at the Office of Community Development. While there was no vote on the committee’s recommendations, the Selectmen expressed interested in taking a series of steps to proceed towards conducting an engineering feasibility study and the creation on an “implementation” committee in creating a path that would become an important link in the 27-mile Mass Central Rail bike trail from Somerville to Berlin.

While there remains technical issues, concerns from abutters and the final determination of a route through Belmont, “[w]e need to come together supporting the idea (of a trail) and the trust of your report which is that Belmont needs a community path and has huge community support for it,” said Selectmen Chair Andy Rojas.

But before any option is considered, the town “will need to put skin into the game” by paying for a feasibility study to study the engineering issues facing the town, according to Rojas.

For Roth, the overriding trend he and the committee came away with is that from all the studies and meetings, “that it was simply that people want an off-road path. It certainly was a success in gathering information and helping people get excited about something and I think it will be an extremely positive thing for the town.”

Not everyone cheering

While Roth saw the nearly two-year effort as a positive effort, several in attendance, many Channing Road residents whose home’s backyards abut one of the preferred paths selected by the CPAC, expressed their dissatisfaction with the report.

“This is just a lot of back slapping,” said one resident after a statement from committee member Cosmo Caterino (who could not attend Monday’s meeting due to scheduling/traveling issues) was read accusing the committee’s majority of using “unethical” voting procedures in selecting the two preferred routes.

Caterino suggested research be done on reconstructing Concord Avenue, delaying its long-awaited repaving in 2015 with a plan of placing a “cycle track” – a bike lane protected by a physical barrier, such as a concrete curb – along the length of the busy thoroughfare. 

The report – a “shorter” (only 96 pages) draft dated May 19 can be found on the CPAC’s webpage on the Town of Belmont’s web site – goes over in great detail the history behind the path, the criteria used to whittle down from 35 different routes to the pair that were rated the best by the CPAC and recommendations for further action.

Roth said that while the committee used words like “priority” and “secondary” for the two trail selected, “all of these route options have very positive features” and would like for a feasibility study to review both options.

And many questions will need to be answered via the engineering study, said Selectman Sami Baghdady including attempting to resolve using private land on Clark Lane and at the Waltham line, the reliability of aluminum tracks under the Lexington Street and Trapelo Road bridges, the path’s dimensions along the route, elevations challenges and placing a trail along side a “live” rail bed.

For Baghdady, after walking the area with his five-year-old son along the north side of the commuter rail track, the idea of having high speed trains along a pedestrian way was difficult to comprehend.

“When that train went by, it was not family friendly,” he noted.

Nor were the Selectmen willing to limit the number of probable trails under study to just two. Selectman Mark Paolillo advocated an alternative route which would include the use of Clay Pit Pond and Hittinger Street for an additional “south” route for the engineering study to consider.

If there was one area that could come into Belmont’s favor is in funding the path. Committee member Vincent Stanton said the state’s Department of Conservation and Recreation has determined that the Belmont trail is one of the top seven routes “it wants to complete” and is a high priority when coming to state funding, noting the state is paying from $7.5 million to $15 million a mile. 

Roth is recommending a permanent planning and construction committee be created “to take some of this off [the selectmen’s] plates” to focus on building the path while continuing the dialogue with residents and town and state officials.

The CPAC will hold its “final” committee meeting on Wednesday, June 11 at 7 p.m. in the Belmont Gallery of Art on the third floor of the Homer Building in the Town Hall complex.

Selectmen Chair: 2 1/2 Override ‘Possible’ on November Ballot

By Leave a Comment

Belmont Board of Selectmen Chair Andy Rojas said he is receptive to a Proposition 2 1/2 override to secure long-term funding for town and school needs being placed on the November election ballot.

“I’m going to be pushing the Financial Task Force to move their work a little faster so we can hopefully see an override vote in November,” Rojas told the Belmontonian on Wednesday, June 4 before the final night of the annual Town Meeting.

Election day for state races in Massachusetts is Tuesday, Nov. 4, less than five months away.

