We’ve heard updates from State Sen. Will Brownsberger on the State budget – what’s bubbling this year (health insurance cost containment) and what’s on track for next year (infrastructure). Paul Solomon followed with an update on the Belmont Conservation Commission, which we voted to create last year. Now Liz Allison of Warrant Committee is talking about the budget – and why its so “good” this year compared to last. (I’d argue that, under the covers, its not so good, but that’s another post.) Liz tells us that we’ve done well for a number of reasons: good timing, the absence of any increase in pension costs (whoa) as well as better management and cooperation between WC, SC and the School Administration. The town did a better job on revenue estimates and more timely information from the town assessors. We (like other towns) took advantage of the ability to raise meals and rooming taxes to generate extra revenue and caught a break with state aid. Behind the scenes: we were able to refinance borrowing on the Town Hall and Fire Station, saving a total of $1.4m. Structural reform: renegotiate health care insurance for savings of $385k and ongoing savings of $415k.  This is all very rosy – unusual (if you’ve been following this blog). But I worry about next year…and it looks like Liz is, also.

FY2014 and beyond…

• Big challenge: revenue growth. Development is great: $25m development = $300k in tax revenue (before any addtl services are considered. I’ll note that Liz has effectively popped the “grow our way out of the deficit” argument. Everyone note this.
• Ongoing problems: pension obligations long term and short term – OPEB benefits. FY12: $2.9m in liabilities, will increase every year from 2013 on. $3m is a big number.
• Cash compensation: school side – teacher contracts that, by 2014, if no turnover: salary increase of 5.9% per annum. Also management compensation: 1% to 2% per year, regardless of performance.
• Committee on government structure: reforms suggested in structure of town government – more effective. Hopeful will happen quickly
• Backlog of infrastructure and capitol projects. For each $1m, tax bill goes up by $10.50 per family. $100m = $1,000 increase in taxes.

UPDATE: Now Mark Paolillo, Chairman of the BOS is speaking about 2014 outlook. Mark is also lauding the collaborative and cooperative budgeting process in the 2013 budget planning process. BOS – met with department heads to talk about long term ideas/plans, strategically. Issues faced with: policy, strategic planning, innovation. Figure out how to deliver services differently. Money will never catch up with need. Finance team for BOS worked collaboratively with finance team for school. Enhanced line of communication with Warrant Committee and SC. Etc. etc.

Going forward: Mark says we need long term financial and capitol plan. Soon. After this meeting ends. Framework – next three to five years. What do finances look like. Board will meet with dept. heads: what do differently. Innovation – DPW – how deliver services differently. Not easy. Think about innovation, structural reform.

UPDATE: 8:32: The love in continues: we’re zooming through all the major funding articles for Schools, Public Safety, Minuteman, etc. There are lots of mumbles – this is quite unexpected, given how contentious budget meetings have been in recent years. Jack is talking about funding for Minuteman, which is around $939k. Liz Allison has already noted, sagely, that this is a drop in the bucket of our $80m town budget, but its substantial money, nonetheless, and folks feel very frustrated that we’re locked into this arrangement with no ability to have a say in costs and no way to withdraw from the union.

UPDATE: 8:45: We knock off more line items on Article 4: Public Safety, Arts and Recreation, Debt and Interest, and Capital Expenditures.

UPDATE: 8:48: Anne Marie Mahoney Chair of the Capital Budget Committee talking about requests for FY13 – big ticket items this year were:

• $900k for a ladder truck for BFD
• A new BHS Footb all Field Turf for $840K
• Higginbottom Pool Energy System $275k
• New BHS Football field Turf…

I’m ready to vote right now on that energy system. So tired of cold showers at the Higginbottom!!

Anne Marie is now talking about guidelines for what does and doesn’t qualify for consideration by the Capital Budget Committee (CBC). Departments, always short of cash, have been looking to the CBC to fund so-called “orphan” projects.

Anne Marie says the CBC will spend time off season to examine Capital Projects and find a way to deal with so many Capital needs and so little time/money.

Expenditures this year:

• Repaving BHS lot (yes!)  ($100k)
• Replace oil burner at Butler ($50k)
• New large air flow fans and vents for field hous
• Network switching equipment ($60k)
• Butler gym floor
• New sidewalks: $140k (yes)
• Electronic voting for Town Meeting (yes!) ($19.5k)
• Water main replacement…etc.

