Town Adminstrator Re-Ups ‘Til 2024 With New Contract

By 14 Comments

Photo: Patrice Garvin

With enthusiastic backing from the Bemont Select Board, Town Administrator Patrice Garvin will be sticking around Town Hall for a few more years.

The town’s chief administrative officer was offered a new three-year contract commencing Jan. 15, 2021 at the Select Board’s Monday, Oct. 19 meeting. The agreement came after a month-long review process and negotiations during which the Chelmsford resident received praise for her resourcefulness, work ethic, and organizational skills from the three-member board.

“You could not put more effort into this job and I think she is as conscientious and as smart as they come doing this type of work,” said Board Chair Roy Epstein.

Garvin was sworn in as Belmont’s first female town administrator in Jan. 16, 2018 after a long search to find a replacement for David Kale, who served for four years.

Under the new contract, Garvins’s base pay will increase from her current $181,778.69 to $190,500 on July 1, 2021. Garvin will receive annual increases of a minimum two percent or the general pay increase for department heads, which ever is greatest.

In addition, board will hold annual performance reviews on May 1 wih possible merit increases to the base salary. As part of the performance review, Garvin and the Select Board will define the goals for the next fiscal year that they determine necessary for the Town, and the Board shall further establish a relative priority among those goals.

In her benefits package, Garvin will see her annual vacation leave increase from four to five weeks and she’ll have the standard 12 holidays including a “floating holiday” with pay to be used at any time during the calendar year. And effective July 1, 2021, the Garvin will be allowed to sell back to the town each year a maximum of 80 hours of vacation time. The town will make a $625 per month car allowance, which will be taxable.

Want To Vote Nov. 3 In Belmont? Here’s What To Do

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Ellen Cushman, Belmont Town Clerk, at the town’s drop box for voting.

The presidential election 2020 is just two weeks away but there is still time for residents to register and actually cast your vote, according to Belmont Town Clerk Ellen O’Brien Cushman.

Voter Registration Deadline is Oct. 24

The deadline to register to vote and qualify to vote Nov. 3 is fast approaching. If you would like to register and have a Massachusetts Driver’s license or State-issued ID, you can register online at www.RegisterToVoteMA.com Alternatively, a mail-in voter registration application can be downloaded from the State’s website: 

In– Person Early Voting Dates and Times

In-Person Early Voting Statewide will be available from Saturday, Oct. 17 through Friday, Oct. 30. In Belmont, all In-Person Early Voting will take place at Town Hall. Belmont’s In-Person Early Voting hours can be found here.

Vote By Mail Early/Absentee Ballots

The deadline to submit your Vote by Mail application is Wednesday, Oct. 28. More than 10,000 Vote By Mail Ballot requests have been fulfilled. 

We encourage those voters who have received their Vote by Mail Early/Absentee ballots to vote them as soon as the voter has made their choices and return the ballot immediately.  Your returned voted ballots will be secured in our vaults and included in the Election Day results.   

Voters can watch the status of their ballot request and returned ballot at www.trackmyballotma.com ; it can take up to three days to be recorded.

Vote by Mail Early/Absentee ballots may be returned to

  • the Town Clerk by mail to 455 Concord Avenue, Belmont, MA 02478 or
  • In the Town Clerk’s drop box located at the base of the steps to Town Hall on the left side of the driveway.  

The Town Clerk is the only one with a key to the drop box. Ballots placed in the drop box are treated the same way as Early Voting ballots cast in person.  

If you requested and received a Vote by Mail Early/Absentee ballot and want it to count, it must be returned to the Town Clerk drop box at Town Hall by 8 p.m. Nov. 3. Ballots that are mailed must be postmarked in the US by 8 p.m., Nov. 3 and received by the Town Clerk no later than 5 p.m. on Friday, Nov. 6. Ballots mailed outside the US must arrive by 5 p.m. Friday, Nov. 13. Ballots cannot be delivered to your voting precinct. The US Post Office recommends mailing all ballots by Oct. 27.

Where to Obtain Applications to Register to Vote or Vote by Mail

All applications mentioned above can be found at the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s Elections portal  www.sec.state.ma.us/ele,. Print, complete and sign and drop the signed form in the Town Clerk Drop Box at the base of the Town Hall steps on the left side of the driveway.  There is also a small box on top of the Town Clerk Drop Box that contains paper voter registration forms and Vote By Mail Applications.

