Mid-Summer Special Town Meeting: Mixed Messages From Non-Binding Rink Vote

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The Belmont rink under construction

It was a long night at Belmont’s remote mid-summer Special Town Meeting – three-and-a-half hours long – Wednesday, July 23, ending with a mixed message from members. Supporters of the “Save the Skip” article, who sought to transfer the name of the former rink to the new recreation facility, claimed victory as the measure passed on a 128-56-44 roll-call vote, solidifying their assertion of a mandate to place the James “Skip” Viglirolo moniker on the new rink.

“With the rank nearing completion, it is more important than ever to affirm the name … and keep honoring his legacy, not only for him, but for a town that honors its history and the people that made Belmont the wonderful place it is to live, learn and experience,” said Gail Harrington, Viglirolo’s daughter and lead campaigner of the “Save the Skip” citizens’ petition.

While the “yes” vote was celebrated online, it has little real impact on the near-future naming of the $32 million facility, which is set to open in November. In answering the all-important question facing the citizens’ petition, Crowley said the results of the “Save the Skip” article would be deemed non-binding after a review by Town Counsel Mina Makarious of Anderson & Kreiger, and “advisory” rather than a directive to make the change. A new name will be dictated by the newly-installed Belmont Asset Naming Policy approved by the Select Board on July 7.

Despite the positive outcome, any request to consider naming the new rink after Viglirolo can not be taken up until June 2026, at the anniversary of Skip’s death, which is prescribed under the naming guidelines.

The advisory nature of the vote may have contributed to the high number of members-nearly one in five-who selected “abstain” as their preference, declining to vote either for or against the article. Adding those to the members voting against the measure, the ‘yes’ margin shrank to 56 percent.

“I didn’t want to be voting against Skip [Viglirolo],” said one abstained voter at a local coffee shop the morning after the vote. “But the town has a naming policy and that’s how it should done.”

Town Moderator Mike Crowley said holding a Town Meeting in the middle of beach and vacation season was indeed “an odd time.” Still, Massachusetts State Law requires municipalities to hold a “special” Town Meeting 45 days after the petitioners crossed a 200-signature threshold. 

“To be fair to the petitioners, they didn’t want to have it in midsummer but the fall special town meeting [in October],”said Crowley.

Before the debate, Crowley made a special appeal to members that while members “may have differences from time to time in opinions … we can be polite in our dealings with each other.”

In the days before the meeting, town and elected officials received communications and statements online attacking their perceived positions on the naming of the new rink. On Monday, July 21, Belmont resident Wendy Murphy wrote a provocative opinion piece in the Boston Herald alleging the “Selectboard” [sic] – dubbed “Belmont Royals” – as havinganimus towards Italians by supporting the new naming policy. That was followed by an email from the 8,000-member Italian American Alliance, which condemned the “Selectboard” for its “most questionable and insulting action” that, it contends, “is, quite frankly, viewed as Italian HATE.”

Crowley said he did not want that kind of divisive discussion during the debate, noting it was “disrespectful to both the petitioners and the town officials.”

Leading off the meeting, Harrington explains the history of the “Save the Skip” petition. After the former rink was taken down in 2023, the Select Board received many letters in support of placing the Viglirolo name on the new rink, said Harrington, but their requests to have the Select Board address their applications in 2024 and 2025 “were ignored.” 

Seeking a public discussion on transferring the name, Harrington and supporters submitted a citizens’ petition in early July with 258 signatures to show the broad support in retaining the name. Harrington emphasizes that the petition is not seeking exclusive naming rights to the rink, but rather to honor Skip’s legacy as an important, long-time Belmont Recreation Department employee, athlete, and coach, who created safe and accessible winter recreation options for all residents. Two such programs included creating a girls’ recreation hockey program in the early 1980s, as well as an inclusionary program for special needs children that evolved into the Belmont/Watertown SPORTS program.

“Legacies matter for individuals, for families, communities, and for the town of Belmont,” said John Feeley, a long-time resident who addressed Town Meeting. “No one could deny that ‘Skip’ Viglirolo’s legacy is immense and worthy of praise and admiration. It should be Belmont’s honor to continue paying homage to the legacy of ‘Skip’ Viglirolo. Please, let’s get this right, and please put his name on the new rink where it deserves to be seen again.”

However, before the meeting could discuss the article, it faced a late amendment. Submitted by Angus Abercrombie (Precinct 8), the amendment would eliminate the article’s language and replace it with a statement “expressing Town Meeting support for the town asset naming policy as amended by the Select Board at their July 7th meeting, and ask that it be applied to the Belmont Rink and Sports Facility.”

“What I want to avoid is the injection of Town Meeting into this process where it will just serve to take time and resources from other priorities while creating more divisiveness,” Abercrombie said. In a curious approach to debate, Crowley allowed members to speak on both the amendment and the main article simultaneously. 

Select Board member Elizabeth Dionne, the primary author of the new naming policy, presented a detailed timeline for 2025 during which no naming decisions was made during the winter, “as our focus is on complying with the MBTA Communities Act, taking state-mandated action on Accessory Dwelling Units, and preparing a balanced, revenue-based budget for Annual Town Meeting.”

Dionne said the reason the Select Board did not answer calls from either the Viglirolo family or numerous others who pushed to have the rink or parts of the new facility named to honor important Belmont residents was that they “drafted a naming policy that is fair and balanced, that incorporates best practices from multiple sources.” To do otherwise, she said, would be “throwing due process out the window.”

She noted that supporters of the new naming process are not attempting to cancel either Viglirolo or James White, whose name was on the former High School Field House before it was taken down to build the new rink. “These names will have a prominent position in the new rink … preserves important aspects of Belmont’s history.”

Dionne “strongly encouraged” [Town Meeting] to support Belmont’s Naming Policy as it prioritizes the name of the Town of Belmont on assets. It also provides an opportunity for all voices to be heard through a formal hearing, honors the past through plaques, signs, and monuments, and “reserves and prioritizes sponsorship rights in a way that can ease the burden on the Town’s operating budget.”

