• Belmont has spent around $1m of its own $$$ to fund the redesign of Trapelo Road. Trapelo Road redesign is very highly rated road project state-wide. Transport planners think we’re awesome! Woot.
• Massachusetts already spends close to $.50 of every $1 on health care costs with 1 in 5 residents in the State on Medicaid. (Did I hear that right?)
• Federal funds are up in the air for next year, including healthcare reimbursements from the Feds and money for transportation.
• Municipal plan design reform: allowing the mayor or selectmen of the municipality to change a municipality’s health cae plan design or enter the Group Insurance Commission (GIC) without entering into collective bargaining. Will backs it – doesn’t think it will be a raw deal for municipal unions.
• Funding education, police, fire. “Issues of regionalization” will become more urgent in the coming years. Agreed on that. Go to willbrownsberger.com for more information!

UPDATE: We’re now hearing a report out from the Ad hoc Subcommittee on Town Meeting Communications. Bullet points:

• There’s an inconsistent level of detail about issues.
• TM members don’t really have enough time to consider issues up for discussion.
• Its not easy to address complex issues that can’t be addressed in one sitting

There are a bunch of suggestions:

1. Open and close Warrant in January instead of March
2. Star Annual Town Meeting in May so as not to conflict with school vacation.
3. Encourage precinct caucuses
4. Institutionalize separate budget and non-budget Warrant briefings
5. Schedule annual Community Forum to address vision issues.
6. Increase the use of electronic communications with Town Meeting members – e-mail and Website to include background information on Warrant articles.
7. Create Moderator appointed standing committee to improve information for Town Meeting members (print materials, electronic, etc. A resource for TM members).
8. Identify and clarify process on how TM can obtain more information on a topic and keep that topic alive so that TM members have all the information they need to make a proper decision.
9. Implement a TM member orientation handbook. Revise and distribute it to TM members.
10. Organize a TM Member Association to handle things outside of TM.

There’s a written report (I’ll try to post it on B2). Thanks TM Communications Subcommittee!! Great work.

UPDATE: Articles 14 and 15: Ralph Jones is explaining why we should agree to take 0% interest loans from MWRA for sewer and storm drain line improvements in town. Just smiles on this one. Both motions are approved unanimously. Thanks, MWRA. I think your tap water tastes yummy!

UPDATE: We’re now on to the next item: Article 11 – revised motion authorizing expenditure from the town’s Revolving Fund. Ralph Jones, Chairman of the Board of Selectmen, is now explaining some last minute changes to this – $300,000 for the town’s Ambulance service will come out of the Capital Budget. Filing fees for Wetlands Protection – these fund administration and enforcement of the Wetlands Protection Act. This is confusing. I guess we don’t need to vote on this because its required by State law and there’s a separate fund to hold these accounts – this shouldn’t be part of the Town’s revolving account.

UPDATE: Article 6 – Appropriating $22,500 to provide non-contributory pensions for eligible employees of Town Depts…this concerns a single Town employee. Its approved unanimously.

UPDATE: Article 7: Appropriate $5.04m to provide contributory pensions and expenses in connection with Chapter 32 of MGL…Barbara Hagg, Town Accountant is speaking. The town’s pension is around 52% funded. Mark P. of BOS is saying it will be fully funded by 2028. Question from the floor: given that we’re behind – what did we pay in the past and what do we project we’ll pay over the next 10 years, given that our pension obligations won’t be fully funded. Barbara said she doesn’t have a 2010 actuarial study on this question. The amount we’ll have to shell out will increase 4.5% year on year, and we do new actuarial studies every couple years to see if our numbers are getting off course. This could be a big hit to town budgets in years to come, but there’s no way to know for sure. Its put to a vote and passes unanimously.

UPDATE: Angelo Firenze of BOS is introducing Article 8 – asking for approval of $532,410 for the repair, improvement and construction of highways within the Town. It is put a vote without any question and passes unanimously.

UPDATE: Ralph Jones of BOS introduces Article 5 appropriating funds to pay elected officials. Only two of these folks: the Town Clerk and Town Treasurer make any real money – $72,499 for the clerk and $89,145 for the Treasurer. The total assessment here is $185,586. There’s some interest here, as there’s a proposed amendment from the Warrant Committee to knock the Clerk’s salary down from $72k to $62k. BOS recommends approval of this. Ouch! Now Liz Allison, Chair of WC is speaking. TM allocated $60,000 last year. The 62,000 is a 4% increase. The Warrant is requesting a 20% increase and WC is calling bulls**t on that, it appears. Roy Epstein of WC is now addressing TM…Long and short is that average salary across similarly sized towns for Town Clerk is $60k. Also: TC gets a $2,500 stipend for sitting on the election board. Mass Municipal Association data also suggests a salary figure in the low $60k figure. Town Clerks Association data – which also tracks years on the job and total compensation (i.e. stipends). WC says when you correlate by size of town and years of service (in Belmont’s case: 2 years), the number is $65,000. Hmmm….doesn’t look good for Ellen!

