State’s ‘October Surprise’ As Minuteman Throws Wrench into Election

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The new school, image from KBA Architects.

In politics, a news event deliberately created or timed, or sometimes occurring spontaneously, to influence the outcome of an election, is called an “October Surprise.” 

While the majority of those “surprises” are usually seen in presidential campaigns, a last-minute decision by the commissioner of the state’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, requiring non-district students attending Minuteman Regional Career and Technical High School to pay a larger share of the new building’s capital cost has given some Belmont residents pause on how they will vote Tuesday, Sept 20.

On Thursday, Sept. 15, Mitchell Clifford, DESE Commissioner, reached a decision that will require non-district students attending Minuteman to pay a greater amount of the capital costs being incurred by the ten remaining district cities and towns. That single issue has been one of the most contentious issues Belmont officials – along with the size of the building, built to house 635 students while in-district communities send less than 350 – have been fighting over the past five years when it became apparent the aging Minuteman building had outlasted its usefulness. 

Under the current tuition plan, Belmont spends approximately $30,600 per student to attend Minuteman while an out-of-district community such as Watertown, which pays roughly $19,700 in tuition per student a year or $10,900 less on a per student basis. Minuteman supporters claim the current gap is closer to $7,000 if including costs of transportation and other expenses. 

In 2020 when the new capital ‘increment” takes place, out-of-district student tuition will jump by $6,000 for towns with fewer than five voc/tech classes in its school district. A community with at least five tech programs would pay a reduced rate of $4,500.

Under the new formula, Minuteman officials contend the financial advantage of leaving the district and then returning to “rent” seats as a non-member town is nearly completely nullified. 

The pro-financing side goes so far as proclaiming on its website – mmvote.infor – that Belmont residents who have long sought a “fair share of capital costs” from communities outside the district convinced the state to its argument.

“Congratulations …  — you won!” said the site.

The DESE decision prompted a significant defection from the “no” side – which has been pushing for Belmont to leave the district – when Roy Epstein, a member of the town’s financial watchdog Warrant Committee, wrote Friday, Sept. 16 that he had changed his vote just days after writing of his support for the town to take a strong stance to force the state’s hand on the capital expenses.

“I changed my mind on this vote because Belmont won a major victory this week,” said Epstein in a letter to the Belmontonian. He stated Belmont would “pay the same capital charge even if we became a non-member town. That is the outcome we demanded — an equal per-student amount for the cost of the new building.”

While one of the leading voices of the “no” vote is “glad to see that they have allowed for a substantial capital fee to be assessed by Minuteman,” Ellen Schreiber said “I still recommend that Belmont vote “No” on the Minuteman debt.”

“I don’t think that the DESE policy changes anything,” Ralph Jones, a former Belmont Selectman who created a group to promote a “no” vote, told the Belmontonian.

For both Shrieber and the “no” leadership, the DESE decision answers just one of Belmont’s questions: what is the maximum allowable capital fee, said Schreiber, but does not reduce the risk Belmont would accept if we agree to the debt.

At a League of Women Voter’s Forum last Monday, Jack Weis, Belmont’s representative to the Minuteman School Committee, described Belmont’s portion of the debt as “unknowable” due to three reasons, countered Schreiber:

Non-member tuition is substantially less than member operating costs, and if Belmont agrees to the debt, the town is locked into that significant financial disparity for the next 30 years. And the debt remains perilous, she said, the amount that Belmont owes will change year-to-year based “on factors that are out of its control.” 

Jones agreed with Schreiber that the new capital increment “is a wise and fair policy,” but it can only work if non-member towns continue to send their students to Minuteman to fill the 300 empty seats and if the Minuteman School Committee will enforce the new policy “and not revert to their traditional policy of discounting tuitions for non-member towns until the empty seats are filled.”

Putting one’s faith into those assumptions coming to pass, contend, Jones, is simply too risky for a town that is facing several high-cost capital projects including a $100 million high school renovation.