On a personal note, Dionne said she “once again asks [residents] to give us an opportunity to at least consider naming the rink after a woman. Over half of the Town’s population is female, but in 2025, the vast majority of the town and school assets are still named after men. It will be decades before we have a similarly important naming opportunity. …Unfortunately, I doubt that our $32 million rink ultimately will be named for a woman, but please, please give us an opportunity to make our case.”

It was clear early in the hours-long debate that it was one based either on emotional and historic ties to a revered Belmont resident or on the perception of the naming of the facility to the Town’s chief executive body that oversees town policies. 

“This rink was named after Skip, and it was rightfully named after him, and 25 years later, there’s no reason to unnamedit. But that’s not what this is about. [The Select Board] took up the renaming policy and … have total control, and we’reactually looking for income versus our history. I feel like you guys are just throwing away our history to get a little money for a sponsorship, or to put a woman or someone else that property.” – Brian Keefe (Precinct 4)

“Naming rights for the rink have an important economic value. The 2022 Collins Center report said that [the Town] should examine and develop all sources of revenue to reduce the structural deficit. Yet here we are having a vote that would forsake a possible revenue source. I’ll state clearly that I think it’s completely unrealistic to think that we could name the rink [after] ‘Skip’ and then get a corporate sponsor. It will not happen. … I’m confident that the rink naming value is at least in the seven figures.” – Roger Fussa (Precinct 8)

“Some of us who support continuing Skip Viglirolo’s name on the rink have been described as old, nostalgic townies. What we are is residents who respect the contributions that Skip and others like him who selfishly made Belmont what it is, a better community. We do not want our history erased. We do not want the desire for vague amounts of cash and the limits of a 20 year window to determine what our buildings are named. Let’s do what’s right for Belmont, young or old, contemporary or nostalgic newcomer or townie … and keep Skips name on the skating rink. – Anne Marie Mahoney (Precinct 1)

“The important issue is good governance. Good governance prioritizes inclusive deliberation and thoughtful decision making, and in a town where we have little time, because it’s run by volunteers. Standard Operating Procedures is the right way to ensure that this is done. And the Select Board has created such a procedure. … What the petitioners reallywant here is to railroad through their wishes, and they don’t want to wait and participate in the democratic process. Disrespectful and divisive are names being called those people who won’t just let that happen. And it’s working, and I think that’s really worrisome.” – Claus Becker (Precinct 5)

“When a passionate group of citizens attempts to follow the available process [as perscribed in the 2018 naming policy] and that group of citizens is repeatedly, for whatever reason, not given a proper response other than be patient. And when the [naming policy is] changed, right after the group submits their application in good faith, I believe that turning to their Town Meeting representatives as constituents in order to get their voice heard is appropriate. I think community is never built with abstract, correct, well structured principles and processes. Community is built with heart and history andconnection. And so I believe that perfection should not be the enemy of the good, and that we should support the non binding resolution to affirm the 1998 vote to name the rink.” – Anne-Marie Lambert (Precinct 2}

“In 2018, seeing the many new public buildings coming, including the rink, I wanted to get a naming policy in place to avoid contentious and emotional debates like this by having a process with clear objective criteria, including waiting for a year after someone passes to consider their name. We have rules. This matter needs to stay with the Select Board. All of you and others out there can contact the Select Board and advocate for whose name you wish on your own. Of course, Town Meeting can vote to give a non binding opinion to the Select Board, but I doubt it’s going to be unanimous either way tonight, and it doesn’t change the fact that the Select Board has to make the decision under the policy. A split vote from Town Meeting, which is what we’re going to get, is honestly not really all that helpful.” – Adam Dash (Precinct 1)

After the Abercrombie amendment was defeated 76-138-10, Geoff Lubien (Precinct 7) called for the article to be “postponed “indefinitely while allowing the petitioners to resubmit the citizens’ petition with a new set of signatures so it could be debated in the October Special Meeting. The call to table the article narrowly failed 98-114-1. 

With the clock at a quarter to 11 p.m., most members had heard enough, and the meeting sped to the final vote. 

“So Article 3 passes, the non-binding resolution to preserve the name of the former skating rink for the new facility. It is quite late,” said Crowley.

Mid-Summer Special Town Meeting Set: Vote On Rink’s Name Will Be Non-Binding, Select Board Adds Alcohol (Licenses) To The Night

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Gail Harrington

No one wanted the mid-summer Special Town Meeting.

Not the supporters of a citizens’ petition to affirm a 1998 Town Meeting vote naming the Belmont municipal rink after James “Skip” Viglirolo onto the new $32 million replacement. Gail Harrington, Viglirolo’s youngest child and petiton sponsor, said the supporters wanted the question to be included in the warrant for the fall Special Town Meeting taking place in mid-October when they believed it would receive a wider audience and, they believe, a favorible outcome.

And certainly not the Select Board which was “surpised” by the petition and was left scrambling to set the July 23 get together.

“You are likely asking why on earth the Select Board scheduled a Special Town Meeting for July 23? The short answer is that we received a duly certified Citizen Petition, so we had to,” said Board Member Elizabeth Dionne in an email to Town Meeting members.

And not town officials, the Town Moderator, nor members who will (hopefully) attend a remote meeting to vote on the article that, in a judgement by Belmont’s Town Consel, has been rendered toothless as it will be a non-binding referendum.

Maybe that’s why the town decided to bring alcohol to the coming assembly.

But holding the Special in the middle of July was not anyone’s choice but a requirement in the judgement of Town Counsel Mina Makarious of Anderson & Kreiger. It turned out that the family and friends of the late Viglirolo – who died in June – were too successful in securing signatures for their petition. Once the campaigners obtained and submitted more than 200 signatures from registered voters, the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth’s Citizen’s Guide to Town Meetings requires towns to hold a special within 45 days after the petition has been certified by the Town Clerk on June 18.

Makarious concurred with the state regs “that we have no choice but to hold the meeting” within the 45 days, said Dionne.

