Letter to the Editor: Questioning Net Metering Working Group’s Bias

By Leave a Comment

To the editor:

The last two weeks saw a flurry of activity as the Light Board moved ever closer to embracing solar. Last week, 450 signatures of residents demanding simple retail net metering was submitted to the Light Board and, in my opinion, the Light Board started changing the Municipal Light Advisory Board (MLAB) membership to be more responsive to resident sentiment.

The need for a membership change was made apparent at Tuesday’s [June 23] MLAB meeting when the outgoing chair launched into an ideological and unsubstantiated diatribe attacking residents and elected officials alike. As much as he is ideologically opposed to rooftop solar, residents clearly want more solar not less as manifested in three packed  public hearings, 130 letters, and two petitions. Residents simply want the same Net Metering policy that is practiced successfully in 98 percent of Massachusetts towns. The town doesn’t need such divisiveness, close-mindedness and unprofessionalism from an appointed official.

Jim Williams, the new Light Board liaison to Belmont Light, asked residents for a proposal and residents provided it to the Light Board. The Light Board didn’t deliberate or vote on the residents’ compromise proposal but it agreed to Williams’ suggestion to strike language from the 2011 policy in order to jump start solar installations this summer while a newly-appointed Temporary Net Metering Working Advisory Group decides on the residents’ proposal.

The Light Board’s method to create the Working Group was problematic, however. There was no prior public request for resumes, no written mandate and the deliberation didn’t include many names of qualified people who applied.

The Light Board decided that the Working Advisory Group has three voting and two non-voting members. The Light Board may have thought it was forming an unbiased Working Advisory Group but I found that two voting members opposed Town Meeting’s Article 9 (tinyurl.com/NBRTMArt9a). One voting member is as ideological as the MLAB chair and has written publicly in opposition to retail Net Metering. Another voting member criticized residents’ 35-page comment letter to MLAB (tinyurl.com/ResRep0815) in writing last year. He favors utility scale solar not residential solar. Obviously, utility scale solar is not an option in Belmont. Thus, the biased creation and make-up of the group undermines the credibility of whatever the Working Advisory Group ultimately recommends. Once the Working Advisory Group delivers its recommendation, there is no reason to believe that it puts an end to the discussion.

It’s not too late for the Light Board to change the voting status of the Working Advisory Group members or add ordinary residents to the group to counterbalance the Working Advisory Group’s anti-residential solar bias in a majority of the voting members.

Vera Iskandarian

Waverley Street

Letter to the Editor: Fact Checking the Belmont Center ‘Bait and Switch’

By 12 Comments

To the editor:

A lot of ink, digital and otherwise, has recently been spent asserting that the Belmont Center Reconstruction project has been usurped by a small “faction” of influential residents, pulling a “bait and switch” on Town Meeting, and undermining the democratic process in town. The only recourse, it is claimed, is to force the Selectmen to recant and reinstitute the original plan, which was perfect as it was and universally agreed to.

Moved by this tale of overreach, corruption, and eleventh-hour backroom “politicking,” many Belmontians have signed a petition demanding an end to this blot on democracy.

It is a morally uplifting tale. But is any of it true?

Unfortunately, a look at the actual content of November’s Special Town Meeting and the process since then will make clear that the current story of the derailment of the democratic process is unfounded. The outraged narrative has “truthiness” to be sure, but it is false at its core.

First a distinction. Well-intentioned citizens may disagree about the merits of “Plan A” versus “Plan B,” but this is not what is fueling the recent petition and uproar, or in any case what is being discussed here. Rather, the fact that people have been told that an anti-democratic coup has occurred, and that they feel justifiably upset about this and have pledged themselves to see the right restored, is the issue here.

Fortunately for the town, what they have been told is simply untrue. Unfortunately, you would not know that from what is still being shouted from the rooftops.

Let’s take it piece by piece.