Jones points to State Sen Will Brownsberger’s argument that towns such as Watertown and Waltham have good options at the cost of about $18,000 – $20,000 per student to find an alternative to Minuteman which will cost the town’s $26,000 a year in tuition in 2020. 

“If I were an official in either Watertown or Waltham, I would do two things,” said Jones. “First, I would be working collaboratively with other non-member towns to ensure a robust set of alternatives for my students.  After that, if Minuteman asked me to send students, I would demand a substantial discount in tuition cost,” he said. 

“I appreciate the idealism of many Belmont residents who are trying to make the Minuteman District work,” said Jones.

“After 25 years of meeting with Superintendents and Minuteman School Committees, I agree with Brownsberger that the district is broken.”

Belmont voters join the 15 communities (Acton, Arlington, Bolton, Boxborough, Carlisle, Concord, Dover, Lancaster, Lexington, Lincoln, Needham, Stow, Sudbury, Wayland, Weston) which are members of the Minuteman School District to vote on the $100 million in financing on Tuesday, Sept. 20, from noon and 8 p.m.

Letter to the Editor: Minuteman – A Tale of Two Cars

By 3 Comments

Photo: A minivan.

To the editor:

I’m voting No on the Minuteman debt tomorrow even after DESE’s ruling. Here’s why.

Imagine you have a family of, say, six kids and you need a car to drive your little scholars to school each morning. Naturally, you buy a minivan. Then, for years, you take the kids to school, paying down the cost of the van, and of course paying all the operating expenses – gas, oil changes, repairs, etc. – as you go along.

After a while, some of your kids graduate, so you agree to take along some children from the neighborhood. You want to be a good neighbor. Besides, the van is big enough, so it’s no big deal.

While the neighbors pitch in a little for the gas, it is not as much as you do. It’s a little unfair, but you’re trying to be nice. It won’t be forever.

Are those neighbors poor? Not at all. They could pay the full fee if they had to. But it’s obviously cheaper for them to send their kids with you, so that’s what they do. You’re a bit irked, but you say okay.

Cut ahead a few years. Your minivan is crumbling, and it’s time to get a new car. Do you buy another van – or do you downsize? You only have three kids of your own to drive now, so it’s obvious: downsize.

But then you get a letter from the school. They say you have to buy another minivan – not downsize – because you have to keep driving the neighbor kids.

Say what? Those families never paid for the first minivan (you let them come with you because you had the room) and now you have to pay for another minivan? You are forced to perpetuate what had been an act of generosity on your part into an unending subsidy?

You’re understandably irritated. Now is the perfect time to change things to reflect the current reality, but it looks like you have to institutionalize a broken setup where you pay a lot and these neighbors don’t pay their fair share.

Then the school says, “Wait, we’ve thought about it, the neighbors can pitch in more or less equally to pay for the new car.” Well, maybe. You do want everyone to get to school, not just your kids.

But what about paying their fair share of the operating costs (gas, repairs, etc.). “Um, no, that you still have to subsidize.”

How is that fair?

You’re tired of all this. Why do you have to continue subsidizing these neighbors for 30 more years?

A right-sized vehicle (just your kids and no neighbors) would be okay. Or a large vehicle that is paid for fairly (everyone pays equally for both capital and operating costs) would also be OK.

But a large vehicle for which you’re still on the hook for the operating costs while the neighbors get a deep discount? That is simply unfair.

That’s the Minuteman district in a nutshell. A new building, though certainly needed, does not resolve the fundamental unfairness of the payment structure. While I’d love to get a new building, we can’t afford to be part of the district if it means paying an unfair share of the money for the next 30 years.

That’s why I’m voting No.

Lisa Gibalerio

TMM Precinct 4

To the Globe: Paolillo Responds to Columnist Minuteman Op-Ed

By 1 Comment

Photo:

[Editor’s note: The article below is a letter to the editor in the Boston Sunday Globe, Sept. 18]

DANTE RAMOS missed the point of Belmont’s opposition to the Minuteman High School referendum (“Oh, Belmont! Local control fetish hurts vocational schools,” Opinion, Sept. 11).