“Now is the time to act,” he said.

But an early date for an override, which many advocates believe is critical to secure its passage, ultimately depends on how quickly the nearly year-old task force can complete its mission of producing a comprehensive report, said Rojas.

“We need the facts before us,” he said, adding that the task force’s report should be presented before the Selectmen and the public “at least a month” before any date is selected for the override vote.

Rojas response came after comments last week by several Town Meeting members and from outgoing “interim” Belmont Schools Superintendent Dr. Thomas Kingston expressing concerns that both schools and town services need an infusion of funding to support needed academic courses and increased teaching levels to match anticipated enrollment growth that currently exceeds the available revenue from the town’s annual 2 1/2 percent increase in tax revenue, new growth and state aid.

” … [I]t’s time for us in the community to turn to our neighbors and say ‘This isn’t right.’ We need to fully fund our schools,” said Christine Kotchem at last week’s Town Meeting.

While the fiscal 2015 School budget, now $46.2 million, saw a four percent increase in available revenue from the previous year, the “wish” list created by the school department of teachers, courses and material needed to keep the schools within a top-tier Level 3 district, according to Kingston who made the statement at Town Meeting.

Rojas said Kingston’s statement concerning the need for an operational override “was the first actual request the board has had in the past four year.”

“I think we need to take it very seriously and I do,” said Rojas.

It has been a dozen years since Belmont voters approved an override, for $2.4 million in June 2002, with the last three attempts, in 2006, 2008 and 2010, defeated by close margins.

While flexible to override advocates in placing the measure in November when voters will also be casting ballots for state-wide offices including a contest governor’s race, Rojas said the board and the public should first review the recommendations from the Task Force, the 13-member “mega” committee created last year charged with creating a comprehensive review of the town’s finances, discover possible new revenue streams and develop a long-range financial and capital improvement plan.

“The preferred course of action is for the Financial Task Force to do its work, create a report and that would inform the decision of the board (of selectmen),” said Rojas.

“If they can do it quicker, great. It all depends on that,” said Rojas.

Yet Rojas also acknowledged that the task force will be required to do a great deal of work during the summer months when meetings and report schedules are impacted by vacations and travel plans of the 13 members.

“Summers are always tough on committees,” said Rojas.

