I was not insulted by his tardiness BUT I was infuriated by the outright lying to the American public.  Lying or “telling of half-truths” has become the norm in politics.  

Similarly, I am infuriated at the VOTE Yes Committees flyers which continue this campaign of lies and half-truths.

“Belmont residents will not be allowed to check out the 6 million books due to the loss of Minuteman network accreditation.”  A lie!  Look it up!  Any resident of Massachusetts may use the Minuteman network.

“Sports, theatre, clubs will be cut at the High School.”  Parents pay now for their students to participate!  $450 per sport plus monies raised by parent groups and the Boosters.

“Most school buses will be eliminated.”  Busing is required for all students who live more than 1-1/2 miles from their school.  Most other riders pay for the service which compliments the required expenses.

“Eliminate Town funded rubbish collection and add new fees.”  The “trash collection override of 1990” continues to provide more than enough funds to support the present rubbish/recycling contract. 

“Closing the Burbank School.”  There has been no decision regarding Burbank.  Indeed, this would be a terrible decision.  Instead, make all schools K-6 (saves busing costs).  Then close Chenery, sell it to a developer for millions and create 100 units of over 55 housing.  Netting millions in revenue with no impact on the schools.

Let’s look at other cost reductions and sources of new revenue.  

Enrollment is down 500 students from the projections used to justify the new High/Middle School.  (Why should they be so far off?)  There should be staff reductions based on this alone.

Energy costs for the new school should be way down, as a result of the investment in geothermal and solar installations.  Where is this reflected?

A new High/Middle School, Library, and Rink should result in further savings in maintenance and operations costs.

McLean Hospital is budgeting $1.5 million for PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) for FY 25.

Send the message that fiscal responsibility and solvency must come first and without further burdening our over-taxed citizens. 

An operating override is too much to ask!  Join me and vote NO!

Edward A. Kazanjian is a retired facilities engineer, registered educational facility planner, executive director and head consultant for a nonprofit, national public school consulting firm and an assistant superintendent of schools. He has been a Belmont resident for over 50 years.

It has been widely claimed that it is not the responsibility of the MBTA communities advisory committee to evaluate noncompliance. While I disagree with that premise, let’s look at other venues for discussion. If the MBTA communities advisory committee is the wrong venue for discussions around non-compliance, why then won’t the select board and/or the planning board hold their own separate public forms to allow residents to weigh in on non compliance? Why won’t the Planning Board specifically look at the cost of noncompliance versus a fiscal impact statement, and economic impact statement, etc? 

As you can see from the photos below, the biggest theme from the public forum was residents making clear (via stickers since questions weren’t allowed on noncompliance during the Q&A) that we need a townwide vote. 

Another big concern expressed from residents is the lack of consultation and the lack of a fiscal impact study, etc.. It is important that a fiscal impact study is put together before plans are presented, and not after. An economic development survey has also not been done, this is especially concerning as Belmont is already a town troubled with a lack of commercial business. This is driven by the highest vacancy rate in Belmont Center’s history. 

My big takeaway is that the discussions around non compliance are occurring regardless of if they are endorsed by the town government. It’s now town officials who are lagging behind.

I watched and listened to the FinCom meeting a few nights ago when the various members commented on the “right amount” for the override…ranging from $6.4 to $8.4 million and how the higher the  number the declining prospect for passage.  There was discussion of asking for two amounts providing some level of support without requiring a large number, all or nothing!  I now read today, the Selectmen have gone with the highest number…ergo the least chance of passage or in their case the biggest gamble.

At no time during the meeting was there any discussion about just how the numbers were derived (some attributed to X’s number or Y’s number using names of persons.

Also, I heard no discussion about any available offsets coming from aid, growth, or opportunities to increase revenue.  No discussion on the impact of the new High/Middle School on existing fuel and electricity budgets or the impact the enrollment projections used to justify the new building which of course never came to fruition…down 500 students from the projections.

Herein are a few suggestions for consideration before any override could possibly be supported.

A. The existing school budget (indeed the entire premise for the new school) was an enrollment increase of over 500 which never occurred.  Current budgets and staffing were based on that premise.  Shouldn’t the current budget staffing and costs be scrutinized?  

