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.

Town Settles With Superior Officers, Only Dispatchers Without Contract

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Superiors officers settle, now it’s up to the dispatchers union to sign on the dotted line.

The Belmont Board of Selectmen voted Monday, Aug. 22 approving a three-year deal – from July 2014 to June 2017 – between the eight members of the Belmont Police Superior Officers Union and the town.

The agreement, negotiated by Belmont’s Human Resources Director Jessica Porter, means only the Dispatcher’s Union remain without a current contract among the town’s unions.

The contract’s highlights include:

  • An annual two percent cost-of-living-adjustment which is consistent with other town/union contracts.
  • While not random testing, the union agreed to drug and alcohol testing “based upon reasonable suspicion.” 
  • Newly hired/promoted superior officers as of July 1, will see their health insurance contribution rate go up from 20 percent to 25 percent in exchange for a 25 cents an hour increase n hourly pay. 
  • A “nominal” increase to established stipends will be paid to superior officers serving in special assignments which include as a prosecuting officer, community services officer in command and the department’s two detective positions. 

Toll Partners With Former Owner To Lease Cushing Village’s Retail Space

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Bill Lovett,  a senior development manager at Toll’s Apartment Living, before the Board of Selectmen.

It wasn’t the one-month extension the town gave Toll Brothers to close on the municipal parking lot adjacent Trapelo Road critical to the building of the long-delayed Cushing Village project that created the big buzz at the Belmont Board of Selectmen meeting on Monday, Aug. 22.

It was who the new developer is partnering with on a significant feature of the $80 million project that was a total surprise to the nearly dozen residents who sacrificed a beautiful summer evening to attend the meeting at Belmont’s Town Hall.

Chris Starr, the Bedford resident who spent almost a decade of his life attempting to construct the three building complex before giving up and relinquishing the site to the Pennsylvania -based firm, will either control “whole or in part” the leasing of 38,000 sq.-ft. of retail space in the new development.

Revealed by the Selectmen at the meeting, the news of Starr’s return to the project that he failed to complete was a startling announcement to those in attendance.

“This just didn’t make much sense at all,” said Doug Koplow of Oak Avenue.

Bill Lovett,  a senior development manager at Toll’s Apartment Living – a relatively new whole-owned subsidiary within the Horsham, Penn.-based firm – would only say the details for the company’s arrangement with Starr are in the new draft Land Development Agreement, the nuts and bolts legal document describing what will occur during the construction.

The LDA notes Starr’s involvement as taking “whole or part” of the commercial portion of the project once the space is built out and the town has provided a temporary certification of occupancy. The earliest that will take place is at least two years away.

Speculation of Starr’s return leans towards Toll’s expertise in the residential development yet having little knowledge of commercial leasing. Having spent the better part of a year attempting to land a big retail operation for his project, Starr’s contacts would be seen as valuable to Toll. 

Some residents expressed a worry that Starr’s background – during his tenure he could not put together the necessary financing to build the project nor find an anchor store for the site – could lead to further troubles for the project.

“[Starr] hasn’t shown much competence when he had Cushing Village and I don’t see much changing,” said Rita Butzer Carpenter of Precinct 6.

But for Selectmen Chair Mark Paolillo – who said the board was equally “surprised” by the arrangement between the present and past owners – a new near-luxury development on three town blocks at the intersection of Common and Trapelo would be a draw for most commercial retailers.

“We have the confidence that the commercial space will be very appealing to a wide range of retailers once [Cushing Village] is built,” said Paolillo. “It will be a very beautiful place to be located, and you’ll have 115 units of people who are customers inside the building.” 

Before the Starr bombshell landed, most residents were eager to hear why Toll was seeking to an extension on the deadline for the parking lot purchase and, as Lovett noted, seeking next month before the Planning Board to move the deadline for the Special Permit on Dec. 3 up by several months.

In March when Toll Brothers took tentative control of the project’s development rights from Starr, Lovitt sought and received a six-month extension, until Aug. 26, to sign the Purchase and Sale for the municipal parking lot.

Since then, the firm has been performing environmental tests and other audits as part of the company’s due diligence of the site and past agreements.

Lovett said the company’s reviews “just took a bit longer than anticipated.” The delay forced Toll to push back the start of its negotiations with “a retail component” (i.e., Starbucks), said Lovitt.

“We needed to dot the ‘Is’ and cross the ‘Ts’ before moving forward,” said Lovett.

While the added month may, as Selectman Jim Williams noted, be standard fare for a project of this size and past difficulties, one selectman was less than pleased.

“I feel let down by you,” Selectman Sami Baghdady told Lovett, who said that many residents saw Toll as the “white knight” when it rescued the project in March.

“There are many frustrated people as you can tell,” Baghdady said of those in the audience, wondering what assurances does the town have that Toll will not come back in the third week in September “asking for more time?”

Lovett said the company has spent “thousands of dollars” in preconstruction costs and is eager to add Cushing Village to its portfolio of projects including a completed apartment complex in Westborough and one soon to be under construction in Natick.

While saying Toll Brothers “will not find [another extension] here” should it come back in a month with the similar request, Paolillo said the added time “is our last best chance” at guiding the project towards construction.

“There is not option B,” he said as the extension was approved. 

Cushing Village’s New Owner Seeking Added Concessions From Town

By 2 Comments

Photo: The current state of the location of Cushing Village.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

That 19th-century French saying has a ring of truth to it when the discussion turns to the long-stalled Cushing Village residential/retail/parking development as it appears the new owners are seeking their own set of concessions from the town.

Approved for construction in July 2013, the project suffered through two-and-a-half years of delays and missed opportunities under the former ownership of lead developer Smith Legacy Partners.

So there was hope in the community when national housing firm Toll Brothers purchased the development rights in March of this year that a change at the top would allow the $80 million project – 115 units of housing, 38,000 sq.-ft. of stores and approximately 200 parking spaces – to move quickly to the construction stage.

In fact, representative of the Pennsylvia company said then it would not seek changes to the project which would warrant restarting the process, expressing confidence it would make the Aug. 26 deadline for the firm to sign a purchase and sale agreement with the town to buy a key town-owned land parcel, the municipal parking lot adjacent to Trapelo Road and Starbucks for $1 million, that would allow building to commence. 

For the town, Toll Brothers’ commitment to the site would stop the “endless loop of uncertainty” hampering work from commencing, said Selectman Sami Baghdady in March.

But what was said in the Spring appears to have fallen to the wayside in mid Summer. According to documents from the Board of Selectmen, Toll Brothers representatives will come before the Board at its Monday, Aug. 22 meeting seeking a new extension to the P&S deadline taking place four days later. 

In addition, the firm will request amendments to the Land Development Agreement – which for commercial property is a development plan that typically includes the time frame for completing the project, the property description, design sketches, and other details. 

The details of the changes and why they are being sought by Toll Brothers have not been publically flushed out – both the town and Toll are not speaking on the matter – as both sides appear ready to present their arguments on Monday.

Earlier this month, the board and the town appeared ready to sign all necessary paperwork on the 22nd, with current board chair Mark Paolillo saying that “both sides want this to go through.”