First of all, it has been asserted that that there was a complete plan (“Plan A”) in place at the time of Town Meeting. This is not true, a point raised as an issue on Town Meeting floor by several members at the time, including the very first comment on the main motion:

MR. MCGAW: We’re authorizing some money to be issued, but it says appropriated for the Belmont Center Reconstruction Project, and my only question is what is defined to be the Belmont Center Reconstruction Project? Is it the pictures we’ve seen tonight? Is it provided somewhere because already tonight we’ve heard some tweaks to things on the screen. So what is “the project”? … I notice people are discussing “the project,” but we don’t have a reference to “the project.”

Right from the outset, then, there was unclarity about what the project consisted of. But it wasn’t merely that some Town Meeting members had not yet seen the final plan. As Glenn Clancy, Director of the Office of Community Development, noted:

MR. CLANCY: … We have construction drawings [on the website] that are about probably 90 percent complete. I would tell you that the Belmont Center Reconstruction Project is — you know, ultimately will be the set of construction drawings that will represent this project. I don’t know how to answer it better than that.

In other words, there was no “final plan” yet; at the time of voting, the plan was incomplete. Other Town Meeting members also expressed their concerns about this.

Regarding whether feedback was still welcome, the interchange between Belmont Selectman Sami Baghdady and Town Meeting member Joe White, who was suggesting that the vote should be put off because the plan was incomplete, is illuminating on this point:

MR. BAGHDADY: Joe, with all due respect, okay, the plans are at 90 percent completion phase. If you have a design comment … I think you can come to Glenn after this Town Meeting, raise your point. It will be looked into, and if it’s valid, it will be incorporated. The purpose of this Town Meeting is appropriation — … We are here to appropriate funds for a project. If there’s fine tuning that’s needed … it can take place after.

Thus the notion that the plan was set in stone at the time, that everyone agreed on what it consisted of, and that it was not subject to further revisions, is simply false.

As to the merits of retaining the access road, this was discussed at length by a variety of Town Meeting members. Most notable was the concern of losing ease of access for elderly patrons:

MR. SEMUELS: Is there any possibility that the travel lane next to the Belmont Savings Bank can be saved rather than the amount of green space. I’m in favor of green space. I, for the most part, approve of this, but these are the concerns that I’ve heard from a lot of people who are seniors and are disabled people who may be driving, still driving.

Another member drove the same point home, noting in passing that the proposed new configuration required drivers to get enmeshed in the overall traffic.

The point here is not whether the access road should be retained, but that there was general recognition on Town Meeting floor that the access road component was a complex issue that merited further discussion. And while it is true that the removal of the road was part of the conceptual plans shown on slides at Town Meeting, the response of town representatives and elected officials to feedback about this feature was not to assert that the plan is inviolable, but rather to explicitly say that, as stewards of the interests of the town as a whole, of course they were open to feedback:

MR. CLANCY: Now, that doesn’t mean that I want a parade of residents coming through my office and changing every little aspect of this project, and several thousands of dollars in design goes out the window, and members of the Traffic Advisory Committee that are sitting here in front of me, all their hard work goes out the window, but I do feel we have an obligation to respond where we think it’s appropriate.

Thus, while infinite tinkering was reasonably discouraged, it was the general sense that there would be an opportunity to opine on this difficult issue of the design, an opportunity where citizens could meet and discuss the options in an open public forum. The Town Meeting vote was about funding, not about the final design.

When several months passed and work was begun in the Center, but no public forum had yet been scheduled to address the design issues raised in Town Meeting, numerous concerned citizens brought this to the attention of the town.

Finally, the opportunity for this feedback came in the spring. The Town Clerk duly informed Town Meeting of a meeting at the Beech Street Center, and a large number of citizens attended. The positive and negative elements of the options were civilly discussed, and the Board of Selectmen took all this feedback, and no doubt much other feedback from the months preceding, and made a difficult decision that they believed balanced the various needs of the town.

The town leaders were acting on their best footing as stewards of the public good: they responded to citizen concerns, they offered revised proposals, and they provided an opening for input in a fully open publicly announced forum.