B. The new HS/MS HVAC design includes $2.6 million in rooftop solar panels and 283 geothermal wells for heating and cooling.  The building was advertised as Net Zero.  This must be reflected in the operating budget for the schools.   What portion of the “$5 million in net present savings is reflected?

C. Literature being distributed at a recent High School basketball game states that “the costs of services that residents receive are rising faster than the limit imposed by Prop 2-1/2”…shows the lack of understanding of what Prop 2-1/2 assumed.  Municipalities are NOT constrained by an annual 2.5% increased….the law allows for considerable increases to that amount….new growth, debt limits, overrides, etc.  Indeed, Belmont in the that past thirty-five years has passed 45% of its overrides, and 70% of its debt exclusions.  Also, the Community Preservation Act was passed during this period adding an additional 1.5% annually to the taxes of our citizens.

D. The same literature threatens elimination of school sports and activities.  Parents currently pay dearly for these programs.  $450 per sport NOT to mention the various booster and fund raiser monies solicited throughout the year.

E. I have heard threats of “privatizing” trash collection (inferring we would pay for this private service).  In 1990, the Citizens passed an override specifically so this would never happen.  A $2.09 million override was passed to pay for trash removal.  At a compounded 2.5% a year, that amount has increased to $4.6 million this year and the cost of this service recently re-bid is currently $2.4 million.  Where is the $2.2 million savings this year?  At a minimum the Town has gained a million dollars every previous year from this 1990 override for other purposes.

F. The 2001 so called “Roads” override $3.0 million is now valued at $5.16 million (not to mention that one year the Selectmen used this money for other purposes promising Town Meeting this was a one-time only diversion of the funds).  Belmont does not allocate the $5.16 million only the $3 million.…where is the $2,100,000?.

What about increasing revenue?

G. A commercial tax rate!  Forget the old saw that we do not have enough commercial property or that a commercial rate will drive out development.  Think Watertown!  Tons of development and a commercial tax rate three times the residential rate and further reductions for owner occupied housing.  At the same time, I would propose that ALL non-owner-occupied multi-family residential property would be considered “commercial” and taxed accordingly.  Why should a non-resident landlord or a resident renting property pay the same taxes but receive all the tax deductions and depreciation of commercial property?  Provide some relief for our home-owners!

H. Don’t close the Burbank (as threatened in by INVESTinBelmont.com) close the Chenery and sell the property to a developer.  The site would sell for tens of millions!  This windfall invested would provide $2.5 million annually.  A nice development of about 100 units of senior housing would provide options for our seniors who wish to stay in Belmont and generate more than a million dollars annually in property taxes with no impact on the schools.

I. Get rid of the CPA…the 1.5% additional tax was approved by less than 2% of voters…at a minimum let any senior opt out!  Put it on the ballot, the seniors in Belmont need a tax break!

J. Prop 2-1/2 reduced Excise Tax to $25/m of valuation from $66/m.  It also provides for restoring it to the former amount by Citizen vote.  The Town collects $3.3 million in Excise Tax…at $66/m after exempting all seniors Belmont could raise an additional $3.7 million.

K. PILOT…payment in lieu of taxes.  Remember the McLean fiasco a few years back?  Not only did they stop paying Belmont $500,000 PILOT, the Town had to actually reimburse McLean $1.5 million for costs and studies that they had they paid for after their development did not take place.  Well…their development is back and I’ve heard they are budgeting a $1.5 million PILOT for FY 24. Is that shown in any budget projection?

Let’s recap…

I am confident that there are many more proposals and issues from our citizenry which could add to this list.  Just think, NO OVERRIDE, with some effort, a little out of the box thinking and millions for the future as well.  As they say a Win-Win!

Edward A. Kazanjian, “Obiter Dictum” columnist
is a retired facilities engineer, registered educational facility planner, consultant, and expert witness. He has been a Belmont resident for over 55 years.

“The voters of Belmont have generously stepped-up time and again in recent years—$370
million in debt exclusion to fund a new high school-middle school, a new library, and a new ice
rink. But this override, an additional $8.4 million, is simply too much to ask from citizens,” said
Wayne Wild, Chairman of No Override. “Like each and every resident in Belmont, the town
must operate within its means. We urge citizens to vote NO on the override.”

No Override Belmont has created a website, www.2much2ask.org, which provides voters with
insight into the impact of the override if it were to pass.