Don Mercier is up to ask how big the Town Clerk staff at comparable towns. Good question!! Roy says they only considered full time clerks. Comparability of the office – Roy called around to different towns to ask about similarity of the job and seems satisfied that this is an apples:apples comparison in terms of job description and staffing. The discussion quickly gets heated, as defenders of our Town Clerk challenge the effort to knock down the salary level. Folks against this are saying 1) Ellen’s doing a great job (hard to argue), 2) Its a tough job – fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay 3) $72k is a living wage – this whole discussion is unseemly and not the way to do this, even though we can. I think folks like the idea of controlling salary growth, but singling out the two positions that TM actually controls isn’t going to accomplish that and the WC isjust  looking small and mean here. You’re a small, mean committee, Warrant Committee!! Mark P of the BOS is saying that the BOS is pursuing a top-down salary review of non-elected employees. Question: Town Clerk and Treasurer: how does oversight of those positions compare to non-elected town employees.

UPDATE: Oh G-d, this is such a flog. The motion passes by a narrow margin. I voted against it – Clerk should be appointed, not elected, same with the Treasurer. WC is trying to make a “point” here with this $10k salary increase – thereby missing the large “point” altogether.

UPDATE: Article 12: $150,000 transferred from the sale of cemetery plots. Passes unanimously. RIP.

UPDATE: Article 10: These are big $$ transfers from Sewer and Stormwater Enterpise Fund for water and sewer functions. These are fully funded from water and sewer rates – $5m and $7m. These are self sustaining funds, paid for by fees.  Both items pass unanimously.

UPDATE: Article 9: (Last one of the evening): Sum of $2m appropriated for public safety, public works, maintenance, etc. This is a dog’s dinner of different items – a boiler at BHS. Snow plow replacements, sidewalks and pavement management, networking equipment for the BPD, etc. etc. Site improvements: tennis court resealing. Hopefully we don’t go down a rabbit hole on this one.

On the table here is around $8.5 million in state grant money at some point in the future – probably July 2011. This should be a no-brainer, given that voting “yes” doesn’t compel the Town to spend any money on anything – or even form a building committee, while voting “no” forecloses on Belmont getting state money to build a new library anytime in the foreseeable future (read: the next 20-30 years).  The Warrant Committee, Capital Budget Committee and Board of Selectmen have all weighed in for approval of this, but we’ll see. The Tea Party line on this is “NO NO NO!” but not sure how many of them are in the audience.

Thanks to Sara Masucci for letting me bum a Smartie!

Matt Lowrie of the Library Board of Trustees (hereafter LBoT) is speaking and we’re getting to the elephant in the living room around the new library: the current softball field or soccer field gets nixed with the new library design. I’m ready to say goodbye to the softball field if I don’t have to sit in a cramped, 40 year old study carol with frayed wires hanging off of it when I want some quiet space to work, aren’t you? Given the narrowness of the available, non-playing field space, without nixing the softball field, our new library will most likely have to look something like this:

our new library? don't count on it!

State requirements say, based on Belmont’s population and use statistics for the existing, 29,000 square foot structure, we need to build a 45,000 square foot library to qualify for State matching funds. Plusses: modern infrastructure (like fire suppression and air conditioning) as well as AWDA compliance – which our current library doesn’t have and which we’re one good lawsuit away from having to offer at a cost of about 30% of the current usable space.

Belmont library stats:

• 313,000 annual visits last year – more than 1,000 a day!!
• 15,000 registered users.
• Current estimate on costs: $18.5m. State funds: $8.5m, $3m private fund raising, around $600,000 in pocket and $250 promised already. Estimated around $22m to build in current location.
• New library cost per house: $5/month or $60/year.
• This may work with other capital plans (like the police station)

Costs of doing nothing:

• $3.4m for roof, elevator, hvac, fire suppression
• $2.2m front steps, carpet and asbestos tile, power
• Accessibility: $1.0m – still has vacuum tubes (cool!)
• $60,000 for glazing, partitions
• Total: $3.4m to $6.6m.