The Minuteman district is broken. A substantial percentage of the approximately 600 students come from nonmember towns.

The funding mechanism severely disadvantages member towns. Belmont has tried for years to fix the problem, as recently as this summer. But nonmember towns are not joining.

In 2017, Belmont will pay $30,602 per student, as compared with $19,702 by nonmember towns, and it will only get worse with the new, $144 million Minuteman debt. This is an unfair financial burden on member towns.

Ramos praises Dover for its willingness to overlook the unfairness. But let’s put that in context. Belmont spent $13,029 in 2015 per pupil in our public schools, as compared with $24,263 in Dover. Additionally, Dover sent only two students to Minuteman; Belmont sends an average of 30. The disadvantage of Minuteman membership does not significantly affect Dover; that is not true of Belmont.

Belmont has legitimate concerns. Without fixing the unfairness of the district, we should not approve an oversized school that will make it worse.

Mark Paolillo

Chairman, Board of Selectmen

Belmont

Letter to the Editor: Despite State’s Move on Capital Costs, ‘No’ Remains Best Course

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Michael Libenson

To the editor:

Last Monday [Sept. 12] I served as a panelist for the League of Women Voters information session on the Minuteman referendum. I explained why there is a clear and compelling financial case for a “no” vote on the Minuteman referendum.

A broad group of Belmont town leaders agree. The Board of Selectmen and School Committee have voted unanimously to recommend a “no” vote, as has our State Sen. Will Brownsberger. The Warrant Committee voted 13-1 to recommend a “no” vote.

Some have asked me whether the subsequent Department of Elementary and Secondary Education ruling that allows Minuteman the option to charge non-member towns between 75 percent and 100 percent of the member town capital cost alters my perspective. It does not.

Belmont residents should vote “no” on Tuesday. It remains true that Belmont should save over $200,000 each year, and perhaps more, as a non-member town and yet still generate the same educational outcomes for our children.

The Minuteman district is broken and the recent DESE ruling doesn’t change that. The district is broken because nearly half the students come from non-member towns – including Watertown, Waltham, and Cambridge – and non-member towns are treated differently in the form of lower costs, most importantly with tuition, and secondarily with capital. 

The primary cost difference is due to non-member towns paying substantially less in tuition than member towns like Belmont. Belmont’s tuition cost this year will be $30,602 per student and Watertown will pay $19,702 per student on average. This large difference does not change and there is no clear path to change.

With 26 students at Minuteman, Belmont currently paying approximately $280,000 more than we would if Belmont were a non-member town like Watertown. This tuition disparity is the main reason no non-member town has joined the district in more than 30 years.

Tuition cost is also an important factor in why six of the sixteen towns have recently voted to leave the district.

Second, despite DESE’s recent ruling, capital costs remain unknown. The one thing we do know is that non-member towns will never pay more than member towns.

Minuteman now has to decide how much to charge non-member towns for capital. Imposing the full capital charge of $8,460 will likely cause non-member towns to explore sending some or all of their students to other schools that are substantially cheaper (as Minuteman is already the most expensive voc/ed school in the Commonwealth, even without any capital charge). Minuteman needs these non-district students to fill the school.

If a number of non-member students go elsewhere – or those towns even threaten to go elsewhere – Minuteman will have to choose between an underutilized school (and therefore even higher operating and capital costs borne by the remaining members) or a lower capital fee for non-members. For member towns, this means risk without reward and Belmont need not bear this risk.

Here is the bottom line: the reason why the current decision is so consequential is that a “yes” vote will lock Belmont into a bad deal for 30 or more years. We have an opportunity on Tuesday [Sept. 20] to avoid locking ourselves into a broken system for generations.

The financial case remains clear and compelling that Belmont should vote “no”.