Belmontonians will vote on the override in the town elections on Tuesday, April 2.

The individual they were looking for is alleged to be involved in a gang murder in Fall River. Police did not locate the individual as no one was home.

video credit: Paul Coradeschi

We’ve been told legal action will be taken if the Town doesn’t comply although some cities/towns have refused to comply, for example the city of Milton.

Our Town will not even consider non compliance and the MBTA Commision, chaired by Rachel Heller and Roy Epstein are trying to be finished by April.  We are required to add 1632 units of housing to our Town by law, but some on the committee are seeking to increase the number of new households to 3000. Our Town currently has 10,000 households so that is an increase in population of more than 33%.  There has been no fiscal impact study on the effects on the schools, town services, roads, pollution, or traffic. Most Belmont residents have no idea this is happening or have heard vague talk of it.  This past week’s Belmont voice had an informative article describing it but the article doesn’t address the reality of the immense changes this will make to the small Town of Belmont

There have been several options discussed on locations for this housing and 3 “final” options are being discussed. Each of the options includes a range of zoning which allows for zone 1 small scale neighborhood, zone 2 moderate scale neighborhood residential,  zone 2A same as zone 2 but can add additional floor if one floor is commercial, Zone 3 moderate scale traditional residential, zone 4 small scale mixed use, Zone 5 moderate to large scale mixed use  (can grow to 6 stories in height).

The following images are from the MBTA Committees Advisory Committee

If zone 5 is approved for Leonard Street, it will turn it into a city block. The above image shows 4 stories but the actual zoning could allow for 6.  No residential neighborhood in Belmont should be subjected to this size and density.

It is my belief that very few residents know this is coming, and fast.

There is a Public Hearing for the MBTA Committee Thursday 2/15 at 7pm, Beech Street Center.

I hope you’ll attend, listen and help to reduce the numbers back to 1620 and remove Belmont Center from zone 5. We are not a city. 

Most importantly residents should demand a fiscal impact study BEFORE anything goes to the Planning Board, Select Board or Town Meeting. This plan will greatly impact the Town of Belmont. The Town needs to start paying attention to all the taxpayers, not just a select few.

Massachusetts legislators are feeling the heat and the huge omnibus gun control bill has been temporarily put on hold until the fall because of citizen efforts.

House bill HD 4420, titled “An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws” introduced by Michael Day (Democrat, 31st Middlesex) does anything but “modernize” gun laws. This bill is 140 pages of the worst gun control proposals ever introduced – making the owning of a legal firearm nearly impossible in Massachusetts.  

Various citizen and professional groups has raised concerns about the bill, including the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association. Some of their concerns include:

• SECTION 173: PROHIBITED AREAS – This proposed section was the foremost significant concern of all Chiefs who reviewed this Bill. Creating “Gun Free” zones beyond the scope of courthouses, prisons, and schools, has been proven to be a practice that does not prevent crime, and, in fact, encourages criminals to seek out these areas as soft targets of opportunity, where their chances of meeting resistance will be minimal. 
• Section 173 (5) – Puts law enforcement officers at risk by PROHIBITING legally licensed off-duty and retired Law Enforcement Officers and other Federal and State personnel who carry a firearm for personal protection due to the nature of their profession and the associated risk and threat to their safety.
• Sec,on 173 (2) (iv) – Calls for property owners to post a sign on their premises indicating that it IS “permissible” to carry a firearm on their premises. We feel this practice would lead to additional calls for Police Service at locations that do not have this “sign” as they would be targeted by criminals.
• We know through statistics that most violent crime is committed by a 10% segment of individuals. Of this segment, the majority are repeat offenders. This group is marginally mentioned in this Bill. Most do not have legally licensed firearms, or Firearms permits… Any new legislation should focus on career criminals and violent repeat offenders
• For a full list of their concerns, please read the full letter.