Belmont Town Meeting: Putting Minuteman on Hold; Singles Over Doubles

By Leave a Comment

Welcome to the second and likely final night of the 2014 annual Belmont Town Meeting at the Chenery Middle School’s auditorium on Wednesday, June 4.
The articles will be read (discussed) in the following order: articles 24, 25, 26, 27, 14 and 3.
On Monday, the fiscal 2015 budgets were approved and tonight there are just a few more budgetary issues left to resolve as well as a pair of articles that could see some fierce debate.
But one of the two, amending the nearly 50 year old contractional agreement between Belmont and the other members of the Minuteman Regional Tech School will immediately be tabled once it has been introduced. And THANK GOODNESS for that! The complexity of the issue, how big the next Minuteman school will be and who will pay for it, reads like a Byzantine mystery with every one of the 16 towns and cities in this agreement trying to made deals. It hurts the head just recalling it!
The other, the final article of Town Meeting, is the zoning codification by the Planning Board of last year’s citizen’s petition that placed a moratorium on the tearing down of single family homes to build two or more family structures in the general residence parts of town. Basically, the new rewritten zoning bylaw will make it difficult to do a “tear down/build up” as it will be permitted only by a special permit (which will allow public hearings) and within strict specific perimeters.
7:08 p.m.: Moderator Mike Widmer says that tonight will be the final night and, noting that the proposed amendment to the Town’s Zoning By- Law could go on and on and on … PLEASE BE CONCISE!
And before business at hand, an update on electronic voting by Town Clerk Ellen Cushman. A lot of her comments is a bit of housekeeping and how to find your name on the big screen.
First on tonight’s docket is Article 24: the Other Post Employee Benefits (“OPEB”) Stabilization Fund in which the town will spend $264,882 on what critics say is a drop in the bucket towards resolving the approximately $190 million in unfunded liability facing the town. Even supporters say that the state will have to resolve similar debt in most other cities and towns in the Commonwealth. The town only has $1.7 million in the trust.
But the town treasurer, Floyd Carman, holds somewhat a trump card as he says the bond rating agencies (such as Moody’s) – which ranks Belmont’s municipal debt as AAA, the best around – expect even the smallest of continued payments for the town to keep the high rating which will allow Belmont to save money in the near future on the debt it sells.
Even in the depth of the financial downturn, investors were lining up to purchase the AAA bonds from the town to finance the Wellington School, said Carman. Selectman Chair Andy Rojas said that OPEB will be discussed at the precinct level to go over its impact on the town with the idea of possibly having a revised policy that comes from an informed Town Meeting.
Two-thirds vote needed for passage.
Vincent Stanton, pct. 3, said he supports the article however he wanted to discuss state reform that was introduced in 2013 but it will likely die in this year’s legislative year. Town Meeting members should be more proactive by passing a measure supporting reform measures by the state, said Stanton. “Our voice should be heard as loud as possible,” he said.
Jim Williams from pct 1 question whether voting for the article is support the town’s strategy of having a policy, steady funding on OPEB. Carman said the funding policy was approved by the Selectmen, Warrant Committee and Capital Budget in 2013. Selectmen Sami Baghdady said a yes vote is just supporting the appropriation. Williams asked if this does not get the 2/3 vote, where does the money go? Back to the town’s coffers. Williams said that the policy is beyond the capability of the town’s financial model, which got cheers.
It passes with a few now votes.
7:40 p.m.: Next is Article 25 which reauthorizes revolving accounts such as money – usually from fees – set aside for the senior center and sports. Typically non controversial. You see this article at each Town Meeting, said Baghdady.
A few questions but no challenges to the accounts. 215 to 2 yes thanks to the tally via e-voting.
Article 26 is to reimburse a school building revolving account with insurance proceeds due to the cost of repairing a burst pipe at the High School. “This is an easy one,” said Anne Marie Mahoney. And it is. A yes vote.
And the final budgetary article this year, number 27 is to rescind unused borrowing authority for $57,000. I would be surprised that anyone would speak against this “standard” article, said Carman. Yes with no discussion.
And we get to the tear-down citizen’s petition being codified before 8 p.m. Widmer said the procedure of the article can be a bit confusing due to the number of amendments on top of the reading of a long zoning article.
Mike Baptista, the chair of the Planning Board, is reading and explaining the document. Widmer also advised that everyone declare any financial interest before speaking on the issue. Nearly 40 small lots in the general residence zone have been bought by developers to build a two-family that’s too large for the lot. Some residents “had enough” and passed at the 2013 annual Town Meeting a moratorium on such “tear down/build up” with the Planning Board given the task of making changes to the zoning bylaw to support the residents concerns. “Is it perfect? No. It is subjective” but the area is so diverse that its hard to make an all encompassing bylaw. But it will be revamped by the time the bylaw is sunset in June 2018. What Town Meeting is voting on is a philosophical matter: do you want these “behemoths” in our town? asked Baptista.
Raffi Manjikian, of the Warrant Committee and Pct 3, speaks elegantly on why this measure is needed, quoting US UN Ambassador Samantha Power on how democracy works to fix themselves.
Judith Sarno, pct. 3, who led the effort to create the moratorium, said that this zoning bylaw will give everyone in town a “voice” in determining what is built in their neighborhood.
Now the amendments are being voted on: the first four from the Planning Board are minor corrections to the larger bylaw to clarify what it was trying to say. Set backs, making specific where the bylaw takes effect …
A bit of comedy as the banter between Sue Bass and Planning Coordinator Jeffrey Wheeler on set backs has Widmer if he is watching an episode of “Saturday Night Live.”
All four Planning Board amendments pass easily.
Now up is the first of three (really two) citizen amendments. Roger Colton, pct. 6, is asking that the storm water management permit be required by any developer though the Office of Community Development. Article 14 has three tests to determine if it complies with the bylaw. Colton points out that these are not the three steps that are under the existing storm water management bylaw. This is simply a technical amendment to take out “duplicate” language, he said.
Rojas has Glenn Clancy, the director of Community Development, come up to tell them how this amendment will effect his job determining if the developer is in compliance with the storm water management bylaw. He said it wouldn’t effect how he does his job. Baghdady said the articles’ disclosement measure is important to give developers a “heads up” so they understand its important to have. Jim Stanton, asked if the dueling language will have legal consequences. Town consul George Hall doesn’t think so. Kimberly Becker, pct. 6, said if Colton points out that the language is different between Article 14 and the storm water management, why are we repeating ourselves and the bylaws are not collaborative. David Webster, pct 4. who also works at the EPA, said yes the storm water management bylaw is more complex and the article’s “heads up” is “dangerous” by paraphrasing what they have to do. The best way to simplify it is to have one common language. Anne-Marie Lambert said she doesn’t find any compelling reason not to vote on the amendment. Finally, David Powell of pct. 4 asked that the entire amendment be placed on the screen and ask a simple question: why not just strike the language in the article with the duplicate language? The light bulb goes off over the Town Meeting. That works. Colton’s amendment is quickly adopted.
Now the amendment by Bill Dillon’s amendment that would allow for the front door to be on the side yard. The reason? Because it allows side-by-side two families rather than an up-and-down twos like on Grant Avenue. This is good for entry-level housing (and they sell for more money). “I don’t find side-entry doors distasteful,” said Dillion, who said he just wants to have the chance to go before the Planning Board (which is already hostile to this sort of housing) and say, “This can work in my neighborhood.”