UPDATE: 9:03: We’re asked to appropriate $1.4m for lease or purchase of public safety equipment and $1.02m for various Capital projects. This will likely get questions…these line items often do. For example – there’s a line item for $28k for the brand new Beech Street center. What’s up with that?

We’re now hearing about the Grove Street Tennis Courts. This was an item that came up two years ago. Back then, the Town Rec Dept. had let the courts deteriorate to such a state that they stopped hanging nets because the courts were so cracked as to be dangerous to use. The Town then argued that use of the courts (which had no nets) was _way_ down and that they could be demolished. Residents objected and organized to save the courts. Now we’re here to vote for money to resurface the courts and get them back into working order.

Question about the shabby chairs in the BHS auditorium? Why not replace them. Anne Marie says: its a bigger job than it looks like, but she’ll work on it. The seats really are shabby and still have the 1970 orange seat coverings. So old that they’re new again. Alas, many are in disrepair.

Shabby Chic?

Now we’re asking about the two elementary school parks that need replacement – Joeys Park at Winn Brook and the park at Butler. Anne Marie: playgrounds are big ticket items. Belmont School Dept. needs to figure out where they fit in their priority list and Joey’s Park renovation must come from Parks and Recreation.

UPDATE: 9:32PM: OK – the playground issue has emerged as the bone of contention at this Town Meeting. I was wondering what it would be. Often these passionate debates are over small line items with high symbolic import. This is a classic example: parks and playgrounds for kids – what could be more central to a Town of Homes like Belmont? It also touches on some of the inequity that parents of students in some schools feel exists in town. Right now: both Joey’s Park at Winn Brook and the Butler playground are slated to be replaced. The difference is that Joey’s Park is on Town Dept. of Rec land, and Butler is on School Dept. land. Anne Marie Mahoney is now explaining why the Capital Budget Committee gave short shrift to the playgrounds in its planning and allocations for 2013.

Now Don Mercier is speaking – he’s back to the seats in the Auditorium – that is, how much they suck!! (My word, not Don’s.) I’m with you, sir! Let’s storm the gates!!

Don thinks we should go back to the manufacturer and get replacement parts or even ask for our money back – these things only lasted 41 years!!!

That’s sweet. Some investigation reveals the manufacturer was Haywood-Wakefield – a fairly famous name in mid century furniture (now collectible). Alas, according to Wikipedia, their Gardner, MA factory closed in 1979, according to Wikipedia. Sorry, Don – maybe we should reach out to the folks in China?

Now there’s a motion afoot to reallocate the $19.5k for the electronic voting response system to the Butler playground. Good move politically – hard to justify an electronic voting system when kids don’t have a playground to go to at recess. Let’s hope this gets done. I think the SC and town leadership are deaf about this, hopefully this will wake them up.

I just spoke in favor of the Butler amendment. This is Belmont’s progressive Town Meeting at its best – the Butler playground issue has been on the slow track. This is the community saying “this should be a priority.” Now we’re going all in – motion to move the $60k from the consolidated facilities audit to the Butler Playground. Getting it funded now. Mary Anne is saying, as politely as possible, “don’t go there.” Moderator Widmer is (rightly) saying “no.” This is substantive amendment and can’t be introduced on the floor. You’ve got to introduce these amendments in advance.  Mr. Kazanjian (?)

More people speaking in favor of the $19.5 and asking town leaders to sacrifice from their budgets for the Butler Playground. Contentious – there’s not much fat in any of these budgets – but play spaces need to be a priority.

We don’t vote on anything – just listen and applaud.

Next up, after the tabling of items, shift from Town Meeting to Special Town Meeting and such, is a $48,000 allocation for repairs (unanticipated) on Minuteman Technical. As with most things, this is a pure formality, as we have very little ability to control costs here. Pursuant to a question about the size of the allotment to Belmont – $48,000 for a $480,000 repair, Jack Weiss explains that allotments are proportional to the size of the town’s contingent and that Belmont’s contingent is the third largest and represents around 10% of the Minuteman student body. That struck me as strange, as Belmont only sends around 35 students to Minuteman. Turns out, of course, that the allotment is based on your school’s percentage of the MEMBER TOWN enrollment. Belmont’s 35 students are actually just 5% of the 785 student Minuteman population, but 9.5% of the 430 member district population. Non member towns, by law, can’t be asked to contribute to these types of capital projects – they can only be asked to pay tuition. And, as Jack explains, that tuition has already been raised in recent years. So, in short, we’re scr**wed (again). My sense is that we’re not going to wiggle out of this, so we better find a way to turn MinuteMan into a resource that we can use. I’m open to suggestions.

