Belmont Town Meeting Reconvenes With Budgets on the Agenda

By Leave a Comment

Belmont’s annual Town Meeting, 2.0, will commence tonight as the town’s yearly legislative gathering will reconvene after a three week hiatus to take on the $95 million town and school budget.

The meeting, known as Section B, will take place at the Chenery Middle School, 95 Washington St., at 7 p.m., Monday, June 2, having decamped from Belmont High School.

The meeting members will review and vote on budget articles including general government, school district, capital improvements and all other sundry financial items.

The order of the articles will be 18 through 27 and then non-budgetary articles 3 and 14, according to Town Clerk Ellen Cushman. 

Budget information can be found on the Town Clerk’s web page on the town’s web site.

But before the meetings articles are taken up, the 300-odd member will pick up “response cards” – or voting devices – before the start of Town Meeting. There will be a brief overview as well as a hand-out to familiarize members with the new technology. It’s anticipated all voting will be cataloged electronically tonight and at future Town Meetings.

If time permits, members will debate two non-financial articles:

  • Articles 3 proposes action regarding a proposed amendment to the Minuteman Regional Vocational High School Regional Agreement, and
  • Article 14 seeks to amend the Town’s Zoning By-law to Address Citizens’ Petition from 2013 Special Town Meeting.

Belmont’s Gun Buyback Event This Saturday, May 31

By Leave a Comment

In the wake of increasing incidents, nationally and locally, of accidental injuries and deaths from guns, the Belmont Religious Council, faith communities in town, the Belmont Police Department and the Middlesex Sheriff’s Office have joined for a community Gun Buyback event on Saturday, May 31, from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the Belmont DPW Yard, 37 C St.

The Belmont event is modeled on recent successful gun buyback events held in other towns across Massachusetts and in other parts of the country, including one held in Arlington in September 2013.

Belmont Police officers and the Middlesex Sheriff’s Office will be on hand to accept any and all hand guns, rifles, shotguns, assault weapons, BB guns and air guns, working or non-working, antique or modern, registered or not, and ammunition for safe storage, followed by disposal in accordance with state law.

A key aspect of the event is the “No questions asked! No identification required!” policy. Amnesty will be extended for gun law violations by residents traveling to the event. Firearms must be brought to the event with empty chambers, clips or magazines unattached, safeties on and in a carrying case, box or other container.

Those who bring in firearms will receive gift cards to local grocery stores, in the following amounts:

  • $25 for BB or pellet gun or inoperable firearm
  • $50 for a revolver, semi-automatic, shotgun, or rifle.
  • $100 for an assault weapon.

The Belmont Police Department has set up a special phone line to receive questions and requests for assistance in transporting firearms to the event: 617-993-2529.

Aided by the Religious Council, seven faith communities – All Saints’ Episcopal Church, Belmont, Belmont- Watertown United Methodist Church, Beth-El Temple, First Baptist Church of Belmont, The First Church in Belmont, UU, Plymouth Congregational Church, UCC, and the St. Joseph and St. Luke Collaborative parishes – banded together to push for the program, which is supported by Belmont’s state legislators, State Sen. Will Brownsberger and State Rep. Dave Rogers.

“In addition to removing unwanted firearms from homes, another benefit of the gun buyback is the dialogue that has developed among community members on how we can all work together to reduce gun violence in Belmont and beyond,” said Jean Dickinson, a member of the First Church in Belmont UU, who led the initiative.

Belmont Police Chief Richard McLaughlin said, “Personally, I feel that it is a very worthwhile voluntary program and an opportunity for our residents to dispose of unwanted firearms and ammunition, especially in light of some of the tragic situations we have seen throughout Massachusetts, the country and the world.”

“On average, more than 34,000 people are accidentally shot or commit suicide using a firearm each year. I believe that providing residents with a safe way to dispose of firearms they no longer want can help reduce these numbers,” said Middlesex Sheriff Peter Koutoujian.