Thanks to Sara Masucci for letting me bum a Sweet Tart!

School Committee has voted neither for nor against this plan because they don’t have enough information on what the building will look like and what the contingency plans for the softball field are. The BSC is worried about issues like accreditation for the school, adequate compensation for the land that is currently used as a softball field. Mark Paolillo of the Board of Selectmen says that everyone will work hard to find a solution to the softball field.

Question: how can we even talk about a new library when everything is going to pot in town?!

OHYMYGOD!! ZOMBIE INVASION AT TOWN MEETING!!! THEY’RE EVERYWHERE!! AAAARHHHGHGHGH!!!! THEY’RE EATING BRAINS!!

Zombies are at town meeting!!! Aaargh!

Anne Rittenburg is taking the time to skewer the library plan. Four words: heavily. ulitilized. athletic.facility. Matt Lowrie: analysis paralysis – we’ve been studying the bejezus out of this for a decade and now all we need to do is give the green light to possibly qualifying for state matching funds for almost 50% of this project at some point in the future (subject to Town Meeting approval, of course).

UPDATE: Lots of debate – mostly about the advisability of building a new library, which is – in moderator Widmer’s words – “out of scope” for the question. Someone suggests that Belmont’s fabled fire bug have a go at our fire suppression-less, fifty year old library and, with that, the question is smartly moved. We approve it heartily.

Article 17 gets pulled for some reason – whatever happened to the governance reform recommendations? This is one of them.

UPDATE: Article 18 regarding addresses in town. There’s an article to give the Board of Selectmen clear authority to appoint Town employees to oversee the numbering of all taxable and non-taxable properties. This could have a real impact on my plan to unilaterally relist my property as 54 7/8 Cross Street!

Dave Petto: IT Director for Belmont is addressing TM on Article 18. This article is brought to you by “all the departments in town.”  Turns out that all the different town computers have separate and non-reconciled address tables for properties in town. Example: Assessors table has parcel addresses, but not separate per-unit addresses for multi unit addresses. Verizon e-911, tax assessors addresses, etc. Apparently, correlating these addresses is a huge job and adding lots of overhead to Town departments. IT wants one address table that all the departments can reference. Makes sense to me.  I’m ready to vote “Yes.”

Question: will this bylaw require anyone to change their address, get a new license? Glen Clancy – short answer “Yes” but only in instances where there are inconsistencies or some safety issues. Glen virtually guarantees that folks in multi unit buildings won’t need to get a new address. Emphasis on “virtually.”

Question: What do other towns do about this? Are we ahead? Are we behind?

Glen Clancy: “I wouldn’t say we’re behind, I’d say we’re not…ahead.”

We vote to approve this common sense request from the town. No surprise.

UPDATE: OK. We just voted to dismiss something. I don’t know what it was. Article 19: The Tree Bylaw. (Thanks, Sara!)

UPDATE: On to Article 20: Stretch Energy Code. Even getting the right slide up on screen was a major and complex issue involving Town Counsel. That’s a sign that this Article is gonna rock!!

Moderator Widmer is suggesting that we “postpone” this Article. Or table it. Or take it out into the parking lot and shoot it. We’re all strongly in favor. Roger Colton moves to table. There are 50 “seconds” to this. We’re putting it off until later.

Suggestion: when we get amended bylaws how about putting the italics on the new stuff?!?!

UPDATE: Article 21: Community Preservation Act – there are three amendments to the original motion. This is gonna be a good one. Oop! We’re punting this one till Wednesday’s meeting, too. This is easy!!

UPDATE: Article 22: This one gives the Town Clerk the ability to distribute notices of pending Town Meetings to Town Meeting members electronically to the verbiage about distributing notice to TM members. This one should win easy approval – what with e-mail entering its third decade. We learn Don Mercer doesn’t have an e-mail account. Approved.

UPDATE: Article 23: Mike Liebenson of Warrant Committee is introducing this one, which is about consolidating the Town and School Dept. maintenance and facilities functions. Voting for this will authorize the Board of Selectmen, School Committee and School Dept. to implement a consolidation.

Looooong wind up to this article by Mike. I could do it in five words: This Will Save Us Money. Besides, my laptop is running out of juice. Can’t mike see the blinking battery light from up at the podium?!?