In Person Early Voting: Saturday, Oct. 17 To Friday, Oct. 30 At Town Hall

By Leave a Comment

Photo:

According to the Town Clerks webite, In-Person Early Voting begins in Belmont on Saturday, Oct. 17, and lasts until Friday, Oct. 30. Registered voters can come to Town Hall to cast their ballots; it is the only location where early voting for the 2020 Presidential election will take place.

The schedule for Early In-Person Voting is:

  • Saturday, Oct. 17, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.
  • Sunday, Oct. 18, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.
  • Monday, Oct. 19, 8 a.m. to 7 p.m.
  • Tuesday, Oct. 20, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
  • Wednesday, Oct. 21, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
  • Thursday, Oct. 22, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
  • Friday, Oct. 23, 8 a.m. to noon.
  • Saturday, Oct. 24, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.
  • Sunday, Oct. 25, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.
  • Monday, Oct. 26, 8 a.m. to 7 p.m.
  • Tuesday, Oct. 27, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
  • Wednesday, Oct. 28, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
  • Thursday, Oct. 29, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
  • Friday, Oct. 30, 8 a.m. to noon.

Early In-Person voting ends at Noon on Friday, Oct. 30.

League Women Voters Hosting Congressional Candidates Forum Tuesday, Oct. 13, 7:30PM

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The forum

Several chapters of the League of Women Voters are joining together to host a candidates forum for the Fifth Massachusetts Congressional District featuring incumbent US Rep. Katherine Clark (Democrat) and her challenger Caroline Colarusso (Republican).

The forum will take place virtually on Tuesday, Oct. 13 at 7:30 p.m.

Viewing Options:

Zoom Webinar Live: TinyURL.com/5thCongForum
Live Broadcast: Belmont Ch 8 (Comcast) or Ch 28 (Verizon) Livestream: BelmontMedia.org/watch/govtv
Shared with Cable Access Stations across the District Recordings available on demand: BelmontMedia.org and LWV websites

The forum will be conducted according to LWV guidelines. After a brief opening statement from the candidates, a League Moderator will ask questions submitted from LWV members and the public, followed by closing statements from the candidates.

League chapters from Arlington, Belmont, Boston (Cambridge Unit), Framingham, Lexington, Melrose, Natick, Sudbury, Waltham, Wayland, Weston and Winchester participated in the forum.

Below is important information on the voting process:

Voting – checkregistration: Vote411.org/check-registration
Ballot application: MailMyBallotMA.com
Track ballot: TrackMyBallotMA.com
Early Voting: Oct. 17–30, Locations and times: MassEarlyVote.com
Deadlines: Registration — Oct. 24; Vote-By-Mail application — Oct. 28.

Ballot: must be postmarked by Nov. 3 and be delivered at local election office by Nov. 6.

Be an informed voter: Visit the LWV Voter Guide for information on all candidates at VOTE411.org.

Spit, ‘Poop’ Or Both: School Committee Explores Testing Options In Push Towards In-School Learning

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Mirimus Labs image

The Belmont School Committee took the first steps in implementing a testing regime that could spur students to return full-time to the classroom.

Promoted by School Committee Chair Andrea Prestwich and a group of parents acting as ad hoc advisors, testing would provide students and teachers the necessary “peace of mind” as they prepare to reenter schools.

“One thing that will add considerably to the safety of in-person learning is surveillance testing,” said Prestwich, as the committee unanimously supported a proposal for the school administration to look at the feasibility and logistics of surveillance testing at Belmont Public Schools.

The School Committee will update the testing proposals at its Tuesday meeting, Sept. 29.

Kate Jeffrey, a Harvard-affiliated academic scientist and the parent of a Burbank first grader, presented a plan created by fellow parents, Jamal Saeh and Larry Schmidt, that recommends the district continue its safety and health protocol such as proper social distancing and wearing masks with weekly surveillance tests and contract tracing through the town’s Health Department.

Both Jeffrey and Prestwich said the lack of guidance by the state and the federal government on the use and type of surveillance testing has forced Belmont’s hand on moving on its own to establish its own standards.

Unlike diagnostic tests that are performed on individuals who have symptoms, surveillance testing seeks out the infection within a population which in Belmont’s case will be the school district.