“These buybacks also encourage dialogue among those involved about ways to make our communities safer.”

Several Belmont businesses have already stepped forward to make donations in support of the event. The Belmont Gun Buyback Committee invites other businesses and individuals to do the same. The Committee hopes to raise $5,000 to purchase grocery gift cards to be provided in exchange for firearms. Any leftover grocery gift cards will be donated to the Belmont Food Pantry.

Donations may be made by sending a check or money order payable to: Belmont UMC/Gun Buyback Program and mailed to: Belmont United Methodist Church, 421 Common Street, Belmont, MA 02478, or via pay pal on www.belmontgunbuyback.org 

Belmont Health Board to Vote in June on Raising Tobacco Sales Age

By Leave a Comment

Residents could see tobacco and electronic cigarettes join liquor and beer with a 21 year old age restriction on their sale if the Belmont Board of Health approves a proposal at its June meeting, according to the board’s chair.

Answering questions at an informational meeting held at Town Hall Thursday, May 22, the Health Board’s Donna David said the move will be decided at the board’s next meeting in June.

“If we come to a consensus we could vote then,” said David, who added that she did not expect an outcry by raising the minimum age by two years.

“It’s not like we are saying you can’t sell tobacco in town. Now that would bring people out to comment,” she said.

The reasons for increasing the age is straight forward, it will delay the onset of smoking initiation and reduce the chances and opportunities to become addicted to tobacco, which David observed is more difficult to “kick than heroin.”

The new restriction will virtually eliminate any student attending Belmont High from purchasing tobacco products. It will also be the same age as alcohol which will make it easier for store owners and clerks “to do the math” and will also prevent those under 21 from using their “vertical” state driver’s license.

Belmont would join a growing number of communities in Massachusetts and the US if it approves increasing the minimum age for tobacco and other nicotine devices. Currently 17 municipalities have or will impose the higher age level by August, including Lexington (which it has not been enacted) and Arlington.

Nationally, New York City (on May 14) and Hawaiʻi Island of Hawai’i have adopted 21 as the new standard.

Belmont’s Health Board raised its minimum age to 19 in 2010.

According to the latest data from the state’s Department of Public Health, only eight percent of adult Belmontians – approximately 1,868 residents – smoke tobacco, which is about half the statewide rate of 15 percent.

But the rate of illegal sales to minors (at 21 percent) in town is 87 percent higher than in the state at 11 percent.

Yet David said the lacks direct data to prove that the new regulation would be effective in preventing smoking from the young. In addition, the new regulation could put a dent in the financial health of the convenient stores. David said stores still selling tobacco and lottery tickets can make up to $2,000 daily.

Both David and Angela Braun of the Health Department said they are concerned by the chemicals used in the delivery devices that have gained favor with those attempting to quit smoking and it doesn’t omit second-hand smoke.

“They are dangerous. I don’t know the exact chemicals but that is an issue,” said Braun.

Residents Caffeinated Over Possible Starbucks Relocation

By Leave a Comment

When William Chin, chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals, asked late in the hearing on the proposed temporary relocation of Starbucks Coffee from its current home in Cushing Square up Trapelo Street to the corner of Belmont Street if anyone wanted to speak in favor of the application, a slight laugh rose from those filling the Board of Selectmen’s Room at Town Hall on Monday, May 19.

“Don’t everyone run [to defend it],” Chin said wryly, to the now chuckles of the approximately 40 residents who came  to show their overwhelming displeasure with the anticipated migration of the popular national coffee shop across from their residential neighborhood even if it is just for a single year.

After nearly 90 minutes in which few resident questions were concretely answered, the Board of Appeals voted to adjourn the meeting until Monday, June 16  so the applicant would be able to answer or explain neighbor’s concerns including parking, deliveries and adding another eatery to the area.

“This is only the start of the process,” said Chin. “It could also end here,” he added.