I’m not sure what this does – except counter the idea that Belmont spends extravagantly on its schools. Indeed, we perform in the top percentile, but spend per resident in the middle of the curve, so that would seem to suggest that our district is over performing. Of course, a look at the top spending districts per resident quickly shows that the correlation between per resident spending and performance doesn’t hold up. While almost all the top performing districts are in the top 100 in per resident school expenditures, its also true that some low performing districts are among the top ranked in per resident school spending.

This was a very informative session. When I got there around 7:45 p.m. they were in “executive session”. That means closed doors. They kicked out the only person present, Franklin Tucker from the Patch so I joined him pacing the floors of the Chenery halls.  When the doors opened again, we went in only Frank had to leave after briefly talking to Floyd Carman. Of course, BMC guy went back in too.

• First issue: Chief Frizzell brought up some pretty bad news – unbudgeted news. Fire dept. ran into health care costs plus overtime, both unforseen (really?) and he has to pay very soon two rather huge bills one for $50K and the other for $75K.  I will not go into details about Chief Frizzell’s breaking news, just mentioned it briefly, you can watch BMC.
• Second, last on the agenda & most important issue: Allocation between schools and town. Chairwoman, Liz Allison reminded everybody some background info: when WC initially decided the allocation, they all agreed that they will go back and reconsider it later. The split right now stands at 47% for the town and 53% for the schools. She then presented a bunch of her personal arguments against revisiting: 1) revisiting the allocation will be “consuming and divisive”, 2) it will be “desensitizing for the town managers” and 3) something else I didn’t capture in my notes, all I wrote is “compensation and productivity” – I don’t know what that was all about. Then she asked the entire WC to express their opinion on this issue. There were probably 10 + people who spoke and they were ALL in favor of revisiting the allocation issue.  Their reasons:  1) keep their word on what they said they will do and 2) their sense of great importance this issue has. Liz Allison accepted and the meeting ended.

There were two important points relevant to the override are to be noted.

1. First, the word “override” was used generously.  Secondly, it was discussed that if the allocation will be changed and/or an override is the only solution to make this budget work the only workable arrangement was that the WC will have to finalize this work ON MAY 6.  The last week of April was briefly considered but everybody agreed they could not get it done by then but May 6 was going to work for putting an override on the ballot in June.
2. The tone and discussion were very much supportive of an override.  If I got this correctly the talk at this point changed from a matter of IF to a matter of HOW big of an override we need. The exact words were ” a clear amount for the override”. I think it’s good news that we don’t have uncertainty now but that we moved into a phase of clarifying the amount.

Next Wednesday night, in the community room at Chenery there will be a WC meeting where they will revisit the allocation. I encourage you all to go. It’s a different experience if you are there than if you watch it on TV. We can’t talk.  But we can listen.  And that might prove even more important for this campaign.

Ralph Jones (Chair): Ralph.Jones@cadmusgroup.com
Angelo Firenze: angelo@angelofirenze.com
Mark Paolillo:  mpaolillo@belmont-ma.gov

-Paul

++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Friends,

Over the past seven years that I have been associated with the Belmont Public Schools, I have witnessed the gap between the high expectations for program offerings and the revenue available to pay for them grow annually.  In each succeeding budget cycle, I’ve watched the community employ a combination of “one-time” solutions, such as the use of funds from revolving accounts or the transfer of “free cash,” coupled with reductions in services that were palatable to the community, such as losses in clerical and custodial positions, deferred maintenance, and implementation of “Users’ Fees,” in order to bridge the gap.  While these solutions allowed us to operate as “normally” as possible from year to year, they did not address the underlying structural problem that our non-discretionary costs are outpacing the annual increases in revenue that the schools receive under Proposition 2 1/2.

Last month, Superintendent Entwistle presented three budget scenarios to the School Committee for next year, Fiscal Year 2012 (FY ‘12).  The first scenario outlined a “Mission Critical” Budget.  This budget proposal restored for FY ‘12 many programs that have been cut or intentionally underfunded over the past several years.  In order to implement this budget, funding to the schools would need to increase by approximately $2.9 million over FY ‘11, to a total of $43,526,480.  The second budget scenario presented represented a “Level Services” budget.  In this scenario, the Belmont Public Schools would continue to offer our current FY ‘11 programs.  Given the non-discretionary increases that must be built into the FY ’12 budget, such as contractual obligations, health care, insurance, out of district special education tuitions, and utilities and the loss of “one-time” federal stimulus grant monies provided to the district in FY ‘11, the town’s funding of the schools will have to increase an additional $1.9 million to 42,652,566 in order to provide the same services as today.  A third scenario, the “Available Revenue” budget, represents the funding that is currently projected to be available for the schools, or $40,574,854.  The gap between the Available Revenue Budget and our program needs has become so great that we cannot continue to offer the same level of service that the community has come to expect.