While the CDC does not promote its use, “surveillance testing is the only way to bring [the school district] back to normalcy,” said Jeffrey.

Not that Belmont is that far from putting students back into the classrooms. With biweekly community data showing a less than one percent infection rate per 100,000 residents and school-age rates less than a half of one percent, Jeffrey said the anticipated current number of positive COVID-19 cases of the 5,000 students in the district would be three.

And while it would be optimum that there would be no risk, Jeffrey said that is simply unrealistic so the best can be done is to reduce the overall risk with surveillance testing to increase the amount of time students can stay in class.

While most people will associate COVID-19 testing with a swab rammed into the nasal cavity, methods have advanced where saliva – drawn into a straw than placed into a container – is used to extract the RNA that are highly specific pinpointing the virus. While there are false positives at about 3 percent – Jeffrey noted half of peanut allergy tests produce false positive results – they can be detected when the individual goes to their physician.

The recommended affective options available would be fast test produced by Mirimus Labs which will analyze a pool of 25 saliva samples, about the size of a classroom, with the ability to identifying a positive case within 12 hours. The Brooklyn-based firm can breakdown the large sample into pairs and determine which students will need to seek treatment.

Jeffrey said Mirimus can begin sample testing within two days after being selected. It would need two volunteers to collect the saliva and fill out the data forms for every grouping of 250 students.

After the first week in which all students and teachers would take the test to establish a baseline number, each subsequent week 10 percent of students – approximately 500 students – and all educators would be tested. The baseline test will cost $80,000 and the subsequent cost for the school year will be approximately $500,000.

Fundraising, possible federal or state expenditures and future lower cost testing could fund the proposal.

Jeffrey’s recommends the district start with the available Mirimus lab-based technology, than switching to a cheaper point-of-care approach when one becomes available likely by the end of the year.

While this new testing remains important for the community by supplying information on COVID, its greatest benefit “really has to be in returning students to the classroom,” said Jeffrey.

A second testing scheme – reviewed by Prestwich and Dr. Kate Rodriguez-Clark – is to sample the wastewater at the six school buildings. COVID is present in fecal matter so testing would involve the weekly collection of sewage from each school. The samples would be tested by a company like Biobot Analytics that can identify a single infection from the samples. The cost would be $8,500 a week for all buildings.

The advantage of using wastewater testing is it works well in tandem with the saliva testing in tracking the virus and it is easier to collect a sample. One negative is a person with the coronavirus must use the restroom at the school for the sample to register a positive case. Describing the dilemma resulted in Prestwich likely uttering the first mention of the slang definition of solid waste from the body in a future school committee minutes.

“The bottom line is that if the person who was infected with COVID doesn’t poop at school then we will not detect it … and that’s a drawback,” said Prestwich.

While calling the overall testing proposal “an exciting opportunity” to increase the peace of mind of educators and the public, Belmont Superintendent John Phelan said it will be a challenge to see how the district “operationalize” testing with the knowledge that the district has 4,500 student and 625 staff member between the ages of 3 and well past 60.

School Committee member Kate Bowen wondered aloud how necessary a costly surveillance testing regiment is for Belmont after the school district had “taken great steps in improving the buildings” including increasing the air flow in all school rooms and as the community has a very low rate of infection.

Prestwich noted that while the town’s “rates are low at this point … COVID increases exponentially if you don’t keep a lid on it.”

“Hopefully the precautions that we can take will prevent the numbers from shooting up,” she said.

Select Board Withdraws Civil Service Article Due To ‘Technical Error’; Others See Folding A Losing Position

By 1 Comment

Photo: Roy Epstein, Chair of the Select Board

In a surprise that no one saw coming, the Belmont Select Board voted unanimously to withdraw its controversial article removing civil service for Belmont’s Police and Fire departments mere minutes before it was to be presented before a contentious Special Town Meeting on Wednesday, Sept. 23.

Roy Epstein, Select Board chair, told the members the reason for the removal of the article was due to a “technical error” involving rank and file members taking civil service tests for promotions in the coming months.

“I think this sort of last minute change is one that forces our hand in this case. And I would say a postponement at this stage is certainly the prudent approach,” said Tom Caputo of the Select Board.

Because the article was never read into the warrant, there would be no debate and discussion by the Town Meeting members so Town Moderator Mike Widmer quickly dissolved the assembly as the article was the final item on the warrant.