The move, as development consultant Gerry Pucillo told the board, is necessary so the Cushing Village development – the three building, 186,000 square foot parking, retail and residential complex in the heart of Cushing Square – can begin construction shortly after the relocation which should take place sometime around September.

The undertaking will be a friendly transaction as Cushing Village developer Chris Starr of Smith Legacy Partners controls both sites.

“We looked at several locations and he felt this was the one that suit Starbucks need,” said Pucillo after the meeting.

The transition, which will force two small businesses (a tailors and a jewelry store) to decamp from 6 – 8 Trapelo Rd., requires the issuance of two special permits by the Zoning Board, said Chin. One is simply structural; to straighten out the concave-shaped store front window.

The other will allow for a restaurant that doesn’t require food to be cooked on the premises to take over the space, placing 30 seats into the location, the same amount at the existing store.

Chin said the issuance of a special permit for a restaurant goes to the applicant or their representatives and does not apply to the actual space.

Yet according to the application for the special permit filed at the Office of Community Development, Smith Legacy declared once Starbucks returns to Cushing Village, the “site will then continue to be used for the new use granted under the Special permit.”

While Chin said the board does not have the ability to place a “sunset” clause on the restaurant special permit that would terminate the application, they can place in the permit a clause requiring any business at the location to submit to a periodical “review” to determine if it is a “good neighbor.”

“If not, we can close them down,” said Chin.

The argument against the relocation was capsulized by Oak Avenue homeowner Rickland Powell who said the inclusion of Starbucks into the area would “cause personal and irrefutable harm” to his neighborhood since the temporary Starbucks can only supply on-street parking for both employees and customers.

Pucillo said six employees are in the store during a typical shift.

Powell said there exists “parking issues” from commuters who park on area streets so they can use the popular MBTA bus route and coming from customers of Moozy’s, the popular ice cream which would be located two doors from the temporary Starbucks.

Under the town’s bylaw, “how many [parking] spaces are actually available and can multiple businesses claim the same space within their permit?” asked Powell.

Chin said in a Limited Business 3 zone – also known as a LB-3 – where the temporary space is located, a retail operator must have one space for every 250 square feet of business space. The proposed Starbucks is expected to take up just under 800 square feet.

“So clearly they are not near the zoning requirement,” said Chin, who noted that this situation is common around “strip” stores in Belmont.

Pucillo said parking will be discussed in the coming week when he meets with Community Development Director Glenn Clancy.

Yet Jeanne Mooney of Oak Avenue noted the relocation will occur at the same time as the reconstruction of the Belmont Street/Trapelo Road Corridor at the location. That construction in itself will take out parking along Trapelo and Belmont, making side streets the preferred long-term parking sites.

Other concerns included deliveries at the store, increased trash and the addition of a dumpster and the “rushed nature” of the move.

“The developer should have known well before this that … Starbucks needed to move to a different location,” said Steve Klionsky of Payson Road.

“Now we are being faced with the fall out of that as a fait accompli,” he said.

Health Board Seek Comment on Raising Tobacco, E-Cigarette Sales Age to 21

By 1 Comment

The Belmont Board of Health will be holding an informational meeting tonight, Thursday, May 22, at 7 p.m. in the Town Hall auditorium to hear from residents on a proposal to raise the age to 21 years old to purchase both tobacco and the increasingly popular “e-cigarette” nicotine delivery devices in Belmont.

“It is a proposal that we want people to know and comment,” said Dr. David Alper, vice chair of the Belmont Board of Health on Monday, May 19.

Two years ago, Belmont raised the age requirement to 19 to purchase all tobacco-related products such as cigarettes, cigars and chewing tobacco.

The board can unilaterally increase the age limit without Town Meeting approval since it would be a change in health regulations, not altering a town bylaw.

In 2005, Needham was the first community in the United States that prohibited sales to anyone under 21 years old.

Since then, New York City has issued the same ban while neighboring Arlington is raising their age of sale to 21 via a three-year step plan.

