Letter To The Editor: Liquor, Money, and Politics in Belmont

By 4 Comments

Photo: The September meeting between the Selectmen and Star Market and the Loading Dock.

To the editor:

Belmont was a “dry” town until about 2000. Over several years, we carefully authorized and licensed restaurants and retail stores. Elected officials spent hours developing rules to ensure that when we went from “dry” to “wet” we wouldn’t end up in the mud where liquor licenses are sold to the highest bidder.

But here we are.  On Oct. 6, the Board of Selectmen (by a vote of 2 to 1, with Chairman Mark Paolillo dissenting) authorized The Loading Dock to transfer its right as a retail all-alcohol licensee to Star Market for $400,000.   

This is not what Town Meeting intended when it voted to increase the number of all-alcohol retail licenses from one to two. The Selectmen’s decision on Oct. 6 is a threat to small retail stores in Belmont. Town Meeting needs to fix this.     

Let me explain.    

Until 2013, Town Meeting had authorized only one all-alcohol retail store. That license was held by The Spirted Gourmet in Cushing Square. At the annual Town Meeting in 2013, Town Meeting authorized a second all-liquor retail store. In 2014, the Selectmen gave that license to The Loading Dock. 

During the 2013 Town Meeting, Donald Mercier, Town Meeting Member from Precinct 8, suggested that the language of the article on all-alcohol retail licenses should be drafted more carefully.  He said, “I appreciate what this group of Selectmen are doing, but in 10 years from now, we may have different Selectmen with different ideas. So I think this license has to be tightened down, so you get what you want today, what you want to create today.” Mercier was right.  

What the Selectmen promised in 2013 was that they would approve a full liquor retail license to an establishment similar to the first recipient of that license – The Spirited Gourmet — a small specialty store. No Town Meeting Member recommended that the license should go to a supermarket chain with 2,200 stores nationwide. Instead, the vast majority of speakers insisted that the second license go only to a small, specialty store. A Town Meeting Member from Precinct 3 also asked for assurances that the license would not go to any vendor in Waverley Square near the Butler School.  The Selectmen said that they understood.  

I was a member of that Board, and we promised we would follow the intent of Town Meeting.    

But Mercier was right. We have different Selectmen now. On Oct. 6, the second of two all-alcohol retail licenses was transferred from The Loading Dock to Star Market for $400,000.    

Star Market was started in 1915 by the Mugar family in Watertown. According to its website, Star Market is now part of AB Acquisition LLC, which is owned by a consortium of private investors led by Cerebus Capital Management. Cerebus financed a merger to create the second-largest supermarket chain in the US. According to financial analysts, the intent was to create a huge chain that could compete with Kroger and WalMart.  

The Selectmen held two hearings on the transfer of this license. At the first meeting (on Sept. 19), the attorney for Star Market told the Board that it “must follow the letter of the 2014 home rule petition.”  The letter of the home rule petition only tells the Selectmen what they could do. It does not tell them what they should do. The Selectmen had the legal authority to determine public need and public good for Belmont.  

The Board’s determination should have been shaped by the values and expectations of Town Meeting Members as expressed during the Town Meeting of 2013. Former Selectmen Mahoney and Solomon attended the October hearing and explained to current Selectmen that the intent of the original rules on alcohol licenses in Belmont. The intent was to award these licenses to small, specialty stores, and to prohibit their transfer. According to Ms. Mahoney, this has been an ongoing covenant between Town Meeting, Belmont residents, and small businesses since 2000.  

As the son of a small retail store owner, I know what small businesses hope to get from government – consistency, predictability, and fair play … and maybe some parking.

The Selectmen’s decision on Oct. 6 was inconsistent with past precedent and a threat to small businesses. Elena Benoit of The Spirited Gourmet explained that she and Chris Benoit had worked hard and played by the rules for ten years. She was encouraged to open the Belmont store by than Selectman Angelo Firenze. But now, the Board had decided to change the rules. That, she argued, is not fair play. Jen Bonislawski, owner of the new Arts Specialties store on Trapelo Road testified that she “didn’t know how we’re going to survive.”

The Selectmen’s decision on Oct. 6 sends a message to small retail stores in Belmont.  Consistency and predictability are not important. The license originally awarded to a small specialty store for $4,000 can be transferred to a large supermarket for $400,000.      

Trust in elected officials is fragile. Once lost, it is not easily restored. To start the process of restoring Town Meeting’s long-standing commitment to small, local businesses, we must “tighten down” the authority to grant liquor licenses. We should not allow any Board to award licenses “at its discretion.” Town Meetings can specify who gets a license and ensure that licenses cannot be sold or transferred.   