Michael Libenson
Town Meeting Member, Precinct 1
Chair, Belmont Warrant Committee

Forum Presents the Yes and No of Minuteman Financing Vote

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Martin Plass (left) after the forum on the Minuteman finance vote. 

Martin Plass was raised in Aachen, Germany, a country where technical schools – the Berufsschule – are held in the same esteem as the other secondary education placements in the country.

“[In Germany], vocational training is seen as a great career path where you are taken into an apprenticeship, and it’s respected,” said the Stanley Road resident.

But the Precinct 3 Town Meeting Member believes that in many communities teaching practical skills so students can enter manufacturing, business or technical jobs “is looked down on.”

That feeling, Plass said after a community forum held Monday, Sept. 12 at the Beech Street Center on funding a new $145 million Minuteman Technical High School, is held by many residents in Belmont.

“People here will say, ‘I want the best possible school for Belmont High’ because they have children there. But they seem to say we can’t have that for our children who want a more practical work experience. That’s a shame,” said Plass.

For Plass and many who attending the forum co-sponsored by the League of Women Voters and the town’s Warrant Committee, the prospects of town voters casting a no vote on Wednesday, Sept. 20 during an election being held in the 16 communities who send students to Minuteman is short-sighted when considering the alternative. 

But for those residents who are pushing for voters to reject the proposed $100 million in debt – the state’s School Building Authority will pick up $45 million – the 10 remaining municipalities (six communities have voted to leave the district but will still vote on the plan) will finance over 30 years, the fiscal burden taxpayers and the town’s budget are being asked to carry can not be justified under the current agreement and assumptions made by the Minuteman administration.

“The bottom line is that Belmont taxpayers should save over $200,000 … or perhaps $400,000 per year by being a nonmember town with the same educational outcomes we all care about,” said Michael Libenson, the chair of the Warrant Committee which last week voted 13-1 against the new school financing plan.  

What the Sept. 20 election is not about, reiterated Libenson, is a referendum on vocational or technical education “which virtually everyone I know in town feels very strongly about.” Nor would it halt the building of the new school while protecting the placement of Belmont students at the Lexington-based school for at least seven years.

The forum was the last opportunity publically for both sides to express what in many cases are long-standing reasons for their support or opposition. 

On the no side, it comes down to the facts on the ground. Libenson, who presented for the no side in opening remarks, said the main issue is that the school, which is being built for 628 students, today enrolls 331 students or about 50 percent of the total pupil population from the ten member districts. The other students, coming from Watertown, Waltham and Medford to name a few towns, pay a tuition to attend the school.

“It’s a fundamental problem because it means the non-member towns are paying meaningfully less to send students to the school,” said Libenson. On average, Belmont spends $30,600 per student to attend the school while Watertown, which sends 63 students, pays $19,700 in tuition per student a year or $10,900 less on a per student basis. 

One of the assumptions of the “yes” voters is the new Minuteman can attract more in district students to the school to fill the 635 seats. But Libenson said this claim would require a 40 percent increase in enrollment, something that is counter to the steady decline of students entering the school over the past 20 years.

img_6972 img_6960

Belmont had been working with the other member districts to solve this issue, but the 15 communities wanted to build the new school first before tackling the problem of equity spending by non-members.

While the state’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education can add a surcharge onto the tuition of non-member students to help pay for the $100 million in capital expenses facing the member towns, it’s unknown how much, if any, DESE will authorize as it has not made a decision on the matter.

The case for voting no is a compelling one, said Libenson, coming down to a simple equation: it’s better to rent than buy. 

“It’s much more sensible for Belmont to rent seats at Minuteman or other vocational schools than to buy into this 30-year debt authorization,” he said, advising town officials to call for a Special Town Meeting in October where it will ask to leave the district. 

The ultimate goal of the no side – a Brexit-like move from Minuteman – would be “dangerous for Belmont students and the reputation of the town,” warned John Herzog, a retired professor who spoke for the yes side.