[Your Name Here] Field: Belmont Heads Towards Naming Rights Bylaw

By Leave a Comment

Ever wonder what your family’s name would look like gracing the entrance to the modern auditorium in a new Belmont High School?

How about your company’s name on the side of a new Science Wing?

Would it really bother you if the basketball court in the Wenner Field House had a local-area bank’s logo splashed across the new floor?

Those dreams could come true to you and just about anyone with deep-enough pockets – well, probably Donald Sterling shouldn’t try – if the town follows through with recommendations to create criteria for the selling of naming rights on school buildings, fields and town property.

At the School Committee’s meeting on Tuesday, May 13, Belmont School Committee’s Anne Lougee reviewed the conclusions of a report issued by a committee made up of veteran school supporters as well as Town Administrator David Kale and Belmont Savings Bank’s CEO Robert Mahoney on finding additional revenue sources for the chronically cash-short Belmont School District.

“We concluded that this is a viable option to generate revenue,” said Lougee.

In addition to supporting of using freelance development professionals who would receive a percentage of any funding they obtain, the committee endorsed the creation and approval by Town Meeting of a “naming rights bylaw” that would allow the school committee and town to create guidelines on placing individuals, families and companies names or logos on a wide array of buildings and signs.

One area that has sparked considerable interest, according to Lougee, are the court in the Wenner Field House and the playing surface at Harris Field where Belmont High School football, soccer and lacrosse are played.

The soonest a bylaw could be before Town Meeting is the anticipated Special meeting occurring late this fall.

While new to Belmont, naming buildings, playing fields, individual room and even placing ads on school buses has been gaining traction in school districts across the country from a regional school in Oregon that just established their policy to Tupelo, Mississippi’s where a bank is paying $140,000 to have its name on the high school’s blue-tinted football field for the next decade. There are even marketing firms that will find corporate sponsorship deals for schools.

The bylaw would also establish clearer standards on business and corporate advertising at both indoor and outside athletic venues, either by banners or from a LCD-display screen.

Lougee said while limited, the district already has some experience with corporate sponsorship inside several schools.

“Each year the Scholastic Publishing holds book fairs as fundraisers for several schools,” she noted.

Potentially the biggest draw for potential donors will be with the construction or renovation of a new Belmont High School. Naming rights could be offered on a one-time basis for several sections including the new science wing, computer labs, the  auditorium, libraries, music and art rooms, cafeteria and especially a new gym.

Lougee told the School Committee that several issues must be addressed before the bylaw is considered including if it would be appropriate to the district’s mission, would it be irrevocable, how long would the naming rights last and should all people and corporations be “vetted” before they lend their names to a sign or banner.

But Lougee said while naming rights is not the “$100,000 idea” that will help resolve the revenue issues, “we can expect to generate x amount of dollars.”

But she also noted that while Wellesley – with a similar geographic and town government structure as Belmont – has adopted a bylaw last year, they have yet to receive any proposals for signage or advertising.

 

 

 

 

 

In Brief: Belmont Town Meeting, Day 3: Regulations on the Side, Please

By Leave a Comment

On the final night of debating and voting on the non-budgetary articles before the 155th edition of the Belmont Town Meeting, it was clear that Belmont’s Town Meeting members believe that when times call for them, as one attendee stated, “there are times for rules and regulations on who we all behave.”

With overwhelming support, Town Meeting disapproved of an attempt to remove the town’s new Residential Snow Removal bylaw, supported a new and improved set of regulations on how many yard sales a resident can have in a year (that would be three) and approved – with a wink and a nod – the Planning Board’s set of regulations on where (and that would not be many places) a medical marijuana dispensary can be placed.

Town Meeting will resume with the town, school and capital budgets on June 2 at the Chenery Middle School at 7 p.m.

In brief:

• Resident Eric Anderson’s citizen’s petition to strike the snow removal bylaw – mandating home and property owners shovel the sidewalks adjacent to their homes 36 hours after a declared snow “event” or be subject to fines – as unworkable and unjust did not garner the libertarian support one would suspect as many members rose to state they are now able to walk on the sidewalk rather than the street after storms and that a small amount of regulations make for good neighbors. Others stated that the law will sunset in two years, a good time frame to see if the bylaw actually works.