The withdrawal of Article 10 removed what many predicted to be a heated debate on the future of civil service in Belmont.

Supporters of ending civil service, which included town officials, Select Board and the leaders of both fire and police, contend the town would see significant cost savings by ending a 105-year-old arcane system for hiring and promotions, replacing it with an efficiently run locally-focused practice.

Opponents made up of the rank and file of Belmont Fire and Police and resident supporters ask why throw out the baby with the bathwater as changes to civil service – such as altering age limits and increasing diversity in the number of candidates – can be made by changes to the existing language of the agreement. Several Town Meeting Members also questioned the validity of the supposed financial savings with such a move.

Paul Roberts (Pct. 8), a vocal critic of the town’s and Select Board’s tactics said Wednesday night’s board vote had more to do with folding from a losing position.

“My belief is that [the Select Board] did some hasty vote counting  and decided to turn back and live to fight another day. Overall, I think it reflects a haphazard effort all around on Article 10,” he said.

During a meeting of the Select Board that occurred during a break after the Special Town Meeting approved Article 9, Epstein said the board was informed late in the afternoon that Article 10 included a “drafting error” which involved setting the effect date of March 1, 2021 to end civil service protection. It was also assumed this date would protect the interests of police and fire department personnel who were taking civil service promotional exams this fall.

“And we wanted them to have full civil service protection in their new position. And that was always our intent,” said Epstein.

But when the article was reviewed, it was determined that March 1 “was not sufficient,” said Epstein. Because the results of the civil service exams could take longer than previously thought, the board was advised that July 1, 2021 was a more appropriate date to protect any future promotions.

“The idea was not to cause a problem for anyone or to be unfair to anyone who was studying for an exam and then pull the rug from under them by yanking civil service before they had a chance to actually take the test and get the results,” said the Select Board’s Adam Dash.

With the new effective date for leaving civil service being pushed back well passed the scheduled date for the annual Town Meeting in early May 2021, the board decided to allow the members to vote on the article in the coming year.

“Patrice [Garvin, the town administrator] and I recognized if it’s going to be as late as July 1, 2021, we may as well withdraw this article tonight and then we’ll see where we’re at in the spring regarding civil service,” said Epstein.

“We don’t want to do something that did not reflect our true intention. And at this late date there was no cure that other than to withdraw the article,” he said.

Roberts provided his own advice to the those supporting the end of Civil Service in Belmont.

“It is my hope that the Select Board use this extra time to properly study the issue, learn from the experience of other communities and – if they intend to bring this forward again – do so with a plan that addresses the issues raised by our public safety professionals and Town Meeting members. A Town Meeting vote should be the last step in the process, not the first,” said Roberts.

Town Meeting: Limits Placed On Civil Service Debate; Clarifying Amendment Added To Civil Service Article; 9 PM’s The Limit

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Mike Widmer

Due to what nearly everyone at the Special Town Meeting expects to be one of the most contentious articles for many years, Town Moderator Mike Widmer this afternoon, Wednesday, Sept. 23, has placed a limit on the scope of debate on Article 10, the measure which would end civil service for rank and file Belmont Fire and Police personnel.

Here is Widmer’s announcement: 

One of the most important responsibilities of the Moderator is to determine the scope of permissible discussion under any article. In the vast majority of articles that determination is straightforward. But in a minority of instances, often the most controversial issues, it takes considerable research and consultation to determine the approach that is in the best interests of Town Meeting.

In terms of Article 10, I have probably spent more hours considering proper scope than I have with any other article in my 12 years as Moderator. As part of this process I have had extensive discussions with Town Counsel George Hall.

My conclusion is that the only correct and fair way to proceed with Article 10 is to limit discussion purely to the merits of the proposal advanced by the Select Board:

Should the Belmont police and fire departments be withdrawn from Civil Service? Only the merits of this policy proposal are the province of Town Meeting.

The process by which the Select Board decided to bring this article forth is not an appropriate matter for debate. Much of the public discussion, certainly brought forth by the unions, is that the Board should have negotiated with the unions before bringing this issue to Town Meeting. But how are Town Meeting Members to know the unbiased facts of what happened at the negotiating table since those are legally mandated to be private matters? Process issues between union and management are inextricably tied to collective bargaining which definitely is not the province of Town Meeting.