A parent and grandparent of students in the Belmont schools, Herzog said the no side does not have a better plan for Belmont vocational students “but only complaints.”

“If we are to take this giant step of leaving we should hear what they have in mind,” said Herzog. With an outstanding reputation that sends up to 68 percent of students to college and higher education, “why do you want to get out of [Minuteman]?” especially if any backup plan does not guarantee places for future Belmont students at existing technical schools.

In the long run, Belmont is being asked to finance about $335,000 per year over 30 years, which is an increase of $70 per year on the average tax bill, “which is a slight amount to pay for an excellent school,” said Herzog.

The question and answer portion of the night revolved around the mathematics of whether to stay and leave the district with those in the no column returning to the significant savings the town will accrue by leaving while the yes side, voiced by Laura Vanderhart of Precinct 4 and Agassiz Avenue, who pondered, “what are we giving up?” 

“I think [Minuteman is] going to be more popular,” she said, pointing to efforts by the federal government and promises from politicians from Democratic Vice President candidate Tim Kaine and Belmont’s US  Rep. Katherine Clark to support vocational and technical training. 

Leaving the district would also place a burden on Belmont and other non-district students, according to Minuteman school officials who attended the meeting. Belmont residents would lose their preference taking specific courses of study or even no be accepted to the school as Minuteman reaches capacity.

But the no supporters believe the assumptions presented by those favoring remaining in the Minuteman district – from increased enrollment and enticing towns to join the district to the amount of a capital surcharge placed on out-of-district tuition – is a financial risk the town should not commit itself.

“I’m not prepared today to enlist us to continue that subsidizing the non-member communities unless they are prepared to pay their fair share of the capital expenses,” said Selectmen Chair Mark Paolillo, who joined his fellow member to recommend a “no” vote on Sept. 20.  

For Plass, the writing is on the wall, as he is predicting Belmont will both vote “no” on Sept. 20 and a 2/3 vote to leave the district will pass at a Special Town Meeting in October. 

“I think it’s naive of town officials to think they can do vocational training cheaper when there is a new building at Minuteman with wonderful classes,” he said.

“That will be a sad day for Belmont.”

 

League of Women Voters/Warrant Committee Holding Minuteman Forum Monday Night

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Michael Libenson

The public is invited to attend a Forum on the Minuteman Regional Career and Technical High School Election Warrant, this evening, Monday, Sept. 12 at 7:30 p.m. at the Beech Street Center, 266 Beech St.

The forum will be moderated by Michael Widmer, Belmont Town Moderator

The panelists will be:

  • ‘Yes’  John Herzog
  • ‘No’  Michael Libenson

Members of the Warrant Committee, the Board of Selectmen, and Belmont School Committee; and the Town Administrator, the Town Treasurer, the Town Clerk, Superintendent of Belmont Schools, Minuteman Superintendent, and Belmont Representative to the Minuteman School Committee, Jack Weiss, have been invited to answer questions.

The evening is co-sponsored by the Belmont Warrant Committee and the Belmont LWV Education Fund.

One in Ten Took the Time to Vote in Party Primaries

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The votes are counted.

Approximately one in ten registered voters took out primary ballots in Belmont Thursday, Sept. 8, as turnout of light everywhere as the state held party primaries elections.

And could you blame those who stayed home? If you were a Republican, Green or United Independent party member, your ballot consisted of no one to vote for. That’s right, no one ran from the parties for US Representitive, State Senate and House, General Council and any other position. There was only an opportunity to write-in potential office holders.

And while not as bleak, the Democratic ballot was nearly as sparse. With the exception of two contested races – Middlesex Sheriff and the Governors Council – all other ses s were an office holder against no challenger. 

In the pair of contested Democratic races, the incumbents came out on top in Belmont as they did in their races district and county wide.