• In his second go around to pass a yard sale bylaw – it was defeated at the special Town Meeting in November of last year – Stephen Ganak of Hurley Street won overwhelming support on a simplified permit application (done online through the Town Clerk’s office at no cost) that will limit a resident to only three sales in a calendar year. Some members believed it was an overreach to ask every resident to acquire a permit in an effort to halt a few “outliers” (Ganak’s own word) who spoil it for everyone. But most members stated the requirements wasn’t that much of a burden and vote “yes” for the measure. 

• The Planning Board’s creation of three areas – in two locations on South Pleasant Street (including the Shaw’s parking lot), next to the Loading Dock convenance store on Brighton, and at the Uplands property off of Route 2  – where a medical marijuana dispensary can be located was seen by several members as locations where, as Town Meeting member Julie Crockett of Precinct 5 observed, that a retail facility is “possible but not plausible.” For example, while the town points to the Uplands property (that borders Cambridge on the Alewife Reservation) as a site where it is permitted, the town’s Chief Planning Coordinator, Jeffrey Wheeler, admitted the entire site is slated for development. In addition, the one parcel next to Shaw’s would be in violation of state codes that prohibits a dispensary to be located adjacent to a pharmacy.

But Planning Board members and town counsel George Hall said the intention of of the Planning Board was to place reasonable regulations on the location of dispensaries – being 300 feet from residential areas and schools, for example – to protect residents. Belmont has such limited open space or commercial land that the four parcels are the only places the facilities can be placed.

Belmont Town Budget Nears Nine Figures in Fiscal ’15

By Leave a Comment

Before the final session of the Belmont Town Meeting held on Monday, May 12, to discuss non-budgetary articles, the Belmont Board of Selectmen approved a fiscal 2015 town budget that will bring Belmont closer to reaching nine figures.

The budget – which includes the gross amount of both general government and the school district – which will begin on July 1, 2014, is pegged at $95,238,925, a 3.76 percent increase from last fiscal year’s total of $91,781,259, a difference in real dollars of $3.46 million.

The Belmont School Committee will discuss and approve the fiscal ’15 district budget tonight, Tuesday, May 13, at 7:30 p.m. in the Chenery Middle School. But that number was set back in February at $46,156,000 (excluding government grants). That is an increase of $1.8 million from fiscal ’14, an increase of 4.1 percent.

In comparison, a decade ago, the town’s fiscal 2005 budget topped at $76.6 million with the schools coming in at $31.3 million.

Belmont Town Meeting, Night 3: Shelving Shoveling Petition Being Considered

By Leave a Comment

Three is the magic number as the 155th annual Belmont Town Meeting will likely finish the non-budgetary section of the annual gathering of the town’s legislative body with a trio of articles representing the diverse subjects of medical marijuana, shoveling snow off of sidewalks and just how many yard sales a resident can hold a year.

And the members could be debating and voting on just two of the articles as the resident who is petitioning to have the four month-old bylaw requiring homeowners to shovel adjacent sidewalks shelved is asking that his article be “tabled” until the anticipated special Town Meeting in the fall.

The 2014 edition of the yearly meeting will resume tonight, Monday, May 12, at  at 7 p.m., at Belmont High School’s auditorium.

Members are asked to be in the auditorium before 7 p.m. so the meeting can start on time.

A copy of the warrant which contains the articles can be found here on the Town Clerk’s web page.

Tonight’s meeting will be broadcasted live by the Belmont Media Center.

First up on the agenda will be the petition by Pleasant Street resident Eric Anderson who is seeking to strike from the town’s bylaws the recently-enacted Residential Snow Removal bylaw approved by the November 2013 special Town Meeting and OK’d by the state’s Attorney General in February.