Of course, it is understandable that some townsfolk were disappointed by the results of the recent meeting. They may legitimately encourage the Selectmen to reverse their decision.

But it is a completely separate issue, indeed a wonder, that so many citizens have been misled into believing and supporting the false notion that the town leaders have committed a massive perversion of justice by these actions. That an open meeting addressing citizen’s concerns could be so thoroughly misconstrued is rather astounding.

The merits of Plan A and Plan B are worth discussing even now, but the accusation that town leaders sidestepped democracy in this case, and indeed colluded with a “faction” of select influence peddlers, is completely unfounded.

Certainly it must be morally satisfying to be outraged at this fictitious slight, but it doesn’t make it any more true.

If citizens wish to re-open the case of Plan A versus Plan B, that is understandable, but they should not do so under the false pretense that an offense against democracy was committed. It wasn’t.

Kevin Cunningham

Town Meeting Member, Precinct 4

Letter to the Editor: Customer Wants Bank CEO to Re-Deposit Original Center Plan

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Belmont Center.

[Editor’s note: This message was originally sent to Robert Mahoney, CEO of Belmont Savings Bank.]

Dear Mr. Mahoney:

My husband and I are customers with accounts at the Belmont savings bank. We are also residents of Belmont.

We are outraged at the last minute change to plan B for the Belmont Center renovations which would reduce the originally planned and approved green space in Plan A. We and many members of the community have contacted the selectmen, and there is a petition to restore to Plan A. You have been named in the Belmontonian website news article of supporting plan B even against the overall community’s support of Plan A that was developed over the years. 

Under Plan A, there would be families and students and folks of all ages who could enjoy being in the green space under the large sign of Belmont Savings Bank. There couldn’t be a better long term advertisement for generations to come who would associate their childhood memories with the bank.  And the bank would physically be a central part of the community’s activities. Under Plan B, it is at risk of being a dead and obsolete space with the bank sitting in its ivory tower.

Although you are not one of the selectmen who voted for plan B, you are an influential person to them, and sadly the communities’ voice does not seem to be enough of an influence to our representatives.

So, I urge you to reconsider and contact the selectmen to endorse plan A 

Gi Yoon-Huang

Opinion: Chenery Students Credit to Horace Mann’s Legacy

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Horace Mann

Eighth-grade History is all about our changing American nation. It’s focused on the issues of 2015, but the amount of connections that students make between the past and the present by looking at the American Revolution, how our system of government formed, and how society grew and changed during the 19th century is remarkable. I’m fortunate to work at the Chenery Middle School with a group of passionate educators and motivated students. Your students care – not just about their learning, but also about their role in the bigger picture as the next generation of leaders. For them, the override vote and the debate that it brings up couldn’t have come at a better time.

Together we’ve been looking at how our founders set up the system of government, reaching back through the Jacksonian era, when public participation and involvement in government was heavily promoted. Just last week, we were looking at reforms our country made in the 19th century, one of which was the push by Horace Mann for public education. We looked at excerpts of Mann’s The Common School Journal and one of the biggest principles it emphasized was the idea that education should be paid for, controlled and sustained by an interested public.

I can’t tell how you excited as an educator it made me when students came in early; or stayed after school just to tell stories of the forum that they attended on the override’s yes/no debate and how many connections they made to the Jacksonian era because of it. They had about arguments both for and against the override, and how those made them think of the principles that Horace Mann was promoting. One of my students proudly proclaimed last week how great it felt to be able to go canvassing with her father, and be able to add something to the discussion when meeting and talking to potential voters not just about the work that goes on in our public schools but about why they should care about it.  

Much of the learning and sense of community we have is possible because of our “team model.” At Chenery we focus on fostering a safe learning environment that allows kids to step out of their comfort zones and become better students and bigger thinkers. Getting to know each and every one of my students not just as learners but also as people is the best part of my job. We build relationships and give kids the community they need looking out for them, caring for them, and giving them the tools and support to succeed. We meet in our teams to discuss their progress, growth, and social/emotional well being regularly. Each year our classes get a little bit bigger, and each year it gets a little bit harder to keep maintaining those relationships with a growing student body, and keep fitting those meetings into the busy daily schedule – but it still gets done. We know how important it is not just to the kids, but to their families as well.