Mark Paolillo, BOS Chair, runs down our sources of surplus, one time funds. Long and short: snow. Between $1ook or so from FEMA to help us pay for the 2010-2011 storms, and $250k in savings because of the mild 2011-2012 season, and some supplemental FY12 local aid from the state, we’ve got an extra $500k or so to play with. The proposal before us now is to use this to create a SPED Stabilization Fund to help offset future, unanticipated special education costs. As well as $140k for a facilities management funds and around $105k for an OPEB (Other Post Employments Benefits) contribution – this includes health benefits, insurance benefits and deferred compensation for former employments. A tiny drop in a deep deep bucket for Belmont, given our unfunded liabilities, which is $183,000,000. But it shows good faith to our lenders (i.e. Moody’s) which is inquiring about our plans for an OPEB stabilization fund and policies to help pay for our unfunded liabilities. This transfer shows that we are serious about honoring our benefits to former employees. We need that AAA rating, baby.

We’re now debating the merits of this stabilization fund. Props to Liz Allison of Warrant Committee who is speaking in support of this idea. Evidence of increased comity (kind of) between Warrant Committee and School Committee. Karen Parmett (former SC meeting) now making a smart and important point: that the Town has historically stuck its head in the sand re: SPED costs – in other words: we recognized that, historically, they went up around 10 percent annually, we only budgeted to accommodate the SPED students already in the system – in other words: we budgeted aspirationally, but in the face of hard facts. Good idea, no?

We vote (almost) unanimously for the OPEB allocation after some dire talk about our unfunded liabilities.

We vote for the ~$100k allocation for facilities management.

Article 11 – this is all about the Trapelo Road reconstruction. We need to find space for a bike lane. The Belmont Housing Authority has some land along Trapelo rd and Mill street. This would be a land taking.
There are lots of questions about how the work, which will begin in 2013, will change the Trapelo Rd. corridor. This is all good news and desperately needed. The $100k is, we’re told, for the cost of the takings and easements from private owners.
We vote unanimously in favor of passage.

On to the contentious issue of (ugly) solar panel installations.

First let me say this: I served on School Committee, and its no walk in the park. For most of the school year, there are meetings every week. Come budget season, or if there are union contract negotiations going on, you often have more than one meeting a month: morning and evening. The issues involved are highly complex, and there are no easy solutions to be found. We all love kids and schools and teachers and the paintings of the butterflies on the fridge. But, for the purposes of School Committee, its better to just think of our public schools as a $40 million a year non-profit with hundreds of union- and non-union employees operating in a cash starved and highly regulated industry: public education.

That’s why I’m so excited by the candidacies of Anne Lougee and Pascha Griffiths this election season. Both are serious and thoughtful candidates who have a lot to offer our community.

Lougee Brings Experience, Understanding

Anne brings a wealth of knowledge of the Belmont schools to the table, and direct experience as an interim member of the current Committee. Of all the candidates, I think Anne has done the best job articulating the unique challenges facing our public schools. Anne speaks and writes eloquently about our need to restore financial stability to our district, and has done the best job in describing the inexorable cuts that have been made in recent years, and in making the case that so-called “level service” budgets are anything but.  Anne has made the argument well that the continued strength of our public schools demands that we fully fund the programs that we rely on to build great students. Like every candidate, Anne knows that budgets are balancing acts, and that these lean times call for compromises. But she’s uncompromising on the issues that matter: our need – as a community – to support the work of teachers in the classroom and create the environment for success: with manageable class size and first-rate administrators, curriculum and teacher support.

In the last ten years, we’ve seen a steady erosion of support for many of those programs, coupled with a steep increase in fees (just a “tax” by another name) to pay for cuts in the core operational budget of the schools. Anne is right to note – as she did in this statement in the Patch – that those fees amount to a barrier to entry that can keep children from families of modest means from participating in the full range of extracurricular activities. Anne is a great candidate for the Committee and I look forward to voting for her on Monday!