“The Town Counsel did not give us the answer we were necessarily hoping for,” said newly installed Board Chair Matt Taylor. “It seems like a prudent thing to do … and it sounds like it wasn’t the answer the petitioners wanted either.”

As the July 23 date for the special town meeting was set, it was revealed the vote on transfering the Viglirolo name to the future building will only be an advisory opinion of the members rather than being a requirement to the town after Makarious determined the petitioners argument was based on

“The new rink has no association to the old one, they are two seperate structures,” said Town Administrator Patrice Garvin, boiling down the argument the town had advocated. The town can now follow the newly-created naming policy of town assets – the school committee and the library trustees have their own guidelines – approved by the Select Board at the July 7 meeting.

As the Select Board opened the warrant for July 23, Garvin presented two citizens’ petitions: the aforementioned rink naming article and a request to submit Home Rule legislation to increase the number of alcohol licenses and expand the number of establishments which can obtain them.

“We got an email earlier today saying that the [alcohol licensing] petitioners preferred July 23 if we were going to be having a special town meeting.” said Matt Taylor.

The town’s reasoning for placing the alcohol petition on the July 23 warrant is “to potentially relieve some of the agenda for October [Special Town Meeting], which is already incredibly full,” said Taylor. The article count for the fall Special has passed a dozen which is likely a high water mark for the autominal meeting.

The Select Board and Town Moderator Mike Crowley declared the meeting will be held remotely as “there’s an issue of public convenience and wanting to maximize participation, which I think we could most effectively do with a remote meeting.”

“Difficult to do this as a hybrid as well. I don’t know who would be available to show up in person,” said Crowley. “A full remote meeting, rather than hybrid, which is easier on staff, time and resources. And summer is not an ideal time.”

What The Mid-Summer Special Town Meeting Will Be Voting On In The Hands Of Town Counsel

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Mina Makarious of Anderson & Kreiger, Belmont’s new town counsel

A date has been set, and the question will be asked to Special Town Meeting members: Will the assembly vote to support a citizens’ petition to force the town to transfer the name of the demolished skating rink onto the replacement facility?

Petition campaigners seek to retain the former name, “James P “Skip” Viglirolo Skating Rink,” onto the new $30 million facility that’s ready to open in the late fall. They stated more than 35 years of tradition and one family’s wishes are paramount over existing town policy and the potential of what the Select Board believes could be a monetary windfall.

It’s still unclear what the Special will be voting on in three weeks as part of an all-hybrid meeting. While that vote will most likely take place virtually on July 23 – the Select Board will vote to open and close the Special’s warrant on Monday, July 7 – just what the members will be voting on now appears to be in the hands of the new Town Counsel, Mina Makarious of Anderson & Kreiger.

As with the citizens’ petition that attempted to halt changes at the town’s senior center that was brought before at the annual Town Meeting in May, Makarious will advise the Select Board and Town Moderator Mike Crowley in June whether there is any relevant town bylaw, general state law, or case law that will either prohibit Town Meeting from proceeding with the move, resulting in the vote being a nonbinding resolution.

“This is the biggest question that we’re asking [Makarious] to suss out: Is this just advisory, or is it binding?” said previous Select Board Chair Elizabeth Dionne.

There is also the real possibility that deciding who gets to name the new rink will remain an open question to be resolved at Town Meeting. “This was some uncharted territory,” said Dionne.

“There are a lot of questions that still have to be answered,” she said, beginning with the rink named in 1998 by a vote of the Board of Selectmen. But there is scant evidence of town or Town Meeting involvement in the process that took place nearly 40 years ago, with no record of the supposed Selectmen vote in the town archieves.

“We’re trying to figure out how it was named in the first place,” said Dionne, noting the board doesn’t know if a monetary gift was attached to that naming. What is known is that the rink was transferred from the School Committee, but not to what town entity took responsibile for its ownership.

“It’s a little tricky who ultimately has jurisdiction over the rink, and we’re tracking that down, whether it’s the Recreation Commission or the Select Board. There’s a lot that’s unknown,” she said.

While Makarious has yet to make his attempt to cut this Gordian knot, Dionne said a preliminary opinion by former town counsel George Hall contends that anything associated with the old building is not bound to the new building.

“There is a distinction between the old building and the $30 million new building,” said Dionne as the new building is a new asset built with a debt exclusion and with Select Board and Town Meeting involvement.

Possibly throwing a wrench into the process is the expectation the Select Board will approve a new town-wide naming policy at its July 7 meeting, beefing up the existing one-page policy written by then Select Board member Adam Dash in 2018. A four-page draft of the new policy presented at the board’s June 23 those seeking to name a town asset after a specific person would require passing over a set of high hurdles of presenting a proposed honoree’s notable achievements. It’s likely Makarious will be asked to determine whether the petition falls under the perview of the current or new naming policy.

Which ever way Makarious decides, a change in the naming policy town-wide is much needed, said Taylor Yates, the Board’s vice chair.

“We needed a better naming policy than what we have, and we put a lot of work into making, what to me, looks like a really good one,” said Yates. “We’re basically two weeks away from adopting it, and I don’t feel great about what feels like [the citizens’ petition is] jumping the gun.”

Once the new policy is adopted, “then we can say, our policy … says this, and this is how we’ve interpreted this case,” said Yates.

Matt Taylor, who took over the helm of the Select Board on July 1, said the three-member board should have a discussion on the name of the rank. “Having this drag out without some clarity is part of what has triggered this petition in the first place. I think we should have that discussion and and a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote before the [Special] Town Meeting.”

Gail Harrington, who is James Viglirolo’s youngest child and has helped spur on the petition, said the group submitted proposals to name the new rink for Viglirolo’s under the town’s current naming policy in January and April. After it had not recieved a formal response from the Select Board and to show broad community support, Harrington said it used the citizens’ petition process to ensure the town holds a “public meeting” perscribed under the existing policy.