The public forum at the Beech Street Center last Monday was a great example of your students in action. I was so proud to be standing with some of my colleagues listening to high school students, and even a middle schooler too, talk about the cuts they feared would make their way into our system if the override didn’t pass. Those participants are the ones we should recognize the most. They might not have a vote, but they care about what will happen and one day will be the thoughtful decision makers in Belmont. Throughout each and every step of their journey this community, and the educators who love to serve it, have supported them. Students have benefited from the strong team model at the Chenery among many other academic and extracurricular opportunities and support systems that our system is able to provide.

Horace Mann would probably be proud. Belmont is definitely a place where there is an interested public, and they certainly care about their public education system. Belmontonians should be proud too, because the “kid constituency” in town that might not be able to vote is definitely a part of the debate. They’re not just watching it; they’re participating in it and learning from it. Let’s make sure to preserve the supports they deserve and the educational community that they need so that when years from now they become the next generation of leaders they’ve been well prepared because of their strong foundation built in the Belmont Public Schools.

Adam Weldai
Chenery Grade 8 History 
Member of the Malden School Committee

Editorial: Cast Aside Politics and Fear, Vote Yes for the Override

By 11 Comments

Photo: The Yes campaigners. 

The Belmontonian endorses a “yes” vote on Question 1, the Proposition 2 1/2 override measure on the ballot to be decided on Tuesday, April 7. 

This question allows residents the opportunity to follow “the better angels of our nature,” when we can set aside manufactured tension and fear and replace it with good, positive, constructive acts.

The proposed override was born after a year-long gestation by the Financial Task Force of sober, careful analysis and facts of the financial constraints facing the community. The task force – including Selectman Mark Paolillo, Town Treasurer Floyd Carman, Town Administrator David Kale, School Committee Chair Laurie Slap, Capital Budget Chair Anne Marie Mahoney and Charles Laverty III of the Board of Assessors, all respected for their dedication and work for Belmont – held dozens of open and public meetings and forums, requested information and data and worked cooperatively with all.

The task force’s final report recommended the Belmont Board of Selectmen call for a $4.5 million multi-year override to both stems the rapidly growing funding deficit due to skyrocketing enrollment and rapidly increasing expenses in our schools. In a vote called a “brave decision,” the Selectmen unanimously approved the recommendation in February.

But just as vital as supplying funding, the override secures up to three, but likely many more years of stability for Belmont schools. While not ideal or even desired, assured level-funding will provide educators over the long-term, Town Meeting and our state legislators the time to commit to fundamental improvements and other necessary changes to retain the outstanding reputation of the schools, our community’s greatest resource.

The override will exact a burden onto Belmont property owners, about $650 on the medium valued house assessed at $847,000. No one should say it’s “only” $162 on the quarterly bill; that is a hardship to some.

But it is time Belmont residents face the fact the community has been attempting to run a modern, urban municipality on the cheap. Belmont has one of the lowest average tax bills in the state and an extremely low cost-per-pupil expenditures (coupled with one of the highest student-to-teacher ratios). It’s little wonder the town is a laughing stock for it’s disgraceful roads, but that happens when you won’t pay an adequate amount for their upkeep. The band Midnight Oil spoke to what Belmont needs to realize: “The time has come/To say fair’s fair/to pay the rent/to pay our share.”

There are worthy opponents to the override. Former Selectman Anne Marie Mahoney, a task force member, is opposing the ballot question as she takes the lonely role of sponsoring the large ticket capital projects – a new High School, police station, Department of Public Works complex to name a few. Her cause requires Town officials and Town Meeting to be acknowledged and brought fully into the fold of long-term planning.

The same can not be said for the “Vote No on Ballot Question 1 Committee,” a tiny renegade group from the Warrant Committee, made up of members past and present, supporting its campaign with little more than empty phrases and promises.