In order to meet the reduced dollar amounts projected in the Available Revenue Budget for FY ‘12, the “regular day” program at Belmont High School will see cuts that approach $550,000.  This figure does not include reductions that will also be made to athletic and extra-curricular programs at BHS.  Prior reductions in the areas of support staff, equipment, maintenance and instructional materials made over the past several years and the sheer size of this year’s shortfall have left us with little option other than to focus our reductions on programs that provide direct services to students.  The chart below outlines our current thinking regarding the reductions in terms of the loss of positions to both teaching and support staff.  Cuts to teaching staff will affect academic areas across the building, totaling a loss of 10.85 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions.  For the purposes of budgeting, every .2 is equivalent to one full-year course section.  Five sections are therefore equivalent to a 1.0, or a full-time teaching position.   The loss of 10.85 positions translates to a 15.5% reduction in the total number of teachers at Belmont High School.  Other reductions include the replacement of our professional librarian with a “monitor,” the elimination of one professional aide position, and reductions in teaching supplies.

*Amounts are based on $45,000 for 1.0 FTE per classroom teacher (Master’s Degree, Step 3 salary minus cost of unemployment benefits) and $22,500 per professional aide.

The reductions outlined in this chart will substantially alter the programs that we will be able to offer.  In English and Mathematics, our overall class sizes will increase, and sections that are currently dedicated to providing students with remedial services will be eliminated.  This increase in class size and the loss of extra support will also necessitate that the English Department’s Senior Thesis Project be suspended from the list of graduation requirements at Belmont High School.

These cuts will also substantially change our Science Program.  The reduction of 3.85 FTE in Science will be accomplished by adding a fifth section to each remaining science teacher’s current four course load.  Adding this section will mean that all science classes will be reduced by one, twenty-five minute “mod” per week.  Because of the reduction in learning time, Science classes will be restructured so they contain fewer laboratory experiences.  The addition of a fifth section to science teachers’ schedules will also mean the elimination of our Freshman Advisory Class that was implemented this year.

Staff reductions in Social Studies, Foreign Language, and Music will dramatically alter the variety of elective courses we will be able to offer.  In Social Studies, the reduction of two teaching positions will be reflected in the elimination of ten sections, nine of which will be elective courses.  The reduction of 2.8 FTE in Foreign Language will be accomplished through the elimination of all language courses above “Level IV,” including Advanced Placement offerings in French, Latin and Spanish.  In Music, a one section reduction will be accomplished through the combination of multiples levels of Choral Classes.

Reductions to the “non-teaching” side of our program will be no less dramatic. The elimination of our Professional Librarian Position will mean the end of the lending of books and the provision of reference support.  It will also mean Belmont High School will no longer be eligible to offer many of the free online databases that are currently available to students through the school’s website.  This elimination of our library program will also place our accreditation status with the New England Association of Schools and Colleges into jeopardy.

In order to ensure that all students are fully scheduled and meet our remaining graduation requirements, we will also need to restructure the sequence of courses that students may choose for their schedule.  In the new system, students will follow the sequence of courses outlined in the table below.  In order to maintain acceptable class sizes and to ensure that there are sufficient elective seats, we will need to change several current practices.  One change will be to discontinue the practice of allowing students to take two courses in a given discipline simultaneously.  In order to ensure that all students will have access to a more limited number of Advanced Placement offerings, no student will be allowed to enroll in more than three AP courses in a given school year.  Finally, elective offerings in Social Studies will be limited to seniors only.

I will be presenting this plan along with a list of changes to our credit and graduation requirements that need to be approved by the School Committee at its March 1^st meeting.  I will also be participating with the district’s entire administrative team in our annual budget overview meeting on Saturday, March 5^th.  I encourage you to watch these meetings yourself, either live or on Belmont Community Access TV, to learn about the changes to the district that are being contemplated in the Available Funds Budget scenario, and to make your opinions known regarding the direction of these changes to your elected officials.

As all budgets are a reflection of the current state of reality at a specific moment in time, I fully expect there will be changes to the Belmont Public School’s FY ’12 budget between now and the end of “budget season” in early June.  I will do my best to keep you informed of any changes that occur as a result of new budget scenarios to our plans for next year.

Sincerely,

Mike

Michael Harvey, Ed.D.