Bob McGaw, pct. 1, said the language being used in this amendment does not conform with existing Planning Board language which could lead to legal challenges. The comments on this amendment revolve around how they don’t like the look of a side entry, not neighborly, not esthetic. But two residents asked if the Planning Board is asking for subjectivity on their amendments, why not with this independent amendment? “We need rules,” said Baptista.

The vote on the amendment. By 46 to 180, Dillon’s amendment is defeated.

Now discussion on Article 14. Christen McVay, Pct. 3, said the design review process is necessary to keep the character of the town.

Bryce Armstrong, pct 7, a renter of Grove Street, asked how this amendment will impact tax revenue in the town. Liz Allison, of the Planning Board, said if there is a family who has two children, unless they live in a house valued at $1.8 million, they do not bring in enough taxes to pay for the children in the schools.

Anthony Ferrante, pct. 8, said peeling paint, ugly vinyl siding and other issues have greater design “problems” then some of what the Planning Board is attempting to do.

Vincent Stanton, pct 1, did the research and of the nine tear downs to build of two families cost 30 percent higher so the issue that the two families are bringing in affordable units is false.

William Messanger, pct. 4, said this amendment is discriminatory as it only effects two-family homes and it will prevent the only method of affordable housing being introduced to Belmont. The home he lived in, circa 1895, could never be built today and that would have prevented him from coming to Belmont.

Mr. Mercier moved the question to great acclaim. “What a moment of surprise,” said Widmer to laughter.

It’s an electronic vote.  Article 14 passes 206 to 16.

10:40 p.m.: Finally, the Minuteman High School Regional agreement, the new contract, is up and Bob McLaughlin is delivering it. Wouldn’t we all love to hear this article in detail, it’s going to be tabled (postpone) by Andy Rojas. Why vote on this when we don’t have enough information, said Rojas, and the town can wait. McLaughlin who helped write the agreement said even at its best, it’s only marginally better than the current agreement due to a great deal of compromise.

The ‘O’ Word Center Stage During Budget Debate at Town Meeting

By Leave a Comment

It was a pretty expensive springboard – the debate of Belmont’s fiscal 2015 budget – Belmont Town Meeting members used to bring attention to the “O” word during Monday night’s reconvened Town Meeting held at the Chenery Middle School on June 2.

