Belmont Schools, Teachers Union Sign Three-Year Deal

By Leave a Comment

Limitations to Belmont’s financial future and job security trumped demands for big pay increases as the Belmont School Committee and Andy Rojas, chair of the Belmont Board of Selectmen, approved three-year labor agreements with the four bargaining units represented by the Belmont Education Association on Tuesday, June 24.

“There’s been a relationship of honest communication and trust established that we can build upon,” BEA President John Sullivan told the Belmontonian after the committee’s regularly scheduled meeting held at the Chenery Middle School.

“We hope that the process producing these agreements has helped deepen relationships based on trust and mutual understanding that will support teaching and learning through the life of these contracts,” said a press release dated Wednesday, June 25 that was signed by Belmont School Committee chair Laurie Slap and Sullivan.

After a year-long negotiation, the union and the committee reached the tentative agreements on Thursday, June 12 with the BEA units approving the four respective agreements on Wednesday, June 18.

The four units comprise teachers (Unit A), directors and assistant principals (Unit B), clerical employees (Unit C) and paraprofessionals (Unit D).

On the salary front for teachers – that makes up the largest BEA unit with approximately 300 members – most of the increases over the next three years will be going to the most senior of the teachers. Those with 14 or more years of service, known as “top spots,” will receive the bulk of increase:

  • Year one, only the “top” educators will receive a 1 percent increase,
  • Year two a 2 percent increase for the top educators while those with 13 years or less will receive a 1 percent increase, and
  • Year three, top step educators will get a 2.5 percent with the less-senior educators receiving 1 percent again.

Yet those increases have been tampered down by the effective dates of the jump in salaries; increases in the first year will not begin showing up in pay packages until the 113th day of the year, with similar delays in the subsequent years; 109 days in year two and 121 days in year three.

“So the one percent increase in the first year is really about 80 cents to the dollar,” said Sullivan, a teacher at Belmont High School who led the union’s 10-member negotiating team.

“We believe the compensation picture has stayed within the projected available revenue that will be coming to the school department over the next three fiscal years,” said Belmont District Superintendent Dr. Thomas Kingston who participated in his final committee meeting before department from his three year “interim” position on June 30.

While the contract’s pay compensation increase is sparse for most teachers – two percent over two years – the membership approved the union’s package overwhelmingly, said Sullivan.

“We had a lot of questions on salaries in our meeting last week,” said Sullivan, having met with his membership for an hour before the votes was taken last week.

Modest increase in salary

“There was faith in the team and trusted the work that we had done with the school committee. … [the] compensation package allows Belmont to say competitive in retain and attract highly-qualified teachers,” said Sullivan.

In a recent Boston Business Journal report, Belmont teachers ranked 30th in state according to salary information from 2011 with an average teacher’s salary of just lower than $80,000.

“We remain on that upper level of compensation with other towns so we are competitive,” said Sullivan.

The relatively modest pay increases for Belmont teachers in this contract is based on the acceptance by both sides that the town is unlikely to see any appreciable increase in available revenue for the foreseeable future.

The realization Belmont relies heavily on residential property taxes – whose increases are limited to 2 1/2 percent annually – while lacking the capacity to generate tax revenue from new growth such as commercial real estate or fees restricted what the union could ask for and the town to give.

“The agreements provide for compensation in line with projected annual School Department revenues for fiscal years 2015, 2016, and 2017,” said the School Committee press release.

Both the committee and Sullivan said the most important issue facing the sides was that the district “remains committed to attract and retain a highly qualified staff that meets the needs of our students,” according the committee’s press release.

The other major agreement achieved in the contract is job protection for paraprofessional such as teacher’s aides. The new contract states that at the end of the 2015-16 school year, no [paraprofessional] who has successfully completed five years of service can only be dismissed with “good cause.” In addition, a new evaluation system will be jointly negotiated during the upcoming school year.

“We have a highly-dedicated group of professional aides that does a great job supporting students. It’s a sign of respect and [they] feel better with their position within the district,” said Sullivan.

In addition to the job protections for the aides, the agreements also provides the standardization of clerical personnel job classifications and pay-for-performance benefits to directors and assistant principals, said the press release.

The agreement continues the “step and lane” salary schedule in which teachers receive pay for years of service and education level they achieve.

Kingston said while he continues to believe “step and lane” compensation is “unsustainable,” he said this contracts mitigates the formula by acknowledging the limits on revenue growth.

Both sides agreed that employing in part the principles of interest-based bargaining – in which both sides expressed their underlying interests for each request – greatly assisted the negotiation process.

The committee and the town will also be created a Joint Labor-Management Committee to “continue addressing district-wide issues of mutual concern,” said the press release.

“It’s building on the relationships we’ve established so we won’t have as many items in three years with the next contract,” said Sullivan.

“We don’t want to put everything on hold for three years,” said Slap.

The specific details of the agreements are available on the Belmont School Department’s website under the School Committee tab in the next few days.

School Committee, Teachers Set to Sign Three-Year Contract Tuesday

By Leave a Comment

After nearly a year of weekly negotiations and late-night meetings, the Belmont School Committee and the Belmont Education Association, the agent for Belmont’s classroom instructors, will sign a new three-year memoranda of agreement at the committee’s regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, June 24.

The contact will be signed by BEA President John Sullivan. The BEA represents the district’s school teachers, assistant principals, coordinators, teacher aides/instructional support staff and campus monitors.

Sources contacted by the Belmontonian would not go into detail on the specifics in the contract including the percentage salary increase or whether the two sides have agreed to continue the “steps and lanes” salary schedule. Steps refer to how many years a teacher has been teaching, and lanes refer to how much education the teacher has.

Under the current three-year contract, set to expire on Aug. 31, first year teacher with a bachelor’s degree received $46,546 in fiscal year 2014 while a first year educator with a PhD would earn $55,788. At the top end, a PhD with 15 years of work experience makes just under $100,000.

Belmont School Superintendent Dr. Thomas Kingston – who is leaving his position on June 30 – has been publicly critical of the steps and lanes schedules as pay increases are automatically given to educators without consideration for performance. Other critics contend an across-the-board pay increase would be a fair substitute of the current structure.

Supporters of the current pay schedule say that it provides transparency as they are based on easily quantifiable measures ensuring equitable salaries without biases towards teachers and allows those educators to plan for the future by giving them a reasonable assurance of their yearly income.

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.