That public meeting would bring attention to “many community members were not aware of the potential of the rink being named something other than to honor Skip,” said Harrington.

But the family was a little too successful collecting signatures to promote their claim. Harrington told the board at its June 23 meeting the petitioners were attempting to have their request placed on the scheduled fall Special Town Meeting in October. But the pentitioners passed the 200 signature mark in which under state law requires the town to hold a Special Town Meeting within 45 days.

The Vigilrolo family’s decision to go the citizens’ petition route was personally frustrating, said Dionne.

“We have been working on a naming policy for months now. We expect to finally approve it. I’m very concerned about the precedent this sets,” said Dionne, who is the lead author of the new policy.

“We haven’t named our high school after a person. We haven’t named our library after a person. And if you were asking me, I think there are a lot of very worthy people, including Glenn Clancy, who just served the town for 41 years,” said Dionne.

“If Town Meeting is going to be asked to weigh in on this asset, Town Meeting can also be asked to weigh in on any other asset in the town. So it makes a very negative precedent. This is, in my mind, in opposition to good management.”

Special Town Meeting: Confusion Sinks Senior Center Citizens’ Petition

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Bob McGaw (left) speaking on the Citizens’ Petition at the Special Town Meeting

A citizens’ petition that would upend the transition of Recreation Department staffers into the Beech Street Center collapsed as Special Town Meeting voted on Wednesday, May 21, to table the Special Town Meeting article after members said the language of the article was “confusing” about what it was proposing to do.

“This is seemingly a simple motion. But, in fact, it’s rather confusing,” said Jack Weis (Precinct 1). “We are being asked to vote for something that is apparently not fully baked, and we haven’t even been given detailed information on what we’re being asked to approve.”

During the Special Town Meeting held on the final night of the annual Town Meeting season, the citizens’ petition—STM Article 3: “To Protect the Beech Street Center”—presented by petitioners Robert McGaw and Paul Joy was the most discussed article this spring. Senior Center supporters raised concerns about a proposal from the town to relocate three recreation personnel and the town’s Veterans Agent from the Homer Building to the Beech Street Center.

Supporters of the status quo believe the transfer violated a 2011 Memorandum of Understanding between the town and the Friends of Belmont Council on Aging in which the primary operation of the Center would be senior-based until 2049 unless Town Meeting by a two-thirds vote authorized a change of use. 

While it received approximately 300 resident signatures, the petition had an uphill battle in its attempt to undo the movement of personnel. The town presented a legal opinion by the Boston law firm Anderson & Kreiger saying that adding three staffers within the administrative offices did not constitute a change of use of the mission of the Senior Center and thus did not trigger the requirement of a two-thirds vote by Town Meeting, said Town Moderator Mike Crowley. 

Even if it came before members, a “yes” vote on the citizens’ petition article would be a “non-binding resolution that expresses an opinion about the [town’s] plan,” according to the Town Council. The town noted that the legal opinion was authored by the same person, Town Council George Hall, who wrote the MOU 15 years before.

Finally, the petition’s wording didn’t assist the petitioner’s case. Claiming the MOU did not specify how to stop changes to the Senior Center, the supporters were asking members to defeat the town’s proposal by voting “no” rather than writing the article where it would seek a “yes” vote.

The debate

Crowley placed a tight hold on the debate by establishing rules, including “experimenting” with a 40-minute limit (with a 20-minute extension if needed) on questions and comments. While saying members can certainly talk about proposed changes and advisability, Crowley said the meeting would not debate the legality of the 2011 memorandum nor question the management structure of the Beech Street Center or how senior services are managed, as all would be deemed out of scope.

Joy (Precinct 7) kicked off the debate by proclaiming Belmont to be more than “just a place. It’s a promise of community, trust, and care for every generation.” He evoked the work of former town meeting member Barbara Miranda, who was a leader in constructing the Senior Center, and how her legacy isn’t just history—”it’s a living promise. The 2011 memorandum is not just legal jargon. It’s Belmont’s word to the people who poured their lives into this town.”

Reiterating the article’s main argument, Joy said the MOU’s requirement that Town Meeting approve a change of use by a 2/3 vote is “not a suggestion, it’s a contract, it’s someone’s word binding us to those that came before and those still to come.” 

“Is it not unreasonable to conclude that these plans come with significant long-term implications,” Joy warned. “We must ask how these changes will affect the seniors’ identity as a senior center over time, especially if recreation expands.”

“So I ask you tonight, from the bottom of my heart, will you stand with them? Will you vote ‘no’ on Article 4 and tell the world that Belmont is a town that listens, that it keeps its word, that it believes in its people.”

McGaw (Precinct 2) pointed to the April 23rd COA meeting, which alarmed seniors and saw them sign the petition “to seek to protect the Senior Center, to keep the town focused on senior needs, to maintain the ability of the Senior Center to provide additional programming, to serve an increasing senior population, which is now over 25 percent of Belmont.” 

“Our position is simply this: if the town wants to convert portions of the Senior Center to other uses, it should follow the process outlined in the 2011 memorandum,” and obtain a 2/3 approval from the Town Meeting, said McGaw.

Select Board Vice Chair Matt Taylor—also the board’s liaison to the Council on Aging—defended the move, saying the Rec Department personnel “time and again” assist in tasks for a short-staffed COA to sustain COA services for seniors. This is a team effort.” 

“What the petitioners saw in April was us collaborating and consulting with the COA” without any demands by the town to create a separate space for the Rec Department staff,” said Taylor. “All of this was to support seniors in programming,” he said.

Taylor also reiterated the board’s support for a trial run of the staffers at the Center, which will monitor, gather data, and ” be responsive to any issues that may arise affecting Senior Services.”

“No one at any time is suggesting or trying to change the primary purpose of the Beech Street Center,” Taylor said. 