Our role as a legislative body is to debate issues advanced by the executive branch or by citizens’ petitions. We have no authority to insert ourselves into the collective bargaining process. Those questions are clearly out of scope of the article as well.

This reality may be frustrating to individual Town Meeting Members, and Members are free to vote yes or no based on whatever factors they choose. But I am sure you all agree that we should not break longstanding and bedrock principles of the separation of powers.

Mr. Widmer can be reached at mike.j.widmer@gmail.com

A clarifying amendment for Article 10

Roy Epstein, Chair of the Select Board and Precinct 6 Town Meeting Member has moved to amend the main motion under Article 10 by adding to the end of the motion the following clause: “,said revocation not to take effect until March 1, 2021.”

The resultant motion will now read: 

Motion: That the Town remove the Police and Fire Department from the provisions of the Civil Service Laws, and the rules and regulations relating to the same, by revoking the Town’s acceptance of Section 37 of Chapter 19 of the General Laws voted under Article 15 of the Warrant for the 1915 Annual Town Meeting and of Section 48 of Chapter 31 (as both have been recodified in G.L. c. 31, § 52), said revocation not to take effect until March 1, 2021.

The rationale for the clarifying amendment is to correct a drafting error in the motion. The intent of the motion is to allow anyone promoted, as a result of taking a civil service exam in 2020, to remain grandfathered in civil service after their promotion.

A Town Meeting session too long? Pumpkin time is 9 p.m. Wednesday

Town Moderator Mike Widmer will be keeping a watch on the clock on the wall at Wednesday’s Special Town Meeting:

On a related matter, some Town Meeting Members have expressed a concern that the meeting went too long on Monday night. I do want to emphasize to Town Meeting Members that we time every speaker; presenters have specifically assigned time limits. Town Meeting Members have three minutes as their limit. Tonight we have two important matters to discuss and I want to allow for a full discussion of Civil Service. If we are able to complete action on Article 9 by 9 p.m, I think it makes sense to proceed to Article 10. However, if it is after 9, I will ask for a vote of Town Meeting Members whether we continue with Article 10 or whether we adjourn to Sept. 30.

Belmont Special Town Meeting; Session 1, Sept. 21

By 1 Comment

Photo:

The first session of Belmont’s 2021 Special Town Meeting resembled halcyon days of the legislative assembly as each article presented to the 290 members easily passed muster while only a few comments turned any heads.

Monday’s remote Zoom gathering may well seem like a floating nest in the Aegean as the body prepares to reassembles in two days time when the storm clouds gather to announce the pending clash over the future of civil service where the debate could make civil hands made unclean.

But on Monday, the eight articles and 11 votes were allowed to meander like a later summer walk with a good friend; taking their time with easy conversation with points made in polite chatter.

Under the expert hand of Town Moderator Mike Widmer, the meeting included a video tour featuring “Mayor” Stephen Rosales (Pct. 8) of the newly renovated DPW facilities – on budget and on time – a view forward of budgets to come as well as remembering two members who recently passed in Penny Schafer (38 years) and Henry Kazarian (29 years) and honoring Fred Paulsen for serving 62 years on Town Meeting, “obviously an all-time record probably never to be broken,” said Widmer.

“Serving as a town meeting member has been a rewarding part of my life in the Belmont community,” said Paulsen in a letter to the members. “I hope that I have helped to make Belmont the wonderful community that it is.”

The night would see four/fifths of the meeting done in little more than four hours.

Article 2: Carleton Circle adoption: It’s been 37 years since the last time the town accepted a private way – that being Middlecot Street in the Winn Brook neighborhood. So it’s not that common when a street is “adopted” as a public way.

The residents who are along Carleton Circle requested in 2018 that their road be accepted as a public way. And it was only when National Grid made upgrades to the street as well as each homeowner abutting the road pitched in $1,400 did the road meet the town’s standards of a public way.

The only question – from Jeanne Mooney (Pct. 6) – was if the adoption of the street will increase the property values – and it will, likely over time.

The vote: 237 yea and two opposed.

Article 3: Authorization for Temporary Easement – Wellington Elementary School Safe Route to School Project
This article authorizes the Select Board to grant eight temporary easements and one permanent easement for a transportation improvement for several approaches to the Wellington Elementary School as part of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation’s “Safe Routes to School” program. The project, worth $1.4 million, includes sidewalk reconstruction, traffic signal reconstruction at the intersection of Common Street at Waverley and School streets, ADA compliant wheelchair ramps, pavement milling and overlay, pavement markings, signs, and minor drainage improvements.