Pascha Griffiths: A Welcome, New Face With Smarts, Energy and Experience

Pascha Griffiths has impressed everyone who has met her with her energy, drive and the seriousness that she’s shown in this – her first run for town wide office. I’ve had the pleasure of chatting with Pascha on the phone and I hung up thinking “Wow!” A professional educator by training, and the founder of an educational non profit  – the Possibilities Factory – Griffiths has a wonderful combination of the skills and experience the School Committee needs. That’s especially true as our district looks to hire a new Superintendent and revise the district’s curriculum to reflect the needs and priorities of a new century: team-building and new delivery models that get us past the “chalk and talk” of the last sixty years. Pascha’s work and education prepare her supremely well for this task.

As for Pascha’s other main plank: using grant money to offset direct funding of the school system through commercial and residential taxes? I think its a great idea, and one that Pascha, as someone who has worked as the head of a non-profit can provide excellent guidance on. Of course, adding a development officer or a full time grant writer will require a short term expenditure, even if the long term benefits (grant money, etc.) more than pays for the position.  I also think it unlikely that Belmont will see more than small changes at the edges of its budget through grants.

What I like about Pascha’s platform, however, is her willingness to approach an old problem (budget shortfalls) with a fresh idea – to see possibilities, rather than just obstacles in her efforts to solve concrete problems. I look forward to casting my vote for Pascha tomorrow for School Committee. I hope you’ll join me!

Dan's the Choice For Selectman

Our annual town election is upon us. If you’ve been counting lawn signs and following the contested races – particularly those for Selectman and School Committee – you know that its going to be a close election. So, with the polls set to open bright and early tomorrow, I thought it was the right time to make Bloggingbelmont’s pick for the major, contested races.

First off: the Board of Selectman race. This is a two-person contest to replace outgoing Selectman, Angelo Firenze.  I’ll be voting for Dan Scharfman to take Angelo’s place on the Board of Selectman tomorrow. 

I should start by saying, in the interest of full disclosure, that I have volunteered for Dan’s campaign and helped design and run the campaign Web site. I should also add that Dan is a good friend of mine: a frequent partner on long runs out on the Minuteman Trail or (Dan’s preference) up and down Arlington Heights. Running gives you lots of empty hours to talk. Dan and my talks have run the gamut: kids, marriage, marathoning and – of course- town politics. We’ve both served on School Committee (though I’d note that Dan’s tenure has been both more distinguished and less rocky than my own).

Looking at this objectively, though, I think there’s an abundance of evidence that Dan is the right choice in the Selectman’s race, and what Belmont needs to move the Board Of Selectman (and Belmont) into the future. His intelligence, patience, work ethic, and his preference for facts over ideology will be a welcome addition to our understaffed and overtaxed Board. Dan’s talent for bridging political divides and finding consensus among opposing constituencies may mean that he’s nobody’s darling, politically. But it also makes him a perfect fit for the job of Belmont Selectman. When it comes to qualifications: Dan has already spent two years on School Committee – a highly visible, elected town-wide office. His service there is proof, if any was needed, of his professionalism, commitment and attention to detail – key qualities in a political environment in which there are no easy choices to be made.

As for the race: both Andy and Dan have run clean campaigns and both have articulated a positive vision for the town’s future. It’s heartening that both candidates for Selectman recognize the need to diversify the town’s finances, maintain the excellence of its school system and make government more efficient. Read between the lines, however, and there are real differences between the two Selectman candidates.

Dan has spoken repeatedly of the need for a long-term vision and plan for the town. He has made the case, forcefully, for the need to reform the way Belmont does business. For Dan, this doesn’t  mean slashing services to reduce the tax burden. It means having a plan for the future that Belmontonians support and then putting people in the key positions, town-wide, to get us there.

Dan sees his role as Selectman not as an opportunity to impose his vision on the town, but as an opportunity to devolve responsibility from the Board. By putting the town’s business in the hands of smart, competent executives, administrators and professionals – rather than part time, underpaid Selectman – we can find the efficiencies and the new revenue sources we need. Therein, we’ll find a path out of the budgetary and political woods. Dan’s three decades of experience as a technology consultant helping cash-strapped non-profits implement money saving technologies has been great preparation for the work ahead as Selectman.