Another group Gun Owners of America, highlighted their concerns about the omnibus gun control bill:  

• Redefines “Assault-style firearm” to be more extensive and ban ALMOST ALL semi-automatic firearms from civilian ownership.   
• Redefines “firearm” into a broader term that includes even stun guns.  
• Mandates “safe storage” procedures, locking up guns against your will.  
• Mandates REGISTRATION of all guns and feeding devices.  
• Contains confusing language for new MA residents and on the serialization of guns.  
• Mandates reporting any parts modifications to firearms.  
• Mandates reporting an itemized list of parts when modifying or building a gun.  
• Mandates serializing of feeding devices (magazines).  
• Mandates that privately made guns need to be registered within 7 days.  
• Bans anyone under 21 from acquiring or carrying semi-automatic rifles or shotguns.  
• Forces new requirements for firearms retailers.  
• Forces new training mandates for law-abiding gun owners.  
• Adds even more prohibited areas where even licensed individuals cannot defend themselves with a firearm.  
• AND DOES SO MUCH MORE.  

The MA House of Representatives is already in the process of redrafting this bill, so it is important to contact your legislatures to raise these concerns! Find your legislature here.

For Belmont residents, our Senator is William Brownsberger and our Representative is Dave Rogers.

During last week’s tax reform package deliberations, Senate President Karen Spilka and the state senate passed an amendment to implement a “marriage penalty” in our state tax filing system, so that couples who have a combined income over $1M will be wacked by this tax hike. Marriage penalties are bad policy and offering ways to avoid one is not a loophole. It’s only been six months since the surtax amendment passed and lawmakers are already trying to get the new tax applied to taxpayers who don’t earn a million dollars, and in ways they did not make the case for during their campaign.

With the blessing of the Senate President, State Senator Jason Lewis (D-Winchester) successfully passed his amendment to the senate “tax reform package” which would implement the marriage penalty. To see how your senator voted, please click here. Only in Massachusetts does the state senate pass a marriage penalty during their tax reform package.

For more information, please visit the MA Fiscal Alliance.

Dionne: “We can tell citizens who don’t have students in the schools if the next override rails, it will be… a bloodbath” https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxeqpUOmMPk_WjhHcjktmgS2l1rMhpBk4k

Doyle: “I’m talking about actual cuts. Like for example… we should be cutting the hours of the library so that people in the general public can see this is the result of not passing an override. We should not be having all the yard waste collection that we have so that people can see, that’s the result of a failed override.” https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxPLgPDEF33I3YlUqdUS_Q5cdvagOaHiun

Dionne nodding in agreement.

Dionne: “I also wholeheartedly agree.”

Credit: Belmont Media Center

Full March 20, 2023 Select Board Meeting can be found here: https://videoplayer.telvue.com/player/uClcIN88BHKHJoveFoaVN_8_5Tg72P0o/media/787432

The Belmont School Committee will be voting on the decision to hire a Superintendent tomorrow. This decision impacts every resident, student and staff member, yet the School Committee just revised the agenda for tomorrow’s meeting to remove “Citizen Concerns.” The agenda does not list any opportunity for the public to comment. This process has been deeply flawed from the outset and the School Committee must vote to stop the process at tomorrow’s meeting and begin anew.

On November 7, 2022, the School Committee chose to meet in private Executive Session to decide whether they should hire an Interim or permanent Superintendent. Executive Session is only allowed in particular instances and the deliberation over whether to hire an Interim or permanent position should have been made in public. The public was not given any opportunity to comment at that meeting. Those executive session minutes have not been published.

On November 14, 2022. the School Committee chose to again meet in private Executive Session to discuss the Superintendent hiring decision. The School Committee exited Executive Session and announced they were seeking a permanent replacement. It is unclear if they voted on that decision because those executive session minutes were not released to the public. The School Committee also announced that day that they had formed a Superintendent Search Subcommittee consisting of only 2 School Committee members. The Agenda for that meeting did not say that the School Committee would be discussing the formation of a Search Subcommittee and again, the public was not given any opportunity to comment at that meeting.

The School Committee determined, without seeking pubic input, that they planned to hire the new Superintendent before two current school committee members vacated their seats and two new School Committee members are elected on April 4, 2023. This begs the question of why the School Committee felt it was in the best interest of the Town to have two outgoing members vote on this decision less than a week before the election.

The Superintendent Search Subcommittee met 6 times between November 18, 2022 and January 5, 2023. Of those six meetings, only the first meeting agenda stated there was an opportunity for the public to comment. The remainder of the meetings listed no opportunity for public comment yet during that time the two member Subcommittee chose which consultant group to recommend, drafted the job listing and appointed the members of the Superintendent Screening Committee without making an open call for volunteers. The two members of the Subcommittee appointed themselves plus one more School Committee member to the Screening Committee. They did all of this before seeking any public input.The Subcommittee chose to record and post some of their meetings and not others. On the eve of the hiring decision, they still have not posted the minutes from their December 21 and 28 meetings.  