But according to Anderson and Precinct 4’s Joe White who will present the article tonight – Anderson is not a Town Meeting member – after the petition is set before Town Meeting, a motion will be made by White to “table” the measure until a special Town Meeting that is expected this fall.

White told The Belmontonian this past Wednesday, May 7, he and others have spoken to Anderson to delay the article so that Town Counsel George Hall can address a series of questions on liability issues and other concerns of residents being required to shovel what is essentially town-owned property, the sidewalks.

“We can wait [until a special Town Meeting] so we can get a reading on the law,” said White, adding that “it probably won’t snow until [the meeting].”

Also up for debate will be a citizen’s petition from Stephen Ganak of Hurley Street who would like to restrict the number of yard sales to three a year with a requirement to obtain a free permit from the Town Clerk. At last November’s special Town Meeting, it was initially thought that Ganak’s initial sales petition had been passed by the members only to discover that a calculation mistake saw the measure fail by a handful of votes. This time around, Ganak has simplified the wording with a hope that this effort will pass member muster.

Finally, members will vote on the creation of a medical marijuana overlay district. By using restrictions that the state has allowed – such as buffers  that force facilities to keep a distance from schools, residential areas – a Belmont marijuana dispensary will be restricted to far off locations. The members will also discuss

If the members do conclude their business tonight, the meeting will be adjourn to meet again for budget items including the town and school budget as well as capital budget expenditures on Monday, June 2 at 7 p.m. at the Chenery Middle School Auditorium.

LIVE FEED: Belmont Town Meeting, Night 2: Pool, Pot, Shoveling and Yard Sales

By Leave a Comment

7 p.m.: Welcome to the second night of the 155th edition of the Belmont Town Meeting here at the Belmont High School auditorium.

Tonight will see the – hopefully – the final night for non-budget articles.

First up is an update report on the “quaint” Belmont Center reconstruction being presented by Glenn Clancy, director of Community Development and Selectmen chair Andy Rojas. The days of doing nothing or just fixing the pavement is not what is needed, said Clancy.

The work, costing around $2.6 million, could be funded with a state grant, capital funds from the Cushing Square parking lot ($850,000) and the Woodfall Road payment (just north of $2 million), a debt exclusion, Chapter 90 fund, town reserves or existing pavement management funds, said Town Administrator David Kale. The town will come back at the fall Special Town Meeting on how to pay for it.

This presentation is the first volley by the town in the public campaign for funding.

7:35 p.m.: Long-term Town Meeting members are being honored. And Marty Cohen, 39 years of service, speaks before his colleagues on the differences from when he first came to the meeting in 1974 including that women now constitutes 50 percent of Town Meeeting. Speak loud and learn the rules, is his advice.IMG_5549

Dave Rogers, our active State Rep., is going over what’s happening on Beacon Hill impacting Belmont. There is largely good news with an increase in state aid for general government and schools along with special funding for energy efficient buildings.

7:50 p.m.: First up for debate and a vote tonight will be the two articles concerning the funding of the proposed new Underwood Pools complex scheduled to replace in June, 2015 the 102-year-old swimming “pond” adjacent to the Belmont Public Library at the corner of Concord Avenue.

Members will vote on a $2 million grant from the town’s Community Preservation Committee as well as allowing the town to borrow $2.9 million the town’s voters approved by 62 percent on Town Election on April 1.

Selectmen Chair Andy Rojas wants to give an update on some design changes after the April 1 vote. Rojas said that the design voters selected is a preliminary one so new revisions and changes can be made with a “more rigorous” process. This process could save money, but please note there will be more public comment on the pool. “Tell us what your thought are.”

Ann Paulsen, the Pool Building Chair, is presenting the history of the design process. She highlights that there were many meetings, multiple changes the committee made with other groups, and a design that has won the approval of the Underwood family. “This will keep a community amenity for the next 50 years.”