The No committee claims its complaint with the override supporters is fiscal, the Financial Task Force’s careful analysis on revenue assumptions by well-respected town members is wrong, the recommendation producing a “mega” override. All that is needed is to fill the announced $1.7 million deficit the schools will encounter in the next fiscal year.

The Nos has no completing reports to back its claim the money is out there; they counter with “trust us.”

What should take every resident aback is the solution being proposed from the Nos if the override is defeated; this group of non-elected residents will come before the elected Board of Selectmen with their “list” of residents and town members they hope to see on an unelected “budget committee” which will solve the fiscal issues facing the town, all within “three to six” weeks.

The questions that arise with this “solution” are numerous and unnerving:

  • Will the “budget committee” be open to all or closed to a few?
  • Who will lead it?
  • Will it have any authority?
  • Shouldn’t it be approved by Town Meeting before it starts?
  • Will the committee be subject to the open meeting laws?
  • What if the solution from the “budget committee” differs from the renegade Warrant Committee members?

The No committee is making it up as it goes. Its solution is not based on democracy, but power.

And, to misquote Hamlet, therein lies the rub: The No Committee’s mission is political, not financial. The amount could have been $4 million, $3 million or $2 million, the Nos would have pegged the override with the puerile label “mega.”

But the prime target for the Nos is the schools and the “hardcore” union representing Belmont teachers. It wouldn’t surprise anyone that the Nos have circulated lists of teachers pay prompting one supporter wondering at candidates’ night paying a kindergarten teacher $90,000. Several times, one member of the group have suggested that the union must be made to heal to lead the town into a financial nirvana. In addition, by providing annual funding rather than a long-term approach, the school district will be beholden to the “budget committee.”

If the Nos had declared its agenda up front, they would be seen as honest brokers, rather than a very small fraternity of political operatives.

With only seven contributors and a campaign paid by a single source, the Nos remain a powerful opponent, playing to a substantial number of residents who view Belmont as the same small town of several generations past, those who believe providing a “good enough” education – in a world that punishes those who are only “good enough” – is what is required, while nervously viewing their own finances as economic forces beyond everyone’s reach ever change.

We, Belmont, must reject the fear and mistrust being pushed by the No committee.

We, Belmont, must be for something, rather than be opposed to stability and taking responsibility for the true cost of running the town.

We, Belmont, must grab the opportunity to move forward with facts and realism rather than be led back with half truths and the empty “trust us.”

Vote for the override.

Letter to the Editor: Lessons on Democracy from Kids in Starbucks

By 3 Comments

To the editor: 

Yesterday [Sunday, April 5] after our Easter brunch was over and my uncle had gone, the kids had tired of playing both indoors and out, so we made our way to the town-center Starbucks for a change of scenery.

Grouped around a table were five teenagers studying AP biology.  My six-year-old pointed out to me that one of them had a “Yes for Belmont” sticker on her laptop. She seemed pleased that he had noticed and we began to talk. She was a junior, 17, too young to vote. I asked about her parents: they wished they could vote in favor but are not U.S. citizens; she was hoping that people like me could vote for it. It turned out that some of the other kids at the table were in the same situation. I found myself wondering if these bright, articulate, hard-working kids perhaps had benefited when they were younger from the ELL classes that the “No” campaign wants to (illegally) do away with. 

This chance encounter came as a reminder: Citizenship is a privilege that we don’t all have. We owe it to those who can’t vote – our children, other people’s children, and the immigrant population of Belmont that helps make this town what it is – to exercise our right on Tuesday. 

This is going to be a close election. If ever there were a case of “every vote counts,” this is it! If you have voted absentee already, thank you. If you haven’t, please remember to vote Tuesday, April 7. And please budget enough time. The polls are open 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. but there may be lines. Please don’t walk away if the line is long; you will be relinquishing a vote that those kids in Starbucks (and their parents) wish they had. 