After Maryann Scali (Precinct 2) helped define what “junior” seniors and “senior” seniors as she advocated for a no-vote, the first whiff of trouble for the petitioners came from the third speaker, Mary Lewis (Precinct 1), who said she found “this motion … deeply confusing.” Lewis said the article required a no vote to support preventing the proposed alterations, conversion, and use of space at the Center by the Recreation Department staff. But at recent presentations, the town has said it will not be building out areas of the Senior Center, such as creating a new door to accommodate the recreation-related business.

“So if we vote yes, we are affirming something untrue. If we vote no, we are agreeing with something that we might disagree with,” Lewis said, summing up the dilemma facing members.  

“This is fundamentally a decision around the utilization of office space by town departments, and I would submit that a body of 288 people who have been given scant information about this is not the right body and not the right time for us to make a decision about that,” said Weis who said he would be voting “abstain.”

Angus Abercrombie (Precinct 8) was the first of three members who questioned whether the best use of the Beech Street Center would be accomplished by placing restrictions on having recreation personnel in the building. Taylor said that the town has “robbed the Recreation [Department] of staff and attention in order to sustain the services at the COA.” Having the recreation staff in the office space will allow 

Judith Feinleib (Precinct 6), who authored a lengthy online defense of voting no, said the debate isn’t about “all the great things” at the Beech Street Center but rather “whether the nature of the agreement between the town and its citizens, especially seniors, is being changed.” Since she believed it would be, Feinleib said voting no is the only option. 

After Ade Bapista (Precinct 3) attempted to call the question early on —it failed by a wide margin—Ann Marie Mahoney (Precinct 1) went before the microphone to outline the history of the choices and decisions made regarding creating the Beech Street Center.

Mahoney said her message was that “we make choices and that things change,” noting that Chenery Middle School was designed and built for grades five through eight but now houses grades four, five, and six, which have very different requirements. “The Chenery is still a school regardless of which grades are housed, and we’ve adjusted and created a wonderful environment.” 

“I view this reorganization of our department heads and staff as an opportunity. It’s an opportunity for senior programming, not an intrusion or incursion. With careful planning, the primacy of the senior citizens can be respected and promoted at the Beach Street Center, and the vibrancy of recreation opportunities can be added.”

“We make changes. We are one town. We should make changes for the positive. If I can close with my favorite person, Winston Churchill, “To improve is to change. To be perfect is to change often.”

Jean Widmer (Precinct 5) said that as the former School Committee chair, teacher, and educator, she had repeatedly contacted seniors to ask for their support of many Prop 2 1/2 overrides and debt exclusions for the town and schools. “Without the support of those seniors, the overrides would never have passed,” she said, and Town Meeting members should repay that debt by keeping the Center for seniors.

Christine Doyle, (Precinct 6) who is also the chair of the Comprehensive Capital Budget Committee, said no matter where citizens stood on the 2023 override vote, “both sides begged to the town staff and Select Board to look for ways to increase revenues and reduce expenses.”

“In my mind, this potential proposal improves services for constituents and residents, it improves services for employees … and improves space optimization” in several town buildings, said Doyle.

Glenn Wong (Precinct 7) came on Zoom to make a motion to dismiss. His reason for the postponement was the general confusion of the main motion, where a yes vote “did not reflect my understanding of the situation and voting no didn’t [reflect his] understanding from the debate.”

Several members attempted to use the debate to continue advocating, only to have calls of “point of order!” as the body had heard enough. After one hour and 40 minutes, the citizens’ petition was dismissed, 172-68-4.

And the rest of the night

A Special Town Meeting overwhelmingly passed a long-promised Senior and Veterans Tax Relief (STM Article 2), 227-3-1. However, members were far from happy with the details, feeling the amount of relief and the number of elder residents being helped were insufficient compared to the levels of support in cities such as Somerville and Cambridge.

Chair of the Senior Relief Task Force Geoff Lubien admitted to the body that the article was not the easiest to explain, but he got through it. The package is made up of several provisions: 

  • Adopting a state law providing an additional real estate exemption for taxpayers,
  • Adjust the veteran’s exemption to the state’s inflation rate,
  • Adopting a second state law allowing residents to pay less in taxes if their exemption is greater than the previous year, 
  • Provide a statutory exemption for low-income seniors with limited assets of $40,000,
  • Reduce the minimum eligibility age from 70 to 65.

Only 21 homeowners are currently taking advantage of the town’s existing program, but Lubein said that number is “the foundation of the future program.” 

Liz Allison (Precinct 3) asked how much the new program would cost the town and where it would be made up. Lubien said the immediate impact could be up to $50,000 in maximum benefits. The Select Board’s Matt Taylor said the Board of Assessors Overlay account – a state-required withholding to cover abatements and exemptions – will pay for the expense. Jack Weis (Precinct 2) said the amount in relief would have an “inconsequential marginal impact” on the town’s $150 million operational budget, so as “a matter of fairness,” it should pass. 

Town Administrator Patrice Garvin presented STM Article 4 on using $600,000 released from the Board of Assessors Overlay account for three one-time funding needs:

  • $100,000 to the Conservation Commission towards work required to establish a conservation restriction for Rock Meadow,
  • $275,000 to the Capital Stabilization Fund, and 
  • $225,000 to begin a playing field maintenance program.

Speaking on the first motion, Conservation Commission Chair Chris Morris said the funds will go towards resource mapping, title research, and creating a master plan for the popular conservation area—which includes the town’s Victory Garden—which will result in the land being placed under a conservation restriction, a legal agreement designed to permanently protect the conservation values of a property by defining allowed uses.

“This is step one … of all the work that will require us to be good stewards of this property and to actively maintain it appropriately,” said Morris.

Anyone who has walked or played on the town’s 23 acres of parks and playing fields will know “deteriorating conditions are becoming more evident to users each day,” said Town Administrator Patrice Garvin. The reduction of DPW staff, budget constraints, the continuous activity by youth athletics teams, and the damage from unrestricted dog use have resulted in the town “triaging our fields rather than maintaining them with a formal plan,” she said.

With an infusion of $225,000, the town proposes “ramping up maintenance by outsourcing professional expertise” to help the fields recover from years of deferred upkeep and “allow for a better understanding of usage patterns and long-term sustainability,” said Garvin.