For Middlesex Sheriff

  • Peter Koutoujian          1,358
  • Barry Kelleher                 200

Governors Council

  • Marilyn Petitto Devaney  711
  • William Humphrey          507
  • Peter Georgian                  335

With 98 percent of the precincts reporting, Devaney retained her seat on the council garnering 12,751 votes (48 percent) to Humphrey’s 7,795 (30 percent) with Georgiou trailing in third with 5,834 votes (22 percent). 

Planning Board OKs Cushing Village Construction Extension

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The Cushing Village site.

The Belmont Planning Board welcomed to its Tuesday, Sept. 6 meeting the representative of the new owner of the proposed Cushing Village development with a slight caveat.

Don’t come back!

In reality, the board wasn’t so tactless or dismissive. Rather, the members explained to Bill Lovett – a senior development manager at Toll Brothers’ Apartment Living division which will develop the $80 million project that includes 115 units of rental housing, 38,000 sq.-ft. of retail and approximately 200 parking spaces – that he shouldn’t expect the board to approve any additional time extensions that would further delay the building the long-delayed project.

After the warning had been sent, the board unanimously supported Toll Brothers request to give the Pennsylvania-based home builder a seven-month extension of the Special Permit from December to July 2017.

(The issuance of the Special Permit allows a developer to begin construction on the site at the corner of Common Street and Trapelo Road in the heart of Cushing Square.)

The Planning Board’s directive is similar to the message Lovett received from the Selectmen which agreed to Toll’s request to extend the separate purchase and sale agreement of the town-owned municipal parking lot adjacent Trapelo and Williston roads.

When asked by Board member Charles Clark if Toll Brothers is likely to buy the car park site and begin construction by Dec. 31, Lovett agreed that was a possibility.

So why then, Clark pondered, is an extension of seven months for the Special Permit being required by Toll Brothers?

Lovett said while it is indeed possible that the building could commence by the end of the year, it would be an unlikely to actually commit to that timeframe because the structure’s foundation will be “complicated” to build as it sits below the ground water level and will also host the garage. Lovett said the earliest likely date for construction to begin on Cushing Village is late Spring of 2017.

And while Clark suggested providing the developer with half the number of months requested in an attempt to move the project forward, Lovett stated Toll Brothers request for the full seven months was calculated relying on the firm’s due diligence formula, adding a margin of safety for any unforeseen complications that would force a delay in construction.

A long time from the start

Clark retorted that he remembers sitting in the same room more than three years ago in 2013 approving the Special Permit. This latest delay will likely move back the completion date of Cushing Village to mid-2019.

“Six years is a long time [for a project such as this],” he commented.

At Tuesday’s meeting, the board also brought up one of the most significant issues facing developers building on older commercial sites; ground contamination.

Quired by the Planning Board’s Barbara Fiacco, Lovett said the land is contaminated to the point where it would need to be remediated. The underground garage will be built on the former site of an old dry cleaner which used organic compounds such as perchloroethylene likely seeped into the surrounding soil and groundwater.

But Lovett said while Toll Brothers doesn’t know “what exactly is going to happen … with the remediation of the soil” and that some unanticipated finds could delay the “physical construction of the site,” he said the request for a delay in the Special Permit is not due to any soil contamination.

Lovett said the provisions of the Special Permit – allowing the construction of the development to proceed with the myriad of conditions and restricts to the structure’s bulk, height, and mass which the Planning Board negotiated with the initial development team over an 18 month period of meetings and discussion – will kick in only after the building’s foundation is laid and a plan of action on cleaning out the polluted soil has been taken.

But Fiacco was not sufficiently mollified by Lovett’s explanation.

“But I still don’t have a comfort level that you’re not going to be back here asking for further extensions in light of environmental issues,” she said.

Lovett said it’s likely the soil will be removed from the site “as quickly as we can” to move forward.

“It’s in the best interest” of Toll Brothers to move forward on the site, he added.

Fiacco ended her comments by telling Lovett the firm should decide early on what remediation and construction solutions they will use rather than be reactive to any problems it may encounter.