Mr. Rojas, on the other hand, is offering more of what we’ve had for the last six years with retiring Selectman Angelo Firenze. There are promises of big savings through “consolidation” of services like IT, public works, and building services. This, even though repeated assessments of such proposals over the years have found slim savings – and, in some cases, higher costs- through consolidation in those areas. This is a far cry from  the millions needed to repair Belmont’s structural budget deficit.

There’s the requisite line about the need to “support the schools.” (You don’t get elected in Belmont without saying that.) I think, in Mr. Rojas’s case, the “I support the public schools” line is directly contradicted by the same “earn your override” intransigence that has led to the steady degradation of our public school system and town services under Mr. Firenze’s tenure.

What Belmont needs is a Board of Selectmen that is interested in doing what it takes to make Belmont a better place to live five years from now than it is today. We need leadership to move us beyond the chaos of budget gaps, one time funds  and “level service” budgeting. We need leaders who will preserve what makes Belmont great, while beginning to move us towards those things that will make us even greater. If you care about Belmont and its future, then your choice is clear. Vote Dan Scharfman for Selectman at the polls tomorrow!

What’s clear, when you look at the data, is that there are two kinds of towns, roughly speaking: those that need to pass Proposition 2 1/2 overrides to keep their finances in order and those that don’t. Further: within the group of towns that need to raise property tax revenues above the 2 1/2 percent annual net increase that Prop 2 1/2 law allows, there are those towns that have a track record of passing overrides, and those that don’t.

That distinction has become increasingly important in the last 10 years, as governors, starting with Mitt Romney, began cutting back on local aid and the Massachusetts and then the national economy faltered. With cuts in both State and Federal aid, towns of all sizes were presented with stark choices: raise extra tax revenue by voting an override of Proposition 2 1/2, find other sources of revenue, or do more with less (i.e. reduce town and school services).

The question, as always, is “which kind of town do I live in? One that passes overrides or one that doesn’t?” While its easy enough to go on line and figure it out, its harder to compare your town to other “peer” towns to see how you stack up. In Belmont, April 2, 2012 will mark 10 years since the passage of the last non debt-exclusion Proposition 2 1/2 override. That’s a long time, but its useful here to compare our drought with those of our peer communities. That’s what I’ve tried to do here: using some simple data visualization tools, I’ve created a graphic that shows which of the top towns – Belmont’s peers — have passed Proposition 2 1/2 Overrides, when and for how much. (Note: debt exclusions for capital projects – like our own vote for the Wellington – are not included here). I chose these towns by looking at the top performing districts, state wide, on the SAT tests. And I’ve thrown in close neighbors (like Arlington) for good measure.

One thing that’s clear in looking at this graphic is that Belmont is at the low end of the scale in terms of the number and size of its overrides. Clearly towns like Lexington, Concord, Carlisle, Sudbury and Wellesley have passed more Proposition 2 1/2 overrides. Just as interesting: no other town among this peer group has gone longer than Belmont without passing an override. Newton, also, passed its latest override in 2002 – though Newton is a city, not a town, and that override was a mammoth $10 million + nut.

Proposition 2 1/2 Overrides - 1999 to 2011 (Source: DESE)

Of course there are always criticisms about the “peer group.” When Tony Schinella was editor of the Citizen Herald, he argued long and hard that our peer districts weren’t towns like Weston, Wellesley and Concord. He felt that, demographically and in terms of the town’s finances, it wasn’t fair to make those comparisons. To that, I always said “phooey.” Most families moving to Belmont consider it an exclusive suburb with excellent schools – just like Wellesley, Lexington, Concord and Weston. And they’re willing to pay a premium to get into it. Telling those folks that we shouldn’t be comparing ourselves to such districts is kind of a non-starter, as far as I and most newer home owners are concerned. There are, indeed, many and important differences between all these towns and its silly to just gloss over them. The fact remains, however, that these are the top performing school districts in the state, and some of its most desirable places to buy a house, live and raise a family. Ask a realtor in town and they’ll tell you that Belmontonians would do well to make sure that their town’s name continues to mentioned in the same breath as the towns on this list.

Interested in your thoughts. I hope you enjoy it.

Allow me to pair this with a new report out from the Council on Foreign Relations that argues that the U.S.’s failing public education system represents a real and present threat to our national security. Among the problems, CFR says, is that – despite being a nation of immigrants – 80% of U.S. residents are monolingual, with the teaching of foreign language decreasing, rather than increasing across the country. Huh? The story is here (with a link to the full report).