Also, it seems prudent to create a new, appointed Alcohol Beverage Licensing Board in Belmont.  This Board should not be merely advisory.  It should have the exclusive authority to issue licenses.  An appointed Board would have sufficient institutional memory to have known that some of the “concessions” offered by Star Market on Oct. 6 merely brought it into compliance with Belmont’s existing regulations.            

The Board’s decision of Oct. 6, leaves us in a state of legal ambiguity.  We need to end this ambiguity in a manner that is consistent with Town Meeting’s intent.  

The attorney for Star Market informed us that the sale of liquor licenses is “routine” in Massachusetts. We know.  That is why Town Meetings and Selectmen spent a decade creating a unique environment in Belmont — where licenses would be issued consistent with Town Meeting’s intent, where licenses would not be transferred, and where promises to small retail businesses would not be broken. A future Town Meeting must re-establish this policy and ensure that it is enforced.  

Ralph Jones

Summit Road

Town Meeting Member, Precinct 3 and former selectman

Letter to the Editor: Vote No On The Charter Schools Ballot Question

By 3 Comments

Photo: credit Portside

To the editor:

In the spring of 2015, Belmont residents voted for an override to better fund our schools and town infrastructure. Faced with rising budgets and kids with varied needs, we voted to increase our taxes. Other communities across the state have done the same. Massachusetts public schools remain the best in the country because of our dedicated teachers, administrators, kids, parents and taxpayers.

Now schools across Massachusetts face a new challenge: Ballot Question 2. This is a state-wide ballot initiative funded substantially by out-of-state billionaires. The initiative proposes to approve 12 new charter schools per year forever, with no limit on location within the state. Charter schools are publicly funded schools that are privately run with no local oversight. As a result, charter schools aren’t truly “public”: they don’t enroll as many differently-abled students or English language learners, yet the majority of their funding comes from diverting money from local school districts that are already struggling to make ends meet.

So far, the amount of money diverted from Belmont to charter schools has been relatively low ($31,284 projected for the fiscal year 2017), but with the ballot question placing no limits on location, we have no control over how much might be diverted from our schools in the future.

Please join me in voting No on 2 this November.

Mary Lewis
Randolph Street

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: State Action Results in My Vote Changing From No to Yes

By 5 Comments

Photo: The site

To the editor:

A new Minuteman High School is essential for Belmont. We should vote YES in the Sept. 20 election.

I changed my mind on this vote because Belmont won a major victory this week. DESE, the state agency that oversees all public schools, finally did the right thing this past Thursday [Sept. 15] and set a capital charge that is fair for the member towns. This answers nearly all of the criticisms of the building project. With the capital charge resolved, it is time for Belmont to approve the debt for a new school and remain a member town.

The opponents of the debt argued through the spring and summer that the proposed new school is too large for the member towns and DESE could not be trusted to set a fair capital charge. This argument is no longer valid.

Belmont will 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.  DESE has accepted this principle with a small adjustment for non-member towns that already provide a significant level of vocational/tech programs.

In recent weeks the opponents of the debt have changed their focus. They now seem to be making the vote a referendum on the tuition charged to non-member towns for operating expenses. By leaving the district, they say Belmont will save money even with the fair capital charge because the non-member towns pay lower tuition.

The new regional agreement as discussed in Town Meeting allows a district to withdraw, subject to unanimous approval by the remaining members, to avoid the debt obligation.  Tuition was not the reason for this provision.

Non-member towns are a part of Minuteman.  This not ideal but it reflects circumstances unique to this district.  The practical difficulties in getting new towns to join as members may be solvable in the future.

If Belmont pays less in tuition, the remaining member towns have to pay more.  It is a zero sum game at that point and I do not support shifting costs to our neighbors in this way.  The amount at stake is something we can afford.  In a perfect world of equalized tuition, Belmont might save $150,000 when our total town budget is over $100 million.

In addition, leaving the district is not automatic even if Town Meeting votes to withdraw.  The remaining member towns also have to vote unanimous approval for Belmont’s exit.  Reduced to a naked economic calculation, they have an incentive to deny a request to leave.

A member of Arlington’s Finance Committee has already signaled that Belmont can expect opposition to an exit request. Withdrawal is probably not the windfall that some have intimated.