“This is not a short-term fix. It’s the beginning of a smarter, more sustainable building management strategy that addresses past conduct and sets up the future,” she said.

Ira Morganstern (Precinct 7) asked if this plan is the best use of town funds, saying it’s not clear what the true cost of this long-term program will be.

Yes,” answered Garvin. “We have to start somewhere.”

Taken together, the three measures were approved 208-4-2. 

Back to the Town Meeting for a final article, the Community Preservation Committee approved $472,338 to revitalize the West of Harris Field softball field and effectively complete the Middle and High School campus. The restored JV softball diamond and grass soccer and field hockey pitch have been discussed for years by the School Committee that controls the field. Work will begin this fall, just as the rink construction is completed, with an opening date of Spring 2026.

Peg Callahan (Precinct 7) reiterated a point made by several members that the only reason the town is picking up the nearly half-million dollar tab for the renovation is that the Middle and High School Building Committee “completely abandoned” the $3 million reconstruction of the fields it had promised to complete as part of the original 2018 plan approved in a $213 million debt exclusion approved by voters.

“Fitzie” Cowing (Precinct 8), who is a strong proponent of youth sports, proclaimed, “I’m really sorry softball” when she said she’d be voting no as she believed that the funding “is an expenditure of community funds without a community process.” Had there been a public engagement on WoHF, citizens would have shown a lack of support, as the town can not maintain the current fields. Rather, the town should invest in “turf” or synthetic fields to take the burden off grass fields.

Chris Doyle said that under current state restrictions, a turf field can not seek Conservation Preservation Commission funding. Thus, any synthetic surface pitch, which would cost nearly $2 million to install, must be in the CCBC’s inventory, which is backlogged with a slew of projects, including replacing the Harris Field turf in two years at $1.9 million. 

Instead, Doyle advised the Town Meeting to “grab the money and run” from the CPC, but continue the dialogue to obtain the needed turf pitch.

The WoHF measure passed 167-19-5, and with the clock reading 11:23 p.m., the Town Meeting came to a quiet end. It will be back for the fall Special in October.

Annual Town Meeting Warrant Set By Select Board, All In One Session With A Hybrid Twist

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The town prepares for the annual Town Meeting

It’s said that you can’t tell who the players are without a scorecard, and you can’t tell what’s going on at Town Meeting without the warrant.

Now, the members and public are all set to attend. On Thursday, April 10, the Belmont Select Board voted unanimously to sign off on this year’s annual Town Meeting beginning on May 5. Other dates for the Town Meeting include May 7, 12, 14, 19, and 21.

This year’s meeting will set precedence by taking place over a single, three-week session, as opposed to the decade-long bifurcated assembly, when the meeting was divided into a May general session followed in June by the budget articles.

“We’re entering into an experiment, and it is an experiment to do a single session,” said Select Board Chair Elizabeth Dionne, who said the final number of articles could reach 26. She said the change came down to a pair of considerations: A budget segment scheduled in mid-June prevented the town from closing its books in a timely fashion on June 30. The second reason is to “ease pressure on people’s schedules in June.” 

This year, we will also see the introduction of a hybrid meeting that allows members to attend online. The option in attending was a chief election promise of Mike Crowley, the newly-elected Town Moderator.
The select board has supported and will support a hybrid town meeting, said Dionne, noting it will be a “very ambitious agenda” as it will take place with a new town IT director, Chris McClure, and Crowley in place. While Belmont will employ a mixed meeting, nearby towns, such as Arlington and Needham, remain on-site only. 

But Dionne said her one caveat in supporting the hybrid meeting will be if the members believe the benefit of not meeting in June is worth the pain in May. “So this is a one-year experiment.”

The list of articles before members includes appropriations, the first of two parts in repairing the Chenery Upper Elementary school roof, the seven Community Preservation Committee projects, a lengthy flood plain district zoning bylaw, and a slew of articles that appear every year on the warrant.

Article 16 is to approve a four-year term to finance the purchase of iPads, which the school district has targeted. Dionne noted there had been social media “chatter” questioning the “found money” as any extra one-time funds should be made available for the fiscal year 2026 town budget, which is anticipated to increase by 2.5 percent as opposed to the 5.8 percent rise in the school’s budget. Dionne explained that the money was found during a “clean-up” of the town’s book from check-offs on residents’ property tax bills directed to schools. 

“So in some ways, it is found money. But it was originally meant to be spent on school projects,” said Dionne. 

A significant article before the approximate 290 Town Meeting members is senior tax relief, an important pledge by the Select Board to ease the tax burden on homeowners after voters passed the Proposition 2 1/2 override in 2024.

“The very diligent [senior tax relief] working group had brought us a number of articles that I think we all enthusiastically support,” said Dionne, including a mix of volunteering at town departments and donations by residents to assist qualified elder homeowners. 

The senior tax relief will be discussed in a special town meeting within the regular meeting, as the town legal counsel requires a little more time to discuss last-minute changes. 

Another article in the special will be to release the overlay funds within the assessor’s department. This reserve budget line has built up over time so that some of the funds can be released to the town for one-time bills. 

A single citizen’s petition will come before Town Meeting requesting the Select Board to file a Home Rule Petition with the state legislature granting Belmont the authority to prohibit or restrict the use of second-generation phosphides to control rats. If passed, it would allow a future Town Meeting to prohibit the poisoning by the town. Sponsored by the Belmont Citizen Forum, the article points out the evidence rodents that ingest the poison can harm and kill predators who feed on rats. Currently, the town’s departments have rejected the use of poison.

The Select Board will likely bring a late attempt to bring a second citizens’ petition to ease restrictions and increase the number of liquor licenses to stimulate business activity in the fall special town meeting.

Select Board Moves Special Town Meeting From Feb. 10 To March 3

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The Special Town Meeting has been moved to March 3

The Belmont Select Board has rescheduled the Feb. 10 virtual Special Town Meeting on the acceptance of Massachusetts’ new Accessory Dwelling Units law to Monday, March 3.