In other towns, search committees have surveyed the public before drafting job posting to ensure that the candidates sought are reflective of the will of the majority of the town. That did not occur here. The School Committee chose to put out a job posting that did not even require the applicant to have education experience.On January 23, 2023, there was a Joint meeting of the Search Subcommittee and the Superintendent Screening Committee they created, along with the search consultant. There was no opportunity for public comment.

On January 24, 2023, the School Committee voted to disband the Search Subcommittee. There was no agenda item listing any such vote so the public was not aware of any opportunity to comment. The Superintendent Screening Committee then met 5 times between January 28 and March 6, 2023. There was not a single opportunity for public comment at any of those meetings and the agenda for the first meeting states in bold “Public comment will not be taken.” The Screening Committee, along with the consultant, determined the manner in which the public would finally be allowed to provide input. They sent out a survey and conducted focus groups. None of the data from the survey or focus groups has been made public, depriving the public of the opportunity to know if the Screening and/or School Committee’s criteria and priorities aligned with those of the Town.

In nearly every other town’s recent Superintendent searches, this information has been released to the public very early in the process.The Screening Committee’s agenda for the March 6, 2023 meeting in which they were going to select the finalists was not published, effectively denying the public the opportunity to be informed of this important meeting. Most of the Screening Committee’s meeting minutes were not published until after the School Committee announced the identities of the finalists.On March 6, 2023, the Superintendent Screening Committee met in Executive Session to review the candidates for Superintendent. There was no opportunity for public comment. The Screening Committee came out of Executive Session, into Open Session, yet failed to announce that it had made any decision, depriving the public of the opportunity to be informed and to be able to comment in a timely manner. The Screening Committee also did not state in Open Session that it provided any recommendations to the School Committee, which begs the question of how the School Committee was informed of the Screening Committee’s decision.

On March 24, 2023, a member of the Screening Committee wrote an open letter and revealed that the Screening Committee had completed their charge and voted to promote two finalists to the School Committee at that March 6, 2023 meeting. This information should have been revealed on March 6, 2023 in open session. The fact that it was not leads to the question of how the entire School Committee became informed of the decision.On March 7, 2023, the School Committee met in Executive Session. The minutes state the purpose of that meeting was to: “inform the School Committee of finalists for the Superintendent of Belmont Public Schools given finalists have 48 hours to inform their districts.” The agenda did not state that the School Committee was going to review all the semifinalists selected by the preliminary Screening Committee, deliberate and make a decision as to whether they would promote more people than selected by the Screening Committee. There was no opportunity for the public to comment at this meeting. The executive session minutes have not been published.

It has now been revealed that the School Committee chose to conduct its own review of the semi-finalists, after the preliminary screening committee had completed its task, and decided to put forth 4 candidates (one of whom chose not to advance themselves). The School Committee announced the identities of the finalists on March 10, 2023. The community forums allowed just 30 minutes for the public to ask questions of each candidate. However, each candidate was allowed to speak at the beginning of that session, reducing the time even further. For every candidate, there were members of the public left standing at the microphone who were not given the opportunity to speak. Questions were raised as to the amount of time the School Committee had afforded the public and whether the School Committee’s interviews were sufficiently thorough for arguably one of the most important positions in Belmont.The School Committee sent out a survey on March 17 for the public to comment on the Superintendent candidates.

On the eve of the hiring decision, the data from that survey has not been revealed to the public. There have been numerous calls, including a petition, to have the newly elected School Committee elect an Interim Superintendent and begin a new search process but there is no indication the School Committee is willing to go in that direction.In recent days, complaints alleging violations of the MA Open Meeting Law relating to the Superintendent Search process have been filed against the School Committee, as have several public records requests to access the records the School Committee, the Search Subcommittee and the Screening Committee have failed to make available to the public. No hiring decision should be made until these matters are resolved. Echoing the other open calls to the School Committee, this flawed process must stop tomorrow night and the newly elected School Committee must be allowed to begin a new process to appoint an Interim Superintendent and to conduct a search which affords the public the full opportunity to participate and to be informed.

Patrick Whittemore