There should be a thorough debate over tuition for non-member towns but it should not be used to avoid approving the debt.  If Belmont withdraws, our economic incentive will be to free-ride on a flawed tuition policy.  Instead, the right course is to remain in the district and help lead that debate.  That debate should also include how to make sure Minuteman is run efficiently and controls its operating costs.

Belmont won the big battle over the capital charge.  I urge you to vote yes on Sept. 20.

Roy Epstein

Cushing Ave.

Letter to the Editor: Putting the Minuteman Vote in Context

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Norman Rockwell “The Watchmaker”

To the editor:

My father was a watchmaker; my son graduated from culinary school; my father-in-law was a tool and die maker. I respect the education and training provided by vocational-technical schools. I also understand the hopes of those who want to make the Minuteman School District work.

After almost three decades of working with Minuteman (on the Warrant Committee, School Committee, and Board of Selectmen), I think that efforts to reform Minuteman are unrealistic. Senator Brownsberger’s thoughtful analysis is persuasive. The Minuteman District is a broken system, and the State Department of Elementary and Secondary Education is not going to fix it.

If we vote “yes” on the Minuteman debt on September 20, we are committing ourselves to paying at least $10 million and probably closer to $14 million over the next 30 years. That decision, once made, is irrevocable.

We can save between $200,000 and $400,000 each year by becoming a non-member town, and still get a great Minuteman education for our students filling the approximately 300 non-member seats. Those savings can be spent on teachers for our growing school population; miles of paved sidewalks; debt service on a long list of capital projects.

Everyone who has devoted years of service trying to reform the Minuteman District agrees that we should vote “no” on September 20. The School Committee recommends “no” by a vote of 6-0. The Selectmen recommend “no” by a vote of 3-0. The Warrant Committee recommends “no” by a vote of 13-1.

Voting “no” on the Minuteman Debt is a better plan for Belmont.

Ralph T. Jones

Summit Road

Jones is a former Chair of the Board of Selectmen and former member of the School Committee and Warrant Committee.

Letter to the Editor: Forcing DESE’s Hand By Voting No on Minuteman Plan

By Leave a Comment

Photo:

To the editor:

A new Minuteman High School is essential for Belmont. That’s why I am voting no in the Sept. 20 election.

A majority NO vote in town is a requirement for Belmont to have the option to withdraw from the Minuteman District. We need this option.

As a member of Town Meeting and the Warrant Committee, I have been studying this issue for months. The biggest problem right now is the failure of DESE, the state agency that oversees all school districts, to make public the “capital charge” it will approve for the Minuteman project.  The capital charge is the amount per student Minuteman will be allowed to charge non-member towns to help pay for the debt to build the new school.  About half of the Minuteman enrollment in the future will come from non-member towns, so this issue is critical.

The conclusion of all reasonable analyses is that a fair capital charge is approximately $8,400 per student.  But there are well-founded fears that DESE will only approve a much lower amount, perhaps around $2,000.  This would place an unfair burden on member towns to subsidize non-members when all benefit equally from the new building.  

Voting NO accomplishes two goals. It tells DESE that it is time to decide on the capital charge. They have been analyzing this issue since the spring and there no reason to prolong this process. Second, by voting no Belmont will have the option through Town Meeting to request leaving the Minuteman district. A special Town Meeting would be held in mid-October for this purpose.

Assuming a majority no vote, my recommendation for Town Meeting will depend on DESE. If they do not make a decision by then or set an unfairly low capital charge, I would support leaving the district.  But if DESE does the right thing and sets a fair capital charge in the neighborhood of $8,400, I would strongly urge Town Meeting to remain in the district.

There are other financial and strategic considerations about Minuteman that have been discussed in town. The Warrant Committee will continue to discuss them and be prepared, if necessary, to explain them to Town Meeting in October.  

But the first step is the election on Sept. 20. The wise course is to turn out and vote no. Then for October we should wait and see how DESE acts.

Roy Epstein

Cushing Avenue

Letter to the Editor: Let’s Stand by Our Word – Vote “Yes” on Minuteman

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The new Minuteman Tech High School

To the editor:

In the spring Belmont town meeting voted overwhelmingly to adopt the new Minuteman Regional Agreement and remain in the district. Now that it comes to paying our fair share for a new school building, the same people want to “chicken out” and reverse course to withdraw from the district. They call it “rent” instead of “buy,” which is a bit cheaper in the short term, but also means a lot less control and future access for our students.