Town Administrator Patrice Garvin told the Belmontonian that the proposed move, announced at the Joint Budget Summit 3 on Thursday, Jan. 23, is necessitated by “significant new changes” soon to be coming from Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey’s office.

“In between the time that the Select Board set that meeting date and now, the state announced that it would be releasing some guidelines or regulations related to ADUs,” said Select Board Chair Elizabeth Dionne to the joint meeting. “It makes absolutely no sense for us to try and meet a week after they release those regulations before the Planning Board had time to consider them.”

“We are postponing the meeting so we will have full information to present to Town Meeting which it can then make decisions and vote on,” said Dionne.

In August, Healey signed into law the Affordable Homes Act, which makes accessory dwelling units—also known as in-law apartments—a By-Right use in single-family zoning districts. This allows property owners to build an ADU without having to obtain special or discretionary approval from the local zoning board.

The Special Town Meeting is to discuss and vote on amending Belmont’s Zoning By-Law to allow small residential living space to be located on the same lot as another home. Healey contends ADUs can play a significant role in easing the existing housing crisis.

Battle Of The MBTA Communities Maps On First Night Of Special Town Meeting Monday

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Map 1 will be debated along with a second map by Belmont Town Meeting

A vote of which of two maps Belmont will present to the state on promoting new future housing will highlight the first of three nights of the Fall Special Town Meeting taking place on Nov. 18-20 at the Belmont High School auditorium.

The meeting will begin at 7 p.m.

As the Town Meeting attempts to finish its work in three nights – “We will not meet for a fourth night under any circumstances” said Town Moderator Mike Widmer, – each night could go as late as 11 p.m. to accomplish the ambitious goal.

Monday’s agenda will see Town Meeting debate the MBTA Communities Act [ Section 3A of MGL c. 40A] requires towns such as Belmont to create at least one zoning district in which multi-family housing is permitted as of right and meets other criteria set forth in the statute. While there has been , the new zoning is “aspirational” as no new housing is required to be built under the law.

The maps – Map 1 was created over the past year by a citizen’s group and the Planning Board – have two large and one smaller subdistrict falling under the law.

The maps differ in one significant area: Map 1 – which will be presented by Planning Board Chair Taylor Yates – carves out three zoning districts; in the Waverley neighborhood, Belmont Center and a small subdistrict along Belmont Street at the Cambridge town line. Map 2, which will be an amendment to Map 1, retains the two larger zoning district but swopes the Belmont Street subdistrict with the property on Hittinger and Brighton where the Purecoat Plating facility and a dog daycare business is located and the Frank French business adjacent to the MBTA commuter rail line and Brighton.

Town officials and residents who have supported greater commercial development to provide additional tax revenue to the town are backing Map 1 while those advocating for more housing are supporting Map 2.

Before the map vote, there are three additional amendments – one will be a fix to an appendix item concerning the Belmont Housing Authority (known as Epstein Amendment 2), another on lowering building heights in the zones, and finally an amendment removing building footprint maximums and building separation requirements.

After what is expected to be a lively discussion on the amendments, Town Meeting will vote on Epstein’s Map 2 amendment first. If it fails to garner a majority of member votes, discussion will continue on Map 1 as the main motion. But if the Epstein amendment passes, Map 2 will replace Map 1 and will ultimately be voted on.

After votes on the three amendments, the main motion will be discussed and voted on. If the final map article fails, then Belmont will be out of compliance with Section 3A which could result in state sanctions.

MBTA Communities, Citizen’s Petition On 5 Member Select Board Headlines Three Nights Of Special Town Meeting

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Mike Widmer, Belmont Town Moderator

Expect some late nights next month in the Belmont Middle and High School Auditorium as the Town Moderator announced the schedule for the Special Town Meeting.

Mike Widmer, the town’s long-standing Town Moderator, announced in a Friday, Oct 18 email after a planning session took place concerning the fall Special Town Meeting.

The “Special” will take place on three consecutive nights: Monday, Nov. 18; Tuesday, Nov. 19 and Wednesday, Nov. 20.

“We will not meet for a fourth night under any circumstances,” said Widmer, as the extra day(s) would bleed into the week of Thanksgiving which the planners said would be too inconvenient for members planning to travel and preparing for the extended holiday.

With a 72-hour limitation in mind, there’s a good possibility members can expect some rare – for Belmont Town Meetings – “Cinderella” meetings taking place.

“Though I would prefer not, we may need to go as late as 11 p.m. in order to complete our business in just three nights,” said Widmer.

Unlike previous annual and special Town Meetings when the more important articles are taken up on the final nights, Widmer said the fall special will begin with the big ticket items: implementing the MBTA Communities Act (3A) and amendments to the Inclusionary Housing and Design and Site Plan Review zoning sections. A citizens’ petition article to expand the Select Board to five members will be the first item of business on Wednesday, Nov. 20.

And due to the complexity of the zoning issues, Widmer set an earlier deadline of noon, Tuesday, Nov. 5 for members to submit proposed amendments to alter the articles.

While a growing number of member have been hankering for a virtual meeting, Widmer said given the current limits of town resources, the Special will only take place in person. But those campaigning for off-site attendance, Widmer said that “town leaders are committed to holding some form of hybrid at the 2025 Annual Town Meeting [in May 2025] and into the future if permitted by state law.”

The current remote and hybrid entitlement approved by the state legislature during the pandemic is due to expire in early 2025. “While this is my final year as Moderator, I will strongly recommend to my successor that Town Meeting have a permanent hybrid option, if permitted,” said Widmer.

Belmont Voters To Decide Assessors Future As Town Meeting OKs Change To Appointed Board

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Select Board Chair Roy Epstein

It will be up to Belmont voters to decide the future of the Board of Assessors when a special session of Town Meeting voted 156-87 with two abstentions to place a ballot question on this April’s annual Town Election to change the structure of the three-member board from an elected to an appointed body.