And if you’re in the same situation as those kids’ parents, ask your friends who are citizens to vote. Democracy only works if we make it work. 

Mary Lewis

Randolph Street 

Opinion: Vote ‘Yes’ Tuesday to End Cycle of Underfunding Education

By 5 Comments

Photo: Campaigners at a recent Precinct Meeting.

What are the schools our students deserve? That is the question facing our community next Tuesday.  

As an educator, union member, taxpayer and resident of Belmont all my life, I have seen a cycle of underfunding education that has brought us to this point.  The response now from those against the override sounds familiar; they simply say we can solve the problem without an override. That solution, however, simply places greater burdens on students and educators.

Our town has one of the state’s best public school systems, and it is essential to invest in our students’ future to maintain that excellence. Attacking educators’ compensation is deceptive and ignores how hard the Belmont Education Association and Belmont School Committee have worked together to operate within the town’s means.

An override is needed to sustain the schools and address increasing enrollment over the next three years. We need to support the children of Belmont and to support the town’s Financial Task Force, which is recommending passage of the override.

Since 2009, an additional 317 students have entered into grades K-12. Even with a highly trained and capable staff, larger class size means less individualized attention for our students. Class sizes have increased beyond School Committee-recommended maximums. Without additional staff and resources to address these concerns, students will not have the same learning opportunities and programming as this year’s graduates.   

Belmont is a residential community, and homeowners bear much of the funding for our schools.  This is a choice we make to maintain Belmont’s character and ensure our students continue to perform to the best of their abilities. If we do not want commercial development, then we need to be prepared to pass this override to address increasing enrollment.  This override is an essential investment to maintain the value and quality of the entire community.  

Over the past six years, teachers have forgone compensation to support our students. Your child’s teacher has given back salary increases to fund the schools and prevent the need for an override. It is erroneous to characterize our agreement as expensive and our methods as “more aggressive.”   

While some choose to criticize teacher salaries, ours are lower than competitive communities. In a state analysis of average teacher salaries in towns with the top public high schools, Belmont places last behind Concord-Carlisle, Wayland, Weston, Dover and Wellesley.   

As educators, Belmont teachers strive to provide the best possible outcomes for all students. We have been doing more with less for too long. Based on comparable communities, our salaries are not the issue.  

As residents we must place our children at the center of the conversation and this decision.  Please raise your hand to support our students and vote “Yes” next Tuesday.

John Sullivan

Palfrey Road

(Editor’s note: Sullivan is the president of the Belmont Education Association, the negotiating agent for Belmont’s educators.) 

Letter to the Editor: Let’s Not Lose Our Sense of Community

By Leave a Comment

To the editor:

Why do we live in Belmont?

We all know that we could use better roads: ours are bumpier, rockier, and rougher than neighboring towns, and we could use the funds to fix them.

But we came to Belmont for the sense of community, and for the opportunities the town provides, for children and for families: playgrounds, recreation centers, sports and music and, of course, our schools.

Belmont’s schools — not just test scores, but student experience — have been a reason to move here, to stay here, to buy and hold on to a home here.

But that could change. For year after year the town and the schools have been asked to do more with less. And we have. We’ve given our high school students free periods when they used to have classes, and we’ve filled the halls with benches so that students with no classes to take have someplace to sit. Our student-teacher ratio (17 to 1) is already higher than almost all similar towns. We’ve lost a whole year of middle school language instruction. Our entering classes are larger than those before them, with many more kindergarteners than high school seniors, and we’ll have to hire more teachers just to keep up. A task force of experts worked with the town, studied the problem for a whole year, and concluded, unanimously, that we need an override now. 

When similar towns have faced similar challenges, they have decided to pay for what they need. Arlington, Sudbury, Lexington, Winchester, Newton — all passed overrides since 2002, in greater amounts than the one on our ballot this year.

We could join them and keep our schools as good as they have been. We could vote Yes on April 7.

Or we could vote No, and see who moves away.

Please do remember to vote on April 7, and please vote Yes.