“O”  as in override which advocates for greater spending for the schools and general government are prepared to push the Belmont Board of Selectmen to use its authority to place a multi-year, multi-million dollar operational measure on the ballot.

During Monday’s discussion of the $46.2 million ’15 School District budget – or $52.4 million when government grants and other non-general revenue costs is calculated – members voiced their dissatisfaction with the shortcomings within the schools; which, they claim, must be remedied with additional cash, the sooner the better.

“We can not wait until April [2015, when the Town Election takes place] to decide we’re going to place an override on the ballot and then do it in June when three-quarters of the people who are going to be standing up in favor of this don’t even know there’s a vote,” said Kimberly Becker of Precinct 6.

“We need to have this on the ballot in November when people are out voting” in the general election, said Becker to applause.

“I don’t want anyone telling me we don’t have enough time to do it in November. There is plenty of time,” she said to cheers from supporters.

The throwing down of the override gauntlet by several Town Meeting members on Monday would seem a bit surprising as, unlike years past, the school budget was “drama free” as described by Warrant Committee Chair Mike Libenson. The district – which has been riding high as one of the few top-tier school districts in Massachusetts and Belmont High School ranked 151st in the nation by US News & World Report – is receiving a relatively healthy increase of more than four percent, or about $1.9 million, in available town revenue from the previous year.

Yet the increase spending is only enough to, as the Warrant Committee states will “maintain level services” which includes retaining nearly 19 full-time equivalent classroom positions hired last year just to keep up with 140 new students in the system.

So while the Red Queen can tell Alice that “here we must run as fast as we can just to stay in place,” many Town Meeting members are just not willing to accept the claim that level spending means keeping up with past educational standards.

“We talk about level service budget every single year while we watch many things get cut, class sizes get fuller. This is a joke,” said Anne Mahon of Precinct 4.

“Our kids are losing. We may have gotten into [US News & World Report] but a lot of that is because parents compensate  when their kids get home. Help the school system out, get an override on the ballot and put it out in November when we have time to vote for it,” said Mahon.

As both Laurie Slap, School Committee chair and soon-to-be-leaving “interim” Belmont School Superintendent Dr. Thomas Kingston told the meeting, there are serious budgetary worries in the near future, driven by skyrocketing enrollment (up to 500 additional students projected coming to Belmont over the next decade), new salary contracts and greater demands for services by students and staff.

“Sometimes we have to make hard decisions because, just like the family budget, the money will alway be limited,” said Kingston.

Precinct 1’s Rachel Berger, explained that unlike past years, this year “is not a Cadillac budget. I don’t event think this is even your father’s Oldsmobile budget.” 

While the school article did not come under the sort of detailed scrutiny of years past – there were just a few questions before the $46.2 million school expenditure for fiscal 2015 was approved with little opposition – the anxiety of school budgets yet to come served as the catalyst for those in the auditorium who contend that the time to strike the override iron is now.

One of the chief complaints is the myriad of hidden “taxes” residents must currently burden, in the form of substantial student user fees – the family of a three-sport athlete is out $1,100 yearly – to the inability of the district to restores or add to school programing (the district’s “wish list” of programs and staff it could not fund continues to grow).

“We told children to do activities, do sports,” said Precinct 8’s Christine Kotchem. “But now its very, very costly. What do you tell a student when you just can’t pay?”

“Someone paid for our children to do these activities and it’s time for us in the community to turn to our neighbors and say ‘This isn’t right.’ We need to fully fund our schools,” said Kotchem, whose own children graduated from Belmont High School a decade ago.

While the cries of “override” were met with general acclaim within the hall, the same enthusiasm for an increase in homeowners tax bills may not be as universal with the neighborhoods. It has been a dozen years since Belmont voters approved an override, for $2.4 million in June 2002, with the last three attempts (in 2006, 2008 and 2010) defeated by close votes.