The vote, which took place virtually on Monday, Jan. 22, came nearly a year after a special Town Meeting voted 185-46 to change the town treasurer’s post to an appointed position, which town voters seconded in April 2023.

For Roy Epstein, chair of the Belmont Select Board, who shepherded the article through the public process and at the special town meeting, the article’s passage was a nod by the majority of Town Meeting Members on the willingness of town government to employ town resources to improve the town’s fiscal future.

“I would like to think people responded a little bit to what I said, but in a large sense, the vote was an expression of competence in the town administrator [Patrice Garvin],” said Epstein a day after the meeting. “It’s a vote of confidence of policy changes that the town will value and improve governance. That’s what people are looking for. And I think [Garvin] has been incredibly thorough in identifying ways to improve how government works, and I’m glad people are recognizing that.”

Supporters of the article were willing to agree that while there is a consensus the current assessors “operate at a very high standard” in determining the value of the real estate in town, said Epstein, there is an increasing need for the board to become a partner in the finance team – which includes the town’s appointed treasurer, the financial director, the town accountant and – that sets the town’s fiscal policy. The select board and town officials point to areas such as creating a PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) program and assisting in significant changes to the town’s zoning map in which the assessors’ knowledge and data will be the final critical piece in formulating “a more cohesive, collaborative working finance team,” said Garvin.

The select board or town officials expressed little confidence the current elected assessors are willing to support the town’s requests as both Epstein and fellow Select Board member Elizabeth Dionne each voiced their disappointment with the board’s response to numerous requests – such as establishing senior tax relief – from town committees and the board which were allowed to die on the vine.

“It didn’t happen and after four years of trying to make [senior tax relief] because it is a tax policy question. I just don’t think the collaboration between the Board of Assessors and the Select Board in the current form is working out. My view at this point is that there are better prospects for that type of coordination between different parts of town government if the board of assessors became appointed rather than elected, and that’s my principal reason for supporting the article in its current form,” said Epstein.

The Assessors’ long-time chair, Robert Reardon, defended the elected board in its current form since the town’s incorporation in 1859, calling it “an important aspect of checks and balances” in town finances with the prime role of the assessors “to set the [real estate] values independent of the budget process.”

While the assessors answer questions at public meetings and work with the town and committees on several fiscal areas, Reardon said the board rarely ventures beyond their core responsibilities of appraising real estate, deciding to grant or deny abatements, and voting on exemptions based on the person – such as seniors or disabled veterans – who owns the property. It has not expanded its reach into town fiscal policy due to state directives from the Department of Revenue.

“We don’t make policy,” said Reardon. “We have to take an oath to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and that oath is to uphold the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And by doing so … we’re limited on what we can do. We cannot implement any new tax policies in the town without the approval of the state legislature.”

Reardon also said that an elected board of residents “shows a commitment and a dedication by the candidates to serve the town,” which would be lacking by an appointed body that doesn’t have a residence requirement.

For most of the meeting, Town Moderator Mike Widmer successfully limited the debate to changing the board’s structure rather than discussing how either variation would alter town policies or finances.

Cosmo Macero from Precinct 5 said he would vote against the article as “there is accountability in elections … and being an elected official.” As for the lack of collaboration with town boards and elected officials, “it’s possible that the Select Board may need to look elsewhere as to what the problem was with the collaboration.”

“As a non-policy making body, I want them to only collaborate a little on policy. I want them to perform their very important duty which is to measure and assess the value of our property for the purpose of tax information,” said Macero.

Angus Abercrombie, Precinct 8, who submitted the citizen’s petition to bring the article before Town Meeting, asked if changing the Town Treasurer to an appointed post had produced efficiencies in that department that could be replicated in the Assessors’ office. Garvin said Treasurer Lesley Davison’s experience and knowledge in the position have resulted in “finding efficiencies every day which will only benefit the residents of Belmont.”

“I believe, based on the town and [its] managerial structure, we will be able to implement efficiencies that have long been long wanted by the finance team,” said Garvin.

Ira Morgenstern, Precinct 7, advocated the belief first mentioned by Liz Allison, Precinct 3, at a public forum a week earlier: Don’t fix what’s not broken.

“It’s not needed,” said Morgenstern of the article. Calling the current board “a great team,” Morgenstern then suggested that a “yes” vote would be “a further concentration of power to the Select Board [who would have appointing powers] and the Town Administrator … while reduces the oversight and … our internal controls.”

But for Claus Becker, Precinct 5, giving the Select Board the final say in appointing the assessors’ is the correct step as residents voted for the three-member body to enact its vision of the town’s fiscal future.

And just like last year’s vote to make the Treasurer an appointed position, the tally wasn’t that close, with the “yes” category garnering 64 percent of members.

Belmont Winter Special Town Meeting: Virtual Session Set For Jan. 22 On Board Of Assessors

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The current board of assessors (from left) Charles R. Laverty, Robert P. Reardon, Patrick Murphy with Dan Dargon, the Assessing Administrator

A winter Special Town Meeting is all set as the Belmont Select Board opened and closed the warrant for an all-virtual meeting assembly dedicated to a single proposition: to transition the Board of Assessors from an elected to an appointed council.

The fully remote meeting will occur on Monday, Jan. 22, 2024, at 7 p.m.

The article awaiting the members originated as a citizen petition from Precinct 8’s Angus Abercrombie for the fall Special Meeting in November. Due to the heavy agenda facing the meeting, Moderator Mike Widmer asked Abercrombie to have the petition moved to the new year, where it would receive the attention it deserved.

A recommendation in a 2022 review of the town’s financial structure by the Edward J. Collins, Jr. Center for Public Management at UMass Boston, the change in the Board of Assessors structure will bring an essential element in the town’s fiscal structure under the umbrella of the financial director. Earlier this year, the post of Town Treasurer was made an appointed position.

The current board comprises long-time Chair Robert P. Reardon, Charles R. Laverty, III, and Patrick J. Murphy, IV.