Sure, we might save some money by leaving the district. Michael Libenson calculated that amount as anywhere between $200,000-$400,000 per year. This is money that would need to be picked up by the towns remainng in the district (most people would call this free-loading). But in my opinion, Michael’s savings calculation is flawed. It assumes that out-of-district towns will continue to pay lower operating fees and lower or no capital charges for a new building. The Massachusetts Department for Education (DESE) has already committed to charging out-of-district towns the capital fee (exactly how much is still open). In addition to lower operating fees non-member towns have to pay about $4,500 for each student on an IEP (roughly 50 percent of students at Minuteman) and about $1,000 per student for transportation.

Figuring these additional costs into the calculation makes the difference between in-district and out-of-district students shrink to a much smaller number than is widely presented. Common sense implies that over time the differences in fees will disappear or be based on some formula of what each town can afford. By staying in the district, we can work with the state and school towards this goal.

The Selectman and Warrant Committee also claim that we need a debt exclusion vote to be able to afford the extra costs for the new Minuteman school. I have a hard time believing this. Our annual school budget is about $50 million. The additional $200,000-$400,000 expenses that Libenson calculated to stay in the district and pay for the new school would represent less than 1 percent of our school budget. This is a relatively small number, and I believe we could pay this out of the operating budget until we have to do a debt override for a new high school or police station.

The downside of voting No and withdrawing from the district is big: we give up the guaranteed access for our children to a quality vocational education close to town, we give up oversight and control over Minuteman’s management and future direction, and we freeload on our neighboring towns. If this discussion was about Belmont High School, I believe no one would be voting against it to save a few dollars, but it is apparently different for a vocational school.

Martin Plass

Stanley Road, TMM Precinct 3

Letter to the Editor: Vote ‘No’ to Preserve the Override Funds

By 5 Comments

Photo: Supporter of the schools override.

To the editor:

How do we want to spend the 2015 override funds?

Next Tuesday, Belmont voters will decide whether to spend $335,000 to $500,000 per year (or more) to fund the $144 million new Minuteman debt.

I am a school advocate. I strongly support vocational education.

But this referendum is not a vote about education. If Belmont votes No, we can continue to give our students the same Minuteman education, for less money.

This is a vote about debt.

The debt could be funded through a 30-year tax increase, but I believe that it will not pass. Any tax increase is always a hard sell.

Without a tax increase, we would have to use override funds.

Override funds are currently being used to support our operating budget, as promised. But if we take on the Minuteman debt, without new taxes, it will hit our operating budget and prematurely drain the override funds.

If we vote “No” now, and only now, we have a chance to avoid the debt. Belmont is currently a member of the Minuteman district. If we vote “No”, Belmont Town Meeting will have the opportunity to vote to become a non-member.

Member towns pay much more than non-member towns. In 2017, Belmont will pay $30,602 per student, compared to $19,702 by non-member towns, and it will only get worse when you add debt payments for the new $144 million Minuteman.

Michael Libenson, chair of the Warrant Committee, presented his analysis on Monday night that shows Belmont will likely save $200,000 to $400,000 in tuition and capital charges by sending our students to Minuteman as a non-member. (The presentation is available at www.betterplanforbelmont.com.)

In other words, it will cost Belmont an additional $200,000 to $400,000 every year to remain a member. To pay that annual membership premium, we would likely have to tap our override funds.

What Belmont decides should not impact the new school. Most of the remaining nine towns have already lined up their funding. They will vote for it. The referendum is expected to pass. The school will then be built.

Belmont is left with few options. We tried to fix broken district, but the non-member towns won’t join. We tried to right-size the new school, but we were rebuffed.

Now, we need to get out. If Belmont signs on to the $144 million debt, it will squeeze our budget for the next 30 years.

An analogy I think is helpful: Why would we want to “own a new building” (and 30 years of debt payments), when we could “rent ~30 seats” at Minuteman for less money? Why would we choose to pay more, when we could pay less for the same services?

We worked hard to pass the 2015 override. Let’s not use it up more quickly than we have to.

Please join me in voting “No” next Tuesday.

Ellen Schreiber, Sandrick Road

Ellen Schreiber is a member of the Warrant Committee and Town Meeting Member.

Letter to the Editor: Understanding Minuteman Enrollment

By 4 Comments

Photo: 

To the editor:

Let’s talk about Minuteman enrollment.

Total enrollment at Minuteman today is at its second-lowest level in history, as reported by the Minuteman Superintendent on Monday night.

Member town enrollment in Minuteman has fallen from 1,214 in 1977 to 331 in 2015 (not including the six towns that are leaving the district). That is a 73 percent drop.

