The amendment, proposed by Anne Mahon, was a political longshot when it was submitted last week. By the time it was considered, at around 10:00pm Monday evening, both the Board of Selectmen and Warrant Committee had voted unanimously not to recommend it to Town Meeting, and the School Committee split on the issue 3-2 with one member absent. (I voted in favor of the motion both on School Committee and in Town Meeting, as did fellow SC member Laurie Graham). The amendment, which proposed transferring around $175,000 from the town’s cash reserves to the BPS, was couched in terms of restoring proposed cuts to library aide positions at the elementary schools, and restoring positions that were slated for elimination at the High School. And that clearly touched a nerve within a Town Meeting, with members queing up three and four deep to speak on the issue and making clear that they did not support the proposed elimination of the library aide positions, or the cuts at the High School. Comments ran three or four to one in favor of the amendment in a debate that lasted for 90 minutes. The final vote wasn’t close — 116 to 84 in favor (someone check those numbers for me, please). There were impassioned speeches on both sides with town leaders arguing, in essence, that the Town faces steep declines in revenues in FY10 and especially FY 11 and won’t be able to count on federal stimulus money, which is being used to patch over shortfalls in state aid and a huge structural budget deficit this year. Supporters, including Mrs. Mahon argued that every cut to School Dept. programming just creates a new, low benchmark for “level funding,” and that programs– once cut — don’t return. Let me just say that I found that argument extremely, extremely persuasive.

Mahon was backed by a string of other notables — Fred Paulson, Monte Allen, Jack Weis, Kim Becker, former SC Chair John Bowe, many making a similar argument and speaking voluably for the restoration of likely cuts to Elementary Library Aide positions and Belmont High School positions. While the School Committee has made clear that it has full discretion to decide how the additional funds will be allocated, Town Meeting members last night made no secret of the fact that they expect it will used as intended: to restore Library Aide positions and positions at BHS.

There was also a clear sense, from those speaking in support, that town leaders — though earnest in their efforts to arrive at a sensible budget for the next fiscal year, had badly misjudged public sentiment in proposing elimination of the Library Aide positions, which will sharply curtail use of the libraries at the elementary schools and could result in their outright closure. (Principals have floated alternative ideas — book carts brought to classrooms, etc. — but most say that removing aides will greatly reduce use of the libraries.) In one of the more entertaining speeches of the evening, which might be remembered as the “Cat Leash” speech, TM member David Alper related a story about the Belmont Board of Health proposing the mandatory use of cat leashes to stem an outbreak of rabies in the early 1990s. Town Meeting “in its infinite wisdom” soundly rejected the idea, Alper recalled. “The powers that be made a decision that didn’t sit well with the town. It was a minor error of choice, and I think that’s what’s happened here,” he said. Great stuff.

Click To Play

Speaking against the measure, SC Chair Ann Rittenberg noted that significant one time funds had already been poured into this year’s budget to preserve programming, and that Belmont was already allowing stimulus money to go to the Schools with no offset in the allocation of town revenues, as other towns were requiring. Acting Superintendent Pat Aubin worried that the town was clinging onto threads of what used to be robust library programs, with full time librarians and library aides helping to support classroom programs and help students learn how to use library resources and find the information they need. But speaker after speaker urged the body to accept the measure, saying — in essence – -they’d rather have threads than go naked.

A handful of TM members spoke against the measure. Jeanne Widmer (wife of Moderator Mike Widmer) and Sherry Jones (wife of Selectman Ralph Jones) expressed sympathy for those seeking to avoid cuts to the schools, but argued that the measure was short sighted. Widmer suggested that its passage would jeapordize an upcoming debt exclusion vote on Wellington Elementary. That was not a view held widely, though a fuller discussion will almost certainly come Wednesday when Town Meeting votes to appropriate close to $40m for the design and construction of a new Wellington Elementary, subject to approval by voters in a town wide election. More than a few speakers urged town leaders to begin preparing voters for the necessity of a Prop 2 1/2 override, saying that the town’s main problem was a large structural budget deficit that had been allowed to grow, unchecked, in the last decade. “This deficit is structural. It won’t be fixed with free cash or bake sales by the PTA,” said TM member Monte Allen. “I call on the town’s leadership to exercise leadership on this issue and bring the town along with them.”

I should also note that, contrary to my previous post about “Crazy Ideas bubbling up to Town Meeting,” the Board of Selectmen has pulled its earlier request that Town Meeting send a message to Belmont Hill School to get on the bus and negotiate a Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) agreement with the town at long last. It seems that Belmont’s Board of Assessors is working up a more comprehensive plan for PILOT payments that will be presented to every non profit in town, including Belmont Hill. Angelo Firenze claims the motion was shelved so as not to single out one non profit for criticism.

That’s all well and good — if this “comprehensive plan” ever sees the light of day. It sounds like the right way to go, but I’m putting a tickler in my calendar for two months from now to see what becomes of it.

On to zoning issues and clarifying amendments. I’m searching under the Pumpkin orange seats here in the BHS auditorium for a triple shot of espresso.

UPDATE: OK. Now we’re talking about houses of worship and other non profits (i.e. schools) allowing third parties to use their lots in violation of town zoning laws and even accepting fees for that use – a possible violation of their tax exempt status.