“I want to impress on you to get all your ducks in a row … so this project can go forward, and we can see something other than a hole in the ground,” she said.

Election Day in Belmont: State Party Primaries

By Leave a Comment

Photo: At the polls.

Yes, it may not be the traditional Tuesday but for this year, Thursday, Sept. 8, is the date for the Massachusetts Party Primary Election.

(The reason for the day change is due to the first Tuesday in September being just one day from the Labor Day holiday)

Polls open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.

Resident may vote in the party’s primary only if they are enrolled in one of the four political parties: Democratic, Republican, Green Rainbow and United Independent. Enrollment in a political party does not affect your right to vote in the general election. In the general election, all voters receive the same ballot and vote for the candidate of their choice, regardless of party enrollment.

If you have chosen “Unenrolled” on the voter registration form, you may still vote in state and presidential primaries by choosing a party ballot and will remain unenrolled, which is commonly reffered to as “independent.”

In addition to the choice of four political parties listed above and unenrolled, there are also certain legal political designations in which you can enroll. If you enroll in any political designations you may still vote in the state and presidential primaries.

Candidates for election

It’s slim pickings as most races are either uncontested or no one is running for the position. There is a pair of races in the Democratic primary: for sheriff and Governor’s Councl. See the party’s ballot here.

In the most interesting race, two decade incumbent Marilyn Devaney of Watertown will attempt to remain on the Governor’s Council for a ninth term against a young, energenic William Humphrey of Newton who has been crisscrossing the district, knocking on thousands of doors and using a crew of equally young supporters to get the word out. Don’t be suprised if Humphrey takes this seat due to the sweat equity he’s put in the race.

Polling Places

For voting purposes, Belmont is divided into eight voting precincts, located as follows:

  • Precinct 1 – Belmont Memorial Library, Assembly Room, 336 Concord Ave.
  • Precinct 2 – Belmont Town Hall, Selectmen’s Room, 455 Concord Ave.
  • Precinct 3 – Beech Street Center, 266 Beech St.
  • Precinct 4 – Daniel Butler School, Gymnasium, 90 White St.
  • Precinct 5 – Beech Street Center, 266 Beech St.
  • Precinct 6 – Belmont Fire Headquarters, 299 Trapelo Rd.
  • Precinct 7 – Burbank School, Gymnasium, 266 School St.
  • Precinct 8 – Winn Brook School, Gymnasium, 97 Waterhouse Rd. (Enter from Cross Street)

Please adhere to the posted parking restrictions and use caution to ensure the safety of pedestrians around the voting precincts.

New Owner For Belmont Center’s Vintage Wine Store

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Interior of the store.

Vintages: Adventures in Wine, the Belmont Center store which holds the distinction of being one of the first granted a town’s retail alcohol license, has been sold to a MetroWest businessman.

The Belmont Board of Selectmen approved the transfer of the beer-and-wine-only license held by Albert Avenue’s Eric Broege and Carolyn Kemp to Swapnil Gandbhir of Framingham on Monday, Aug. 22.

The store is located at 32 Leonard St., adjacent to the restaurant Asai which is closing down to allow a retail operation to move in. The new owner has signed a ten-year lease with an option after the first five years to leave without a penalty.

Gandbhir said the past owners told him they wished to concentrate on their first business, a West Concord wine store with the same name.

As for the business, the only changes coming to the store will be the addition of American and other non-European vintages as well as prepackaged snacks.

“There will be no renovation of the interior so it will look the same as it has in the past,” Gandbhir told the Belmontonian after the meeting.

One of the final remaining “dry” towns in the Commonwealth in the 1990s, Belmont voted in 1998 to allow limited restaurant alcohol licenses. Seven years later, Town Meeting approved the issuance of a full-liquor and a wine and malt licence and voters approved the measure in April 2008.  The Spirited Gourmet in Cushing Village was awarded the full license.