As a result, Minuteman has become dependent on students from non-member towns to bolster its budget. Nearly half of the students at Minuteman come from (current or soon-to-be) non-member towns.

There will be space for Belmont.

In addition, there are two more factors putting new downward pressure on Minuteman enrollment:

  • Minuteman is already the most expensive vocational/technical school in Massachusetts. New capital fees from the debt would make it even more expensive, giving non-members a financial incentive to leave Minuteman.
  • Changes in state regulations prevent many non-member freshmen from attending Minuteman. Fewer students are likely to transfer in their sophomore year, leaving their sports teams, friends, etc.

There has always been space at Minuteman for non-member towns like Watertown, Waltham and Cambridge. They are not worried that a new school will change that, and they continue to refuse to join.

Why are we worried?

This wouldn’t matter if non-member towns paid their fair share. But member towns pay much more than non-member towns. In 2017, Belmont will pay $30,602 per student, compared to $19,702 by non-member towns, and it will only get worse with the new, $144 million Minuteman debt.

Build it and they will come.

That’s what Minuteman would like us to believe, that 40-year enrollment trends will reverse themselves overnight. Minuteman’s financial projections are based on best-case scenarios that assume 40 percent enrollment growth from member towns in just three years.

They want us to be afraid that the new school will fill up.

To the contrary, based on both long-term and short-term trends, Minuteman will need many non-member students to fill the 300-plus extra seats in the new school. And we can feel confident that there will be space at Minuteman for Belmont students for the foreseeable future.

Please join us in voting “No” on the $144 million Minuteman debt.

Pat Brusch and Anne Marie Mahoney

Letter to the Editor: Support Minuteman on Sept. 20

By 5 Comments

Photo: Image of the interior of a proposed Minuteman school building.

To the editor:

I’m asking Belmont residents to join me in voting “yes” to support the financing of a new Minuteman school building on Sept. 20.

Some of our local leaders have raised issues about Minuteman. Some say that we can avoid financing the new school and continue to send our kids there. But we won’t be sending our kids to Minuteman if the vote on financing fails. Others say that we can send our kids to other vocational schools. But no specifics have been offered, and there is no plan, just wishful thinking. Some say that Minuteman represents a broken model because many attendees go to college. We want our kids to go to college if they can and to get good jobs if they can’t and this is the role of modern vocational education.

Why does Belmont need to help finance a new school? Minuteman’s current campus was constructed in the 1970’s and needs replacement or costly repairs. Masonry is cracking and buckling. The roof needs to be replaced. The building is not up to ADA compliance standards and is not suited for modern instructional approaches. In fact, the building is at risk of being condemned. If the building is not replaced, repairs are estimated to cost almost as much as the construction of a new building, but would fail to solve many of its problems.

Replacing Minuteman’s school building to meet current enrollment will cost $144 million, of which the state has pledged $44 million. Ten Minuteman district towns, including Belmont, will share the remainder. The state also is imposing a capital fee to ensure that any non-member towns sending kids to Minuteman will pay a fair share. Belmont’s cost is estimated to be $335,000, something that our town can easily afford. One member of our Warrant Committee has suggested that the annual cost to the average Belmont household would be equivalent to ordering a few take-out pizzas.

Some claim that the financing approach carries risk. For example, the other nine Minuteman district towns could all file for bankruptcy, leaving Belmont on the hook for the entire cost. This is as likely as space aliens zapping nine communities out of existence. More realistically, Belmont could face a slightly higher financing cost, perhaps as much as $500,000 a year, if the state does not set the capital fee for non-member towns high enough. We need to lobby the state to make sure this doesn’t happen.

Some argue that the new school will be too big and that it should be radically downsized to exclude non-member towns’ students. There’s just no good argument for this, and the state of Massachusetts will not contribute to a construction plan that does not build to current enrollment.

We need Minuteman to succeed. It’s a critical educational resource. We have to do something for our kids who are not going to college to help them succeed. In fact, the state mandates that we provide vocational education for those wanting it.  But Belmont High School just isn’t equipped to provide vocational training, and we cannot afford to provide these kinds of programs on our own.  Some kids need more and different kinds of attention and instructional approaches to doing well. Minuteman has a student to teacher ratio about half that of Belmont High School. Belmont High School just isn’t equipped to give that kind of attention to kids who need it.

Won’t you show your support for Minuteman on Sept. 20? Please join me in voting “yes.” Polls open at noon.

Michael F. Crowley

Belmont Town Meeting Member, Precinct 8