The angle for Belmont…umm…where do we start? How about starting foreign language instruction in the elementary grades? Increasing the percentage of bilingual educators in the system to facilitate that goal, providing immersion options for parents who are interested in a more  comprehensive approach to second language learning. It strikes me that the way Belmont teaches foreign languages today is pretty much how my school district taught them in the 1980s – despite the fact that we’re living in a global economy and we’ve learned so much more about the benefits of early language instruction!!

This piece profiles Dale Stephens, the 20 year old “dropout” who started UnCollege, a movement for folks who think that College is just “old technology.”  Dubbed “hacking your education,” UnCollege is kind of like a Khan Academy for 20 somethings – minus all the instructional video. Its really more of a manifesto right now to get young people to “deschool their mind” – think about what they’re really interested in doing and how they might achieve the learning and skills necessary to do that. With tuition at private colleges tipping $50,000 a year, and alternative, online models proliferating, I think UnCollege is on to something – what we need isn’t necessarily more folks in four year college, but more options for students of all stripes: training for skilled and mid skill professions, internships and apprenticeships for younger students, as well. Its worth a read. Check it out: http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/Dropouts-UnCollege-Path-to-Success-142656925.html

Long and short: we’ve got one strong “Yes” one “Maybe” and one “I need to think about it.”

First: the “maybe.” Candidate Anne Lougee is intrigued by the idea of online learning models such as the Khan Academy (which combines at home lessons online with in class “modules” that teachers supervise. But wonders about how it might be practically and fairly implemented in Belmont. All good questions.

As for the “Yes!!” Pascha Griffiths is a strong proponent of Khan and notes  that it offers some real advantages over the tried and true (and worn out): lecture in school, practice at home, while also giving students information in a format (YouTube videos) that they can relate to and work at their own pace to master. School time is then about honing what they’ve learned at home. She’s also the only candidate to note (thank you) that online models offer some relief to cash strapped districts like Belmont, which has already phased out the use of substitute teachers at the High School level for lack of funds. Pascha, like Anne, recognizes that the devil is in the details with any program like this – but thinks a pilot program offers lots of upside to Belmont with very little downside.

Matt Sullivan appears concerned with equal access: how will kids without computers at home use such a model. Its a fair question, but more or less a moot one in Belmont. According to Steve Mazzola, IT Director of the BPS, the percentage of students with access to a computer at home is well over 90%. (Steve and I discussed a “free laptop” type program 18 months ago). That’s not 100%, but shouldn’t be an obstacle to looking at online learning and more tech-centric education. After all, the District could easily provide refurbished/donated laptops to the small number of students who don’t have them should it decide to go with a model like Khan. Matt notes (correctly) that “nothing can replace teachers in the classroom.” True, of course, but Khan doesn’t suggest that. Rather, as Pascha noted, it merely allows teachers to stop acting like talking heads at the front of the class and start working like mentors and tutors – helping students on an individual basis to master what they can’t learn on their own. Great question, Patch!

Check all the responses in their entirety here:  Question of the Week: School Candidates Discuss Khan Academy – Belmont, MA Patch.

The meeting starts at 7:00pm. If you have questions in advance, you can call Senator Brownsberger’s Office at: 617 722 1280.

As I wrote back in January, the current plans, dubbed Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 cover the projected deficit by raising fare revenue and cutting service. Scenario 1 is projected to raise annual fare revenue by $123.2 million to $134.6 million, increasing fares by approximately 43.0 percent and saving approximately $38.3 million in operating costs through reduced service($161.5 million to $172.9 million in savings). Scenario 2 raises annual fare revenue by $86.8 million to $104.0 million – increasing fares by approximately 34.7 percent and saving $78.4 million in operating costs through reducing service ($165 million to $184 million in savings.) Scenario 1 is projected to result in a ridership loss of  between 34 and 48 million rides. Scenario 2 by 53 million to 64 million rides.

Both plans anticipate fare increases for both senior citizen and student fares, which are set to 50% of the adult fare. That’s a jump for senior citizen fares from the current 33% of the adult fare. Basically, the big difference is what “adult” fare the student and senior rates are pegged to. In the first scenario, they’re pegged to the fare on the adult CharlieTicket – a higher fare. In the second, they’re pegged to the lower adult CharlieCard rate. Whatever – those tweaks to the reduced fare schedule aren’t great, but they’re kind of besides the point. The majority of the savings in both plans come from two areas: service cuts and changes to The Ride, the T’s service for disabled riders.