But some believe that times are changing on the willingness of communities to shoulder a heavier burden to support “good” schools and there is some evidence of that at yesterday’s special election in Shrewsbury. There voters by a two-to-one margin approved a $5.5 million Proposition 2-1/2 operational override, its first successful override in more than two decades, to add programs, staffing and technology to the schools. 

Belmont Town Meeting, Budget Articles

By Leave a Comment

Welcome to the future as the 2014 annual Belmont Town Meeting reconvenes in the relative comfort of the Chenery Middle School’s auditorium tonight, Monday, June 2.
Tonight brings not just the premier of the fiscal 2015 budgets but also e-voting to the 155-year-old legislative body. Just after Moderator Mike Widmer brings the assembly to order, there will be a tutorial on how to use the voting devices.
There will be special recognitions tonight with one being Belmont Superintendent Dr. Thomas Kingston who will be leaving his interim position.
7:10 p.m.: A great rendition of “God Bless America” by the one-and-only Sandy Kendall who is being feted by the Selectmen, State Sen. Brownsberger and State Rep. Rogers for her great works around town. Three standing ovations to a classy lady.
Bob Gallant is honored for his great work with the town bylaws and creating the McLean agreement.
Kingston is honored for bringing a more collegial effort to the town/school relationship. In a great gesture, Kingston brings up Dr. Shea who was named the Massachusetts Teacher of the Year this year.
7:30 p.m.: By introducing the articles, Moderator Mike Widmer said electronic voting, which is being introduced tonight, will make our “wonderful clerks” obsolete.
Widmer said there will be a dry run with the e-voting devices, the “latest fashion statement” said Town Clerk Ellen Cushman. The polls will be declared open and you will have 40 seconds to vote. This should be neat. Aggregate voting will be anonymous. A roll call vote will be recorded. The practice votes: did you attend Town Day? (No was the majority vote). Will the Red Sox win tonight (a roll call vote with yes winning easily)
That was fun. Now for the budget.
7:45 p.m.: Article 18: Salaries for town officials. Pretty straight forward. Not much to debate. And it is adopted unanimously.
Article 19: Enterprise Funds for Water and Sewer and Stormwater Services. Again, fairly standard routine financial event; this year nearly $6 million in user fees will go to fund the Water Department and $8 million in sewer and storm water revenue to fund the maintenance of our sewers. Yes with no discussion or no vote.
Article 20: the fiscal ’15 Budget Appropriation: This is it: where your taxes go to in the general government and the schools totaling $95.2 million. Presentation about general government, schools and Minuteman. Selectman Chair Andy Rojas said the fiscal ’15 budget was created under a collaborative effort known as “One Town, One Budget” approach; a realistic budget “we all could support” by reaching consensus. Rojas talked about the Financial Task-Force and precinct meetings concerning the OPEB payments. He said the selectmen take seriously the Belmont Center reconstruction project as well as the new Minuteman Regional contract.
Mike Libenson, chair of the Warrant Committee, the Meeting’s financial watchdog, gives his committee’s opinion on the budget. He praised the budget process from the town and school sides at a 58/42 percent split. He is explaining how the budget is created – or how the sausage is made – ending in mid-May. He shows the pie chart of available revenue which nearly 3/4 comes from property taxes. State aid is a variable number with this year was actually a positive for Belmont to make this a “drama-free” budget.
Libenson said that on the expense side, the fix costs are paid right away, about $15 million (pensions and debt making up the majority of these funds as well as nearly $2 million for roads), with $79.6 million in discretionary fund to be divided between schools and government.
The operating budget is 58 percent to the schools and the rest to the general government; the two big parts: 16 percent public safety, 12 percent public service.
Highlights include town departments level funded or a little better, the schools being walloped by 139 students saw its budget increasing by 4.1 percent. Healthcare costs remain flat – a big winner for the town’s bottom line and a new combined Facilities Department and a new director Gerald Boyle.
Risks: Revenue growth will only rise by 2.5 to 3.5 percent growth while employee compensation is 69 percent of the budget and that’s going up, significant infrastructure needs (the list goes on and on; a new high school, library, DPW building, police station, the rink and the White Field House) and school budget pressure continues with rocketing enrollment, compensation (a new contract with the teachers is coming) special ed and rising direct cost. “There will be pressure on all fronts.”
Pensions and OPEB (health costs after retirement) are costly: $6 million contribution to unfunded liability which will be covered by 2027. The town is making a contribution to the OPEB account, which currently is at $196 million, of $265,000. It’s tiny amount but the rating agencies want to see something.
“All towns are in the same boat and work with Will and Dave to have the best results,” said Libenson. His report was quick and precise.
8:25 p.m.: Now there will be nine articles under general government.
A question by Vincent Stanton, Pct. 3; can the town use a later date for the pension to be paid for to 2040. Lebenson said he hadn’t looked at it. Town Administrator David Kale said town’s want to get rid of this expense as soon as possible due to the ups and downs of the economy.
The pensions will be the first real test of an article. And the vote is in: 224 yes, five opposed, and three or two not voting.
Johanna Swift Hart, Pct. 4, wants to know about the $60,000 funding of a school resource officer under the public safety appropriation of $12.8 million. Mark Paolillo of the selectmen said the cost is covered. Swift Hart said she was concerned that under the school’s order of priority spending, an officer was “next to last” behind teachers, education, smaller classes … Couldn’t that money be better spent on educating. Paolillo said the additional money was there and a SRO in the High School enhances the safety of the students.