Stephen Burt

Trowbridge Street

Letter to the Editor: The Steak and Potatoes of Voting ‘Yes’ for the Override

By 7 Comments

Photo: Young “Yes” campaigners in Cushing Square on Saturday, March 28.

To the editor:

To the “distinguished” gentleman in the Lexus who gave me a thumbs down this morning [Saturday, March 28] when I was holding a YES for Belmont sign in Cushing Square:

Congratulations on your success.  I’m sure you worked hard for it.  As my 84-year-old father would say, you are driving the “steak and potatoes” of cars.

Maybe you own a house in Belmont. Maybe you bought it long before I bought mine in 2005, when home values were not so high. Maybe you had kids in the Belmont School District, a steak and potatoes school district if there ever was one.

And maybe your kids have done well too, partly as a result of that school district.  I congratulate you.

But the failure of the last override has already taken some steak and potatoes from my son, who did not enjoy fifth-grade foreign languages as those who preceded him in the school system had.  He wants to be an engineer some day; speaking Spanish will help.

My son is in sixth grade, and I purchased my condo in Waverley Square in great part to give him a steak and potatoes education.  I love Belmont and intend to spend the rest of my life here.

This morning [Saturday, March 28] he, an eighth grade friend and a tenth grade friend held signs in Cushing Square in support of the override (photo attached).

If this override does not pass, BHS juniors and seniors will be limited to five courses instead of seven.  This means almost two hours of “free time” in the school day! Chenery Middle School students will have larger class sizes and will lose the “small school within a big school” team teaching system that strengthens learning and helps them through the difficult early teenage years.  And elementary students will lose the intervention that helps struggling students catch up to their peers.

I urge all Belmont residents to vote YES April 7. Below is another way of looking at it. Belmont’s last operating override passed in 2002, 13 years ago. Since that time, similar communities have passed numerous overrides, totaling as follows:

$6.8 million in Acton
$12.5 million in Arlington
$6.2 million in Concord
$10 million in Lexington
$5.8 million in Milton
$7.6 million in Needham
$19.9 million in Newton
$10.3 million in Sudbury
$6.6 million in Wayland
$14.5 million in Wellesley
$5.9 million in Winchester

Belmont, $0

By the way, I drove over some nasty “hamburger and French fries” potholes this morning on my way to hold that YES sign. Those will be fixed too with this override!

Kate Searle

Beech Street

Letter to the Editor: Vote Yes on April 7

By 4 Comments

To the editor:

Vote “YES” on April 7th

The need is clear: rising enrollment and costly mandates necessitate additional funding if we are to continue to offer our children a quality K-12 education. The statistics are compelling: 

  • the total number of students has risen by 317 in the last five years.
  • Belmont High’s Class of 2014 had 270 students; there were 350 Kindergarten students last fall.
  • two sub-groups of students with higher needs and costly mandated services have increased rapidly: 
    • the number of English Language Learners has climbed from 95 to 222 in the last six years
    • the number of students needed specialized schooling outside the district has increased from 81 in June 2013 to 97 in January 2015 (the average annual cost for an out-of-district placement is $65,000). 

Patching the school budget with one-time funds as we’ve done in recent years is no longer a solution.  If we don’t pass an override to meet these new realities, the steps needed to balance next year’s budget and beyond will without question degrade the quality of Belmont’s Public Schools, including fewer teachers, increased class size, and cuts in programs and electives.

Passing the override will enable us to maintain our existing programs and address the enrollment increases. The override is designed to stabilize the budgets for at least the next three years; and the School Department and School Committee have every incentive to continue to work hard to control costs so that stable and predictable budgets extend well beyond that horizon.

Operating overrides are in Belmont a rare occurrence; and continued tight cost control will be necessary to preserve a stable and predictable budget outlook so that we can retain top teachers, key electives, and reasonable class sizes in the years ahead.

Please join me in voting “YES” for the override on April 7.

Laurie Slap

Long Ave. 

(Note: Slap is the chair of the Belmont School Committee.)