And what answer do we get back from our government? Well, its a kind of Alice in Wonderland thing, but we basically get a message that says: “sorry, nobody’s home” and “you’re on your own.” This phenomenon has been repeated over and over again since the financial crisis broke back in 2008 and 2009. I think its well represented, this week, by the MBTA’s just announced proposal to deal with an $161 million operating deficit (PDF) by, basically, demoting itself to a second rate transit system. The cuts proposed will hit Belmont hard and, in one of two scenarios, all but eliminate bus service to the town (excepting the #73 electric bus line along Belmont Street and Trapelo Road.)

Unless the legislature comes through with funding to support the T in its current (already reduced, fared-up) state, the cuts are going to be deep. According to the released document, the T is proposing two alternate plans – both of them bad, and one of them terrible for Belmont.

The plans, dubbed Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 cover the projected deficit by raising fare revenue and cutting service. Scenario 1 is projected to raise annual fare revenue by $123.2 million to $134.6 million, increasing fares by approximately 43.0 percent and saving approximately $38.3 million in operating costs through reduced service($161.5 million to $172.9 million in savings). Scenario 2 raises annual fare revenue by $86.8 million to $104.0 million – increasing fares by approximately 34.7 percent and saving $78.4 million in operating costs through reducing service ($165 million to $184 million in savings.) Scenario 1 is projected to result in a ridership loss of  between 34 and 48 million rides. Scenario 2 by 53 million to 64 million rides.

Both plans anticipate fare increases for both senior citizen and student fares, which are set to 50% of the adult fare. That’s a jump for senior citizen fares from the current 33% of the adult fare. Basically, the big difference is what “adult” fare the student and senior rates are pegged to. In the first scenario, they’re pegged to the fare on the adult CharlieTicket – a higher fare. In the second, they’re pegged to the lower adult CharlieCard rate. Whatever – those tweaks to the reduced fare schedule aren’t great, but they’re kind of besides the point. The majority of the savings in both plans come from two areas: service cuts and changes to The Ride, the T’s service for disabled riders. I won’t even get into the proposed cuts to The Ride, which are just reprehensible. I’ll just say that when you read euphemistic little observations like:

“While no service reductions per se are proposed for THE RIDE, the increase in fares and the institution of a premium-fare zone are estimated to reduce the demand for service under both scenarios, saving the MBTA the cost of serving the trips no longer made.”

You should just read that as “we’re anticipating great savings by pricing disabled people out of our service.” Having seen, first hand, how critical THE RIDE is to a severely disabled and wheelchair bound friend, and how little money most such folks have to live on in the Bay State, these cuts seem particularly heartless – no matter the savings.

But back to those bus route cuts. As the map below indicates, the T plans on reducing service on or outright eliminating routes that fail what it calls the “net cost per passenger” standard. Its complicated, but basically read that as “routes that we have to subsidize too much” where “too much” is a calculation of the subsidy per rider. Suffice it to say that the routes that go through Belmont, including the 72, 74/75 and 78 all are subsidized more than the T would like. In the first scenario, all we lose is the 78 line, with service eliminated on weekdays and weekends. The 78′s been on the block before, so no surprise there. Under what the T calls Scenario 2 – which relies less on fare increases – the cuts are deeper: the 75, 75 and 78 are all eliminated on weekends and weekdays. Needless to say, for the hundreds of commuters in town who rely on those bus routes to get to and from work, well…

Red Lines Indicate Eliminated Routes

I know this must be a mistake, right? I know that when all we hear from Washington D.C. (and our nation’s best and brightest) is about the critical importance of cutting our dependence on imported oil and changing our car bound culture that we, in the most progressive state in the Union, couldn’t possibly be talking about ADDING millions of car trips per year to our already overtaxed roadways, right? And when President Obama talks about the importance of rail and of restoring our once great infrastructure, we can’t really be talking about taking one of the nation’s few solid public transit systems and reducing its size and scope drastically, right? And, finally, when the MBTA itself talks about the huge demand for its services and the rapid increase in its ridership, this stuff about them cutting bus routes and jacking up rates is just a big joke, right? I sure hope so. In the meantime, it might be worth a call to Beacon Hill to voice your opposition to the T’s proposal and to sound the alarm for emergency funding.