8:40 p.m.: Now the school department budget with Chair Laurie Slap providing an overview of the achievements and what’s up. The issues facing the schools is, of course, exploding enrollment, increasing class size, greater special needs and strains on the staff and budget. She highlights all the students who are coming “across the world” 102 to 182 students needing help in English instruction.

The future is scary as 500 new students could be coming to the district in the next decade. Short-term, the department will attempt to cope with the enrollment boom; long term, the need will be additional space. While renovating the high school, it may need to be a 8th grade to 12th grade.

But how to keep this great district sustainable? It will focus on studying the finances with a subcommittee, using “trend modeling” groups and other issues.

Superintendent Kingston discuss the three pillars that keep Belmont as a top level 3 status, a rare achievement.

The primary cost drivers are salaries, enrollment and special ed while losing federal grants. The real cost to run the district is $52.4 million, with the general fund request of $46.2 million, a four percent increase.

8:57 p.m.: Discussion from the members: Yes. Christine Doyle, pct. 1, asks how much the additional tax, such as student fees, is being paid to the district; her family is paying $1,100. Kingston agrees that is an issue but they are trying to keep them level.

Rachel Berger, pct. 2, said there is a lot of user fees, such as 60 percent of the athletic department. Outside fees supports so much “and this is not a Cadillac budget, it’s not even your father’s Oldsmobile budget” and the town will need more funding to keep this level of education.

Kimberly Becker, pct 6, said the “O” word; override, which needs to be placed on the November ballot to get the greatest level of voting.

Paul Roberts, pct. 8, said there are already changes being made due to limited budget such as teaching team structures at the Chenery Middle School. He worries that modular classrooms will be used to save money because we don’t have the money. What other examples of budget constraints if impacting the schools today? Kingston said the elimination of the fifth grade foreign language was one example. “Sometimes we have to make

Anne Mahon, pct. 5, said “Don’t kid yourself, a level service budget doesn’t do our kids anything.” Help the schools by playing an override in November.

This is a roll call vote with the e-voting system which comes out overwhelmingly in support of the school budget.

9:28 p.m.: After a short “stretch” break, the Minuteman Regional High School appropriation of $751,000, which is lower by nearly 12 percent, or $100,000, from last year’s budget due to lower enrollment, while the school’s total enrollment has increased along with a boom in out-of-district student tuition. Approved with little debate.

The final budget item, the debt and interest, in the fiscal ’15 budget is approved.

Belmont now has its fiscal 2015 budget coming in at $95.2 million.