Principal

Belmont High School

221 Concord Ave.

Belmont, MA 02478

At stake is a more than $2 million gap between what the Town’s Warrant Committee has identified as “available revenue” for the schools and what the School Department has identified as its “mission critical” budget – in other words: a budget that represents the barest needs of the district if its to fulfill its stated educational mission.

As often happens in Belmont, the anger or misunderstanding about the School Department’s first try at a level service budget (which it now calls its “mission critical” budget) has put a bee in the bonnet of the town’s political class and become the focus of attention, rather than what matters: the really severe cuts to services that we all use and the likely increase in use and family fees that will accompany a failure to address Belmont’s budget gap.

As at last week’s meeting, the members of the Board of Selectmen this evening are likely to push back – asking whether the town and schools have done all they could to realize savings and questioning whether an override this years is the right thing for the town. They did so last week, with all three raising questions about the size and timing of an override.

What’s confusing to me is that, in the case of two Selectmen: Ralph Jones and Mark Paolillo, their position on the override is 180 degrees of what it was just last June when both (to their credit) stood up and took forceful political stands in favor of an override.

To underscore that, I’m posting links to some video testimonials that both made at the Belmont Town day last June ahead of the June 14 special vote for an override. I think both men speak eloquently for the need for an override. In his testimonial, Mark talks about the dire cuts to school and town services and on the urgent need for increased revenue, as well as an increased focus on cost savings.

“The revenues we expect without the override are insufficient to provide the services that we think the citizens of Belmont want…The basic question is ‘what level of services do the citizens of Belmont want and need, and how do we pay for those services,” Ralph says.

Mark similarly notes his belief that periodic overrides and other revenue infusions are unavoidable. The $3.5 million operating deficit “will result in significant cuts in town and school services. The (then) $2 million override is vital to avoid those cuts and for “long overdue capital projects,” as well as structural reforms that are meaningful and long term.

The question for those of you who are planning to attend tonight’s meeting, of course,will be “what has changed?”  If anything, between last spring and this fall the town’s operating deficit has only expanded, while federal stimulus funds that have floated us for the last two fiscal years are all but depleted. Given that, why is Belmont suddenly unworthy of an override whereas it was deserving, in the minds of both Ralph and Mark, in June? What money has the town wasted or what fat has been injected into our town and school operations that wasn’t there 9 months ago?

In fact, the only thing that has changed between now and then (besides the increasing volume of red ink) is that  the override campaign by One Belmont (of which I was a part) fell short by a couple hundred votes. Surely no “mandate,” and the throngs of folks who attended last week’s BOS meeting and have been e-mailing suggest that there’s considerable debate over Ralph’s question of whether Belmont really does want to be a town that settles for less a leaner, but also meaner version of what we have now.

And, if the reasoning is ‘I’m not for the override now because the last campaign for an override failed,’ then what they’re saying is that  their’s is merely a political stand with the “no” crowd versus a considered position that looks at the needs and interests of the whole town. In the meeting last week, both seemed concerned about the failure of the June “OneBelmont” effort. Mark noted that

“Last year’s override – and I supported it, I proposed it –  was a balanced approach to tax revenues – unfortunately it failed. It was $1 million for the schools, $600k for capital, and $400k for the town. But it failed. It was balanced, but it failed. It’s tricky. It’s tactically tricky, and getting the support. Many of us here are willing to pay more, I am, but there are many in town who cannot. We’re still in recovery mode. We have to take that into account – there are residents in this town who simply cannot afford a tax increase. There are families who we all know where one or both spouses are out of work and struggling to make ends meet but they want to stay in town. So we’re taking all of that into consideration.”

That’s well and good – but its not like the conditions in town have deteriorated any since last June. It’s not like we’re a mill town and the mill just closed. I don’t know what the unemployment rate is in Belmont or if its higher or lower than six months ago, but I’m willing to bet that its not appreciably different, and may even be better, given that the Massachusetts economy is faring better.

Ralph, also, said that “My reservation, is tactically, can we pass $3million. That’s all.”

I appreciate both Mark and Ralph’s support last year for OneBelmont, and hope to find them pushing for an override next year, but as I see it right now, both are being politicians, not leaders when it comes to the override question: dangling the possibility of “found money” which – even if it exists – will just be another one year band aid that will bring back the same divisions and arguments next year, and pushing to delay the question for a special election at the end of the year – at additional cost to the town.

As they said last June: the time is now – Belmont needs an override and it needs it now.