All questions from the body were supportive. Lucia Gates of the Shade Tree Committee did ask if there could be funds to plant replacement trees for the ones which will need to be cut down.

The vote: 237 yes, 2 no and 2 abstained

Article 4: The five Community Preservation Committee Projects approved in the spring by the CPC. Each Special Town Meeting vote is next to the project.

  • $680,624 Town Field Playground and Court Restoration. (241-5-4)
  • $100,000 Homer House Window Restoration Project. (237-11-3)
  • $173,000 Feasibility study for the redevelopment and creation of new affordable housing units at Belmont Village. (228-17-1)
  • $100,000 Belmont Police Station Front Steps Historic Preservation (228-13-3)
  • $100,000 Supplement to Emergency Rental Assistance Community Housing (221-20-2)

The most debate was directed to the $100,000 the Housing Trust would add to the $250,000 the CPC previously allocated in rental assistance to residents impacted by the COVID-19. Betsy Lipson (Pct. 6), co-chair of the Housing Trust said the money request is due to “the unprecedent need the pandemic presents.” This amount will assist between 25-30 additional residents – the assistance program already has qualified 37 applicants – seeking help to pay their rent and maintain housing stability.

While voting for the measure, Jack Weis, Pct. 2, didn’t question the use of the funds but questioned the Community Preservation Committee backing a short-term measure that didn’t support the larger goal of creating affordable housing.

“I find it very frustrating that the [Community Preservation Committee] does not act as stewards of the CPA money on behalf of the town” and “they’re the only committee that does not recommend, advise, or guide Town Meeting as to whether or not they think that the proposed action is prudent and warranted.”

Elizabeth Dionne (Pct. 2), CPC chair, said it was important for the CPC to be challenged at Town Meeting. She would vote against a permanent rental assistance program because long term housing is the much higher priority.

“We’re considering this a one-time emergency event,” said Dionne.

Article 5: Purchase Police Station Modular Units (Trailers) Using Water Retained Earnings
This article seeks to use Water Retained Earnings to purchase for up to $320,000 the modular units currently being leased for the Police Station Project located on DPW land off Woodland Street. Purchasing the units will alleviate severe space constraints for the Public Works Department and other town departments.

Ariane Goodman-Belkadi (Pct. 3) who lives on Woodland Street, expressed concern that the Select Board would have carte blanche on future uses of the modulars at the site located between the Light Department on Prince Street and the Water Department at the end of Woodland. She was worried about the possible overuse by town vehicles – many heavy trucks – of the private way and dead end.

Goodman-Belkadi said she and her neighbors want a commitment from all town departments that only Water Department vehicles and those owned by Water Department employees will use the roadway.

While the town is supportive of meeting with residents to address concerns, it’s unknown if the town can make those commitments.

Other questions included the durability of the structures. When asked the life span of the trailers, Belmont’s Director of Facilities Steve Dorrance said it would last for “decades” if the buildings are properly maintained over that time.

The vote: 212 yea, 19 nay and 5 absent

Article 6: Transfer Remaining Water Capital Balances
This article transfers the remaining funds from prior year(s) capital in the Water enterprise fund will be re- appropriated to be used for the FY21 Water Main Replacement. The total is $137,641.09.

This is an annual accounting clean-up.

Vote: 221 yup, 2 nope

Article 7: Transfer Remaining Sewer Capital Balances
This article transfers the remaining funds from prior year(s) capital in the Sewer enterprise fund will be re-appropriated to Community Developments Sewer & Drain fund $25,581.20 that is used for maintenance repairs and replacements to the Town’s sewer and storm water system.

Just like Article 6 but replacing water for sewers.

Vote: The first unanimous vote of the night: 228 oui, 0 non

Article 8: Amend Zoning By-law: Grammar in Zoning
Town Meeting adopted a revised nonconforming Zoning By-law for the Single Residence B Zoning District in 2019. It later came to the attention of the Planning Board that certain language in the by-law was ambiguous. The article makes the necessary revisions to state the intent of the bylaw more clearly.

Who needs Grammerly when you have Bob McGaw, who initiated this amendment?