9:50 p.m.: Article 21: Authorization to Transfer Balances to Fund the ’15 Budget. A straight forward transfer to keep the upcoming budget out of the red. 204 in favor and 6 opposed.

Now we are at Article 22: Authorization for Up-Front Funds for Chapter 90 Highway Improvements. That’s $534,000 from the state to repair our roads. Passes easily.

And Widmer agrees to go forward with the Capital Budget. Ann Marie Mahoney, committee chair, said they had $4.3 million in requests from all departments, but only with available funds of $1.4 million. Unlike past years, there is no “big ticket” items although there was some of those from the library, the schools or the Belmont Center reconstruction project. There will be a snow blower, $200,000 in sidewalk maintenance, $133,000 in building envelop improvements, only two town vehicles, a new surface for the Town Field’s basketball courts and a fingerprinting “livescan” system. Mahoney said she would love to have $3 million a year that doesn’t rely on one-time funds.

“We need more revenue, more predictable revenue,” said Mahoney.

Roger Colton, pct. 6, has submitted an amendment to the capital budget article, who will add $30,000 to the sidewalk maintenance budget by taking it from the Grove Street Master Plan. The Warrant Committee voted 7 to 7 on the amendment and the Capital Budget Committee voted one for, two against and one not voting. Colton said this is just the sort of question that Town Meeting was created; to make priorities. He said residents asked why give money to the schools when the sidewalks aren’t repaired. He said when the town has to go to the voters for an operational override, it must show that Town Meeting has their priorities straight.

Mahoney has submitted her own amendment to the amendment that would take the $30,000 and place it in three other requests. She said she had hoped that Colton had come to the committee’s meeting to hear the debate on the request.

Andy Rojas said he placed the request for the neighbors who are in conflict with youth sports specifically baseball. A master plan will be help control the ad hoc nature of our parks that are “overused and underfunded” which will be the first step with Community Preservation Committee funding coming afterwards to implement the plan’s recommendations. Colton’s amendment is a “false argument.”

Chris Doyle, pct 1, why can’t the master plan be paid for by the CPC and what’s the shelf life of a master plan. Rojas said the CPC will not pay for it and the master plan (he is backed up by Town Treasurer Floyd Carman) for a park like this is five years. How about the youth baseball people pay for the master plan. Rojas said the baseball people do play their fair share.

Swift Hart, pct 4, said she had seen the town pay for plans that could not be implemented and why not an overall recreation plan instead of being driven by a neighborhood that’s angry about parking.

Deb Lockett, pct. 7, a neighbor to the Grove Park, said she was concerned it was coming out of the overburdened Capital Budget. After a series of conversations, Lockett said the selectman had promised that a master plan would be coming and this is the follow up. It can also spur other reports for other parks and the CPC will then pay for them. So while agreeing with some of Colton’s arguments, she can’t support it because this expenditure will result in critical answers.

Paul Roberts, pct. 8, said he hopes the selectmen are “listening” to Mahoney, Libenson and Slap the town does not have the revenues needed to support all the needs; an override is needed.

James Stanton, pct. 1, said why pay an outside consultant $30,000 when this should be a job of the selectmen (to cheers).

11 p.m.: Town Meeting has now reached its fourth hour, just as long as it took Belmont High baseball to play that marathon 16-inning game on Friday night. One member told me that Town Meeting would be completed tonight. HA!

Donna Ruvolo, pct. 7, said she finds paying $30,000 for a report a bit bewildering but the park, which is now being mismanaged, is in need of a plan to save it. “This is our property” as a town, not for a single neighborhood. “The entire town should have a voice in deciding this issue,” said Ruvolo.

A Scott Sheffield who is not a member but is allowed to speak on the measure. The 10-acre park – in a densely urban areas – does not have the amenities like so many parks in surrounding towns. For $30,000, that could be accomplished.

The motion has been moved and the e-vote in underway. 69 to 114 against. Colton’s amendment is defeated.

The capital budget is approved by a very tired meeting. Time to go home. It’s 11:19 p.m.

See you Wednesday.