8 p.m.: “Let’s dive in,” said Underwood Pool Building Committee member Adam Dash – to a collective groan – who is reviewing the design and changes that will be made.IMG_5565

Much of what Dash is explaining has been reported in the Belmontonian, including a detail of the current design – a two pool complex (a “kiddy” pool and a more “adult” oriented one with laps and a diving pool) with updated bathhouses on both ends, greater green space, and a revamped parking lot design.

For more information, go to the Underwood Pool Building Committee Facebook page.

This is what people wanted to see [in the pool design]” said Dash.

Now for something different: the first image of the new design for the bath houses, on a more historic theme. With HIP roof, nice airy design, easy to clean and a “Belmont” feel. And the view from Concord Avenue is “inviting.”

Dash also explains how the money is coming from. “We got our monies worth out of the pool,” he said. Will he get a hand for his presentation? He does.

Questions? Jim Stanton, Pct. 1, asks why there is a historic preservation element in the CPA funding when the bath house is being razed? Floyd Carman, town treasurer and vice chair of the CPC, said the committee just doesn’t look at small bits of money but how it effects Belmont as a whole. Stanton, who said he will be voting for the pool, said the CPA is a “law” and it should be followed and is “not for us to decide the Belmont way” in interpreting the law. Paulsen then comes up and said that what is historic is that the site is the location of the first outdoor municipal pool in the country “and we are maintaining the site that is historic.”

Funny moment: Dash explaining why two pools: “If there is a child has an ‘accident’ in the kiddy pool, and let the record show that I am using air quotes when referring to ‘accident’,” to the laughter of the members.

The article is called and is passed with a single “no” vote.

8:44 p.m.: Now up is article 17 allowing the town to borrow $2.9 million from the town election. It will cost residents $48 but that will be offset by a $108 reduction with the expiration of the Chenery Middle School debt to considerable cheers.

The article is called and easily passes the 2/3 barrier to applause. The town officially has a new pool!

8:48 p.m.: Now up, CPA grants. You can approve or deny, said CPC chair Paul Solomon.

Five grants to be approved:

  • $8,700 for the JV Field irrigation upgrade.
  • $165,000 for the electrical upgrade at town-owned housing.
  • $66,524 for phase 2 of the Butler Elementary playground project.
  • $100,000 for the renovation of the Winn Brook field (Belmont Second Soccer)
  • $375,000 for first-time homebuyer’s assistance (Belmont Housing Trust)
  • $12,000 for the Belmont Community Moving Image Archive.
Only the first-time homebuyer’s program could come under some questioning as the Warrant Committee overwhelmingly voted against the grant.
Jim Stanton, Pct. 1, questions the $56,000 administrative costs of the Community Preservation Committee including hiring a person – who works in the Treasurer’s Office – to do the stand alone committee work. He’d like to see more transparency of costs. Rojas said that the money is well spent as the CPC has to do a great deal of work each year. If the entire amount is not used, the remaining money is put back into the CPA fund. While not disputing the need for the money, Paul Roberts of Pct. 8, said the committee could it saved itself the grief of having the members pull the information from the committee’s documentation. Solomon agreed and said they will do better.
9:13 p.m.: We are back after a short break and the members will debate and vote on the individual grants. First is $8,700 for the JV field, a request from the Belmont Soccer Association. It’s approved unanimously.
The electric upgrade at Belmont Village (circa 1949), a $165,000 request from the Belmont Housing Authority. Sue Bass, Pct. 2, asks if this is the first of several future requests as the current amount will only revamps 25 units. Donna Hamilton of the BHA said that is likely as they do not receive sufficient monies from the state and federal government. Fred Paulsen, Pct. 1, said Belmont’s legislators should seek state funds as the town should not use taxpayers funds (the CPA is funded by a property surtax) for state housing. Jack Weis, Pct. 1, said that he was told that any maintenance is the town’s responsibility so the use of the money is appropriate. But lots of residents, such as Roger Wrubel, Pct. 5, Anne-Marie Lambert, Pct. 8, and Tomi Olson, Pct. 5, contend that this work should be the state’s responsibility and it should fund it. “I will vote for it but this doesn’t feel good,” said Ellen Schreiber, Pct. 8, who asked if this is about safety, why only fix a quarter of the units? Hamilton said $165,000 is a lot of money to ask Town Meeting to pass.
The question is called and this amount is approved. This took a half-hour to debate so it’s looking unlikely that we’ll get through all the articles tonight. Sigh!
9:45 p.m.: Really? One person voted against $66,524 for improvements to the new Butler playground? Come on!
Belmont Second Soccer’s request for $100,000 for their $302,000 project to renovation the Winn Brook field so kindergarteners can chase in a moving cluster after a soccer ball on a well-maintained pitch is approved unanimously.
9:54 p.m.: A real debate is expected with this request: Belmont Housing Trust’s $375,000 grant for a first-time homebuyer’s assistance. Mike Libenson, chair of the Warrant Committee, said the Town Meeting’s watchdog members voted 10-3 with one not voting against the request as it’s so limited – just three households will be added to the town’s affordable housing stock which is only 3.8 percent, nearly 600 units from the state benchmark of 10 percent.
Judith Feins of the BHT, defends the request as being cost effective and allowing families with a medium household income of 80 percent ($61,000 for a three person family) to live in the community. They will be selected in a lottery. Gloria Leipzig, BHT vice chair, gives a real person example of a family who sees their monthly housing expenses don’t exceed what they can afford. One purpose of the CPA funds is to increase and preserve community housing. Sure, it’s not going to help reach the 10 percent but it is a concrete example of Belmont’s commitment to affordable housing. Treasurer Floyd Carman gives the request a boost by comparing a first-time homebuyer’s program (which adds taxes to the town) or a fully-subsized housing model like Waverley Oaks (no tax money).
Selectman Sami Baghdady, who appears to be speaking for those opposing the measure, said the money could be better spent elsewhere as the $325,000 is a large amount of money to spend that will not nudge the affordable housing gauge. To reach the 10 percent state goal can be better made by developments such as Cushing Village where 12 units will be added with no cost to the town.
Bob McLaughlin, Pct. 2, and warrant committee member said that Belmont does not have a [housing/economically] diversity problem and this proposal is a “waste of $325,000” as it doesn’t help the town meet the 10 percent state benchmark.
Paul Roberts and Fred Paulsen spoke very strongly to this measure. “This is the type of affordable housing that Belmont wants”  “You want to see Belmont freak out, propose 600-units of affordable housing,” he said. Don’t get hung up on 10 percent, “do it because its the right thing to do.” Paulsen pointed out that the Cushing Village model is not realistic as Belmont doesn’t have the land to create another Cushing Village.
Roger Colton, Pct. 6, said in the past, Belmont spent $1.5 million to build four units; this grant will produce three units. “This is the right thing as policy; it’s the right thing morally.”
Richard Hanson, Pct. 5, gave an economics lesson on why the members should vote against the proposal including the impact of lost equity that is part of urban blight; Lucia Sullivan, Pct. 3, of B Street – who is a neighbor of three affordable apartments – said she supports this request as she has great neighbors.
Ralph Jones, notes the town over the past 20 years have approved small numbers of units not to reach the 10 percent goal but because it is the right thing to do.
It’s 10:52 p.m. We might get through this by 11:15 p.m. Maybe.
Devin Brown, Pct. 5, worries that owners will not have the equity which could be a determent to making repairs.
Bonnie Friedman, Pct. 3, said she knows of a lot of renters that would love to own. “We can make this work.”
Jack Weis, Pct. 1, said there is nothing in this request that precludes the town from seeking more developments to add affordable housing. “This is not an either/or question,” he said. The public voted for the CPA with the understanding that housing would be used.
Now the vote. And it’s not even close: 129 for, 70 against. It passes.
One final vote, for $12,000 to moving image. And the Town Meeting is now adjourned until next Monday, May 12 at 7 p.m.