Vote: 228 yes, no opposition and three abstained.

One More Month: Leonard Street To Remain One Lane ‘Til Oct. 25; And Free Lot Parking!

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Traffic flowing on Leonard Street

Belmont residents will have four additional weeks of al fresco dining and one way traffic along Leonard Street as the Belmont Select Board voted 2-1 to extend the closure of the main thoroughfare in the town’s business center until Sunday, Oct. 25.

The board majority – Adam Dash and Tom Caputo – felt the extra time will continue to benefit eateries in the Center and across town which have been particularly hit hard due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

“I heard a lot of support from the [Belmont] community for continuing it that is addition to what the business community in Belmont Center,” said Caputo.

The sole dissent came from Roy Epstein, the board’s chair, who said he was keeping a promise made to the business community that includes retail operations that the roadway would be opened on Sept. 28 which will free up dozens of on-street parking.

“Maybe it’s going well for the restaurants but I think the harm to the other businesses is actually invisible to us,” said Dash.

“I think we should give them the best shot,” said Dash.

Along with the continuation of one-way traffic on Leonard Street, free parking will continue for residents and visitors in the Claflin Street municipal lot located off Channing Road in Belmont Center.

Letter To The Editor: Claims Belmont Overtax Property Below $1 Million ‘Untrue And Misleading’ – Assessors

By 3 Comments

Photo: The Assessors before the Select Board (from left) Martin Millane, Robert Reardon and Charles Laverty III

Dear Editor:

The Town of Belmont Board of Assessors has recently received information being circulated by a group calling themselves the “Citizens for a Fiscally Responsible Belmont” in which it is claimed that the Fiscal Year 2020 Assessments overtax properties under $1,000,000 in assessed value and under tax higher-end properties. The information used to make these claims is untrue and misleading and does not adhere to the actual assessment process which is regulated, reviewed, audited, and approved by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue on an annual basis. The Board of Assessors has a long and exemplary record of fairly and equitably administering the Massachusetts General Laws to all taxpayers of Belmont.

Current assessments are historical which is a requirement of Massachusetts General Laws.  The Fiscal Year 2020 (July 1, 2019 – June 30, 2020) assessments are based on an effective date of 01/01/2019 based on sales information that occurred during the calendar year 2018. The effective date of assessment is based on the information on file in the assessing office based on inspections and reviews of every property in town.  Therefore, the fiscal year 2020 assessed values are as of Jan. 1, 2019, and are do not reflect the value of a property today.   

The report being circulated uses sales that have occurred in Calendar Years 2019 and 2020 compared against assessments that were based on 2018 sales.  The activity in these years is the basis for the upcoming assessments in the Fiscal Year 2021 (effective this upcoming January) and Fiscal Year 2022. Additionally, the sales in the report show no adjustment for changes in the Belmont Market and there are no adjustments for changes made to the properties after Jan. 1, 2019 (permits and renovations).  

The following table is from one of the many reports required and reviewed by the Department of Revenue to obtain certification.  


Fiscal Year 2020 Sales Ratios

Sale RangeSales RatioCODNumber
Q1$674,000 to $975,0000.951.8935 Sales
Q2$980,000 to $1,202,0000.951.4835 Sales
Q3 $1,206,000 to $1,512,5000.951.2735 Sales
Q4$1,515,000 to $5,500,0000.951.2434 Sales

The sales are segmented into four quartiles by sales price. The next column, sales ratio, is the assessed value divided by the sales price, which results in the assessment level. The Commonwealth requires that assessments are within 90 percent to 110 percent of sales. All four quartiles are at 95 percent which infers that than assessments are at 95 percent of market value in Fiscal Year 2020. The COD column is a further statistical test known as Coefficient of Dispersion which weighs, in short, the quality of the data set.  The Commonwealth requires that this be less the 10. The Belmont assessments are under 2.  The last column is the number of sales analyzed in each quartile. 

It is important to note that the Department of Revenue sets all guidelines and regulations for assessing in the Commonwealth. All communities are required to adhere to the same rules and procedures and Assessors are under oath to uphold these practices.    

A full version of the report above, as well as other reports used in the Certification Process, are available on the Belmont Board of Assessors’ website.

The Belmont Board of Assessors

Robert Reardon; chair, Charles Laverty III; vice-chair, Martin Millane; secretary.