Down to Three: New High School Will Configure for Building with Either Grades 7, 8 or 9-12

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Belmont Superintendent John Phelan. 

The Massachusetts School Building Authority has spoken, and Belmont residents, and educators will select from one of three school configurations which, by sometime next year, will become the design for the renovated Belmont High School.

And the options are:

  • Grades 7-12
  • Grades 8-12
  • Grades 9-12

By March of 2017, residents, educators, and students will be able to comment on the first preliminary designs of a new Belmont High.

The decision from the MSBA was revealed by Belmont School Superintendent John Phelan at the Belmont School Committee held Tuesday night, Sept. 27 at the Chenery Middle School. Phelan will make the same announcement before the Belmont High Building Committee on Thursday morning, Sept 29. 

It is now up to the building committee “to become comfortable with the state’s decision” said Phelan and accept the trio of school configurations – which it is expected to do – moving forward on the $110-$120 million building project.

Since it was selected by the MSBA in January to partner with the state on renovating the 45-year-old school off Concord Avenue, the town, and school district have moved forward on the project, selecting a building committee and working with the state on what could be built at the site and what options should be dropped. 

This summer, Belmont sent the MSBA a wide-ranging list of possible uses in the school. In addition to the traditional 9-12 and 8-12 grades, options included building a separate structure to house the town’s Pre-K and Kindergarten programs in an effort to lessen the overcrowding in the district’s elementary schools.

The MSBA concluded that even if part of a new high school campus additional structure would need to be a separate application for state funding. The state is expected to reimburse the district in the range of a third of the actual building expenses. 

After the Building Committee approves the three options, the state will send the town a revised letter it initially sent in June 2016 – including the state’s estimate on total student enrollment  – which the committee must sign and returned to the MSBA by Nov. 7. 

After some give and take with the district, the MSBA has settled on a school with a “design enrollment” of 1,475 pupils. But Phelan said the actual number of students attending the school is expected to be higher than the state’s number as the high school’s “design capacity” – which is determined by the number of educational programs offered by the school and requires added space requirements – will bump up that figure.

After the revised letter is in the MSBA’s hands, the district will formally enter into the next phase of the building process which is building a design team. The first bids from the building committee will go out seeking a project manager and architects sometime after the first of the year.

“Once the letter is sent to the state, all this becomes a building committee project,” said Phelan, as the district will step back from the process.

Beginning in the spring of the New Year, residents and other parties will be asked to be involved in selecting one of three configurations offered.

The first building schematics by designers will be presented by approximately March 2017 “and give the general public a chance to see a 7-12, 8-12 and 9-12 school would look like in a way that the average community member, teacher, and student would be able to say, ‘Oh, that’s how they would organize that type of school.'”

“And that would allow people to have a better and more informed decision on what configuration they would support,” said Phelan.

The public process for selecting the best arrangement of grades will be done parallel to the committee’s work, to be led by an experienced education facilitator “that can help us bring information from the public to the project manager and the design architects.”

We’re #1: Belmont Schools Earn Top-Ranked Level 1 Status, Butler a ‘Blue Ribbon’ Candidate

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Butler Elementary.

The Belmont School District and its six schools earned the Level 1 Accountability Determination as the district continues to show “the strong, positive results of well-aligned curricula, high-quality instruction, and high expectations for all students,” according to the state’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education which released 2016 accountability data for schools and districts on Monday, Sept. 26.

All schools, and therefore the district, earned the Level 1 Accountability Determination for meeting the gap-narrowing targets for “all students” and the “high needs subgroups.”

“Our students’ performance on the state assessments and growth measures continues to be impressive,” said John Phelan, Belmont Public Schools superintendent, adding that the district earned the Level 1 Accountability determination for meeting the gap-narrowing targets for “all students” and the “high needs subgroups.”

The state’s accountability system sets the goal of narrowing proficiency gaps by half in six years, as measured by the Progress and Performance Index (PPI). 

“High needs” is the unduplicated count of all students belonging to at least one of these three subgroups: 

  • students with disabilities, 
  • English Learner (EL) and former EL students, and 
  • economically disadvantaged students.

Additionally, two Belmont schools received special commendation for their assessment outcomes:

Daniel Butler Elementary School is one of three Massachusetts public schools the U.S. Department of Education is considering as a candidate for the 2016 National Blue Ribbon School Candidate for High Performance. Last year the Butler was commended for High Achievement.

Mary Lee Burbank Elementary School is recommended for High Progress.

Belmont High School earned a Level 1 Accountability Determination, up from a Level 2 from last year because the progress of students in the “high needs” subgroup last year was not sufficient to meet their particular gap narrowing goals. Thanks to their careful analysis of the data and action plan to address the issue, performance of students in the high needs subgroup improved.

“The high school administrators, teachers, and students are to be commended for developing the school’s accountability determination to Level 1 this year,” says Janice Darias, AsstSuperintendent of Belmont Public Schools.

“I extend my gratitude and congratulations to all who worked to support our students’ learning,” she said.

The annual Progress and Performance Index measures a district’s, school’s, or subgroup’s improvement towards its target over a two-year period on up to seven indicators: 

  • narrowing proficiency gaps in English/Language Arts, mathematics, and science; 
  • student growth in English/Language Arts and mathematics; 
  • and the annual dropout rate and graduation rate for high schools. 

Detailed information is available on the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education website. Here is the link from the Belmont Public School website that will take you to the information.

Chenery’s Modulars Have Arrived, Flat Tires and All [Video]

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The new look at the Chenery: modular units on the tennis court.

When Branchaud Road’s Milo Pikcilingis heard the trucks in the Chenery Middle School parking lot around 9 a.m. on Saturday morning, he had to see what was happening.

As he peered outside, he saw big flatbeds carrying what looked like buildings coming towards his house. Milo’s day was set! 

In fact, what Milo saw were modular classrooms – bathrooms included – ready to be placed on what  was once the school’s tennis courts. 

“So far so good,” said site manager Rich Russo from Littleton-based Triumph Modular overseeing the construction.

The six classrooms – equipt with their own bathrooms and powered with underground electrical wiring – will hold up to 25 students, making a dent in the rapid increase in student enrollment in Belmont schools. The district bought the units for $1.4 million, funded from the town’s “free” cash account. 

“A new modular has a lifespan of between 10 to 15 years, and even longer if maintained,” said Russo.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

For the rest of the day, Russo’s crew would gently back the large units so they would slide in-between units and then moved sideways into place. 

Constructed in the mid-west, the units were shipped to Triumph’s Littleton office before making its final journey to Belmont. On the way here, the crew lost nearly 400 tires due to the pressure of transporting the heavy structure.

Russo said it will take five weeks to make the units ready for students.

As for Milo, his attention to everything going on caught the attention of the workers who made him a “manager,” providing him a hard hat and neon yellow safety vest.

“I’m amazed how fast they built it,” said Milo’s dad, Aaron Pikcilingis as his mom, Laura Burnes, and older sister, Eloise, came by to also watch the excitement.

“Yesterday it was a tennis court and today, classrooms. Amazing.”

img_9509 img_9519 img_9521 img_9523 img_9528 img_9530 img_9537 img_9550

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

By 3 Comments

Photo: A minivan.

To the editor:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How is that fair?

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

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

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

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

That’s why I’m voting No.

Lisa Gibalerio

TMM Precinct 4

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

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

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.”

 

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

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.