Seems the use of these lots is a big help in relieving congestion in areas like downtown (Post Office employees use the Unitarian Church’s lot, as an example) and in Waverly Square. But neighbors are pissed — they want to live next to a church, not a municipal lot. I’ve actually heard complaints about this at B2, but its not a straight forward issue (as we’re learning). We’re now hearing about the town’s new policy guidelines for these lots…

By-right uses will include residential overnight parking of non-commercial vehicles is cool, as well as use by town departments and for public/private vents. Employee/customer parking shouldn’t account for 30 spaces or 50% of the lot. No permit needed for that stuff. Uses requiring special permits would be use by commercial trucks, vans and heavy vehicles. Long term regular use by more than 30 vehicles or 50% of the lot. Potential commercial eveninguses (restaurant, etc.). Hmm…

Long and short — the amendment passes almost unanimously. I’m not sure what this will mean, practically, though it certainly clarifies our bylaws for use of these lots and gives some relief to frustrated abutters.

Now its on to an effort to preserve Belmont’s few remaining “Historic Accessory Buildings” (aka “barns”). This is a about real barns — recognized by historic commission and pre 1921. Many along Pleasant Street. Owners will get benefits to preserve the exterior of the building — including a perpetual Preservation Restriction, including using them for home occupation (making them less likely to be torn down).

UPDATE: Oh gosh. Its barns barns barns.. Jenny Fallon’s (too long) Powerpoint concerning the zoning changes and a detailed detailed detailed explanation of the pros/cons has been followed by an even longer Powerpoint giving TM members a whimsical tour of barns and carriage houses in Belmont, Cambridge and surrounding towns. It’s wonderful. Adorable. These barns can beat up my puny one car garage any day. I’m sold on this zoning change. Don’t even think about tearing down a barn in this town. Let’s vote! Please! But no.  It’s more barns…another impassioned plea by Sue Bass for barn conversions. Stick the Au Pair in ‘em. Go for it. Methinks they doth explain too much!

UPDATE: OK. Now there’s debate. Barns increase traffic, yada, yada. Liz Allison is talking now. She’s asking “who benefits”? Benefits flow to owners of the home, not residents. Most of us don’t see these barns. Also…the numbers…Vermont barn rennovations can cost between $5,000 to $25,000 range. This is encouraging people to do preservation and we’ll give you a second building worth much more — big benefit for merely rennovation. National Park Service already provides 20% tax credit for qualifying barns. A lot of benefit flowing to small group of people: 28 houses. Average assessed value of $1m. My god…I’m actually agreeing with Liz. This may be a first. OK. Advantages neighbors or developers? Developers benefit. Neighbors get worn down. The nut here is that preservation is great, but this regulation is asking the town to pay too much for what is a small benefit to the community as a whole (you get to look at some barns as you pass by on the street). Also, zoning exceptions tend to concentrate power in the planning board, which is subject to political influence or at least discretion.

Jenny F. answering questions about the ramifications to the town – will it increase tax revenue or cost us revenue? How will neighbors’ views be addressed? How many could be subdivided? Not clear.

Great, the town Assessor isn’t attending, so we don’t know what the impact on tax assessments on these properties will change. Now Tom Younger is getting ready to speak. He says its impossible to determine how assessments will change before permit applications are received.

Phil Curtis of Warrant Committee is speaking on barns — this is a public subsidy for private development, that the benefit goes to a small group of people and that its a zoning change that enhances the value of the property to the homeowners. WC thinks private home owner should maintain their own houses. A public subsidy – increasing value of property — in the name of barn preservation.

Now we’re hearing from Martha Moore (?) an actual Belmont barn owner. We’re now hearing about their barn rennovation. Queue the This Old House theme.

Anne Mahon and others have spoken in favor of this — arguing that all zoning changes end up benefitting a minority of property owners at the expense of others, and that the changes make it possible to preserve bits of Belmont’s history.

BOS member Ralph Jones warns that abutters can get worn down and that the changes will benefit property developers.  TM member Monty Allen is questioning the “only benefits rich folks” argument — is the town really subsidizing these owners? Is this cost free to the town? Jenny: not directly — assessment of property will increase (and thus taxes) also the perpetual preservation restriction for the town. Don Mercier is telling TM that the change will immediate increase the value of the properties in question.

Some drama here — the question was moved to a voice vote, which was too close to call (sounded like it passed). Sue Bass requested a roll call vote which, itself, requires support from 35 TM meeting members. So now we’re having a vote to see what kind of vote we’ll have. Crazy. I’ve vassilated but will vote against it (I’d be glad to explain why), but I think it will pass anyway.

OK. I’m in the _way_ minority voting against this one. Now all my libby TM friends are made at me. Let me clarify – I’m all for preserving historic barns and support the goal of historic preservation with every fibre of my being. I just happen to think that this zoning change is a big give away to a small number of home owners and developers in town, and I’m just not sure what the benefit to the community is. Its the populist in me — after all: many owners who own properties with barns on them have already renovated the structures, and nothing in this law prohibits barns from being taken down – it just creates incentives for them not to be torn down. Ah well.

In an e-mail exchange in September, Firenze said that he was weighing his options, but would likely wait until after the New Year to make any decisions. In the interim, however, a number of rumored opponents have decided not to run, clearing the field for Firenze. That said, he said he expects to face an opponent on April’s ballot and is looking forward to the opportunity to run against someone. “I think it’s healthy for the town,” he is quoted saying.

This is the third installment of a multi-part post on my interview with Selectman Angelo Firenze. You can read the first part of the interview by clicking here, and the second installment here. In the final part of our conversation, Selectman Firenze and I turned our attention to plans to build a new main library in town, and a new senior center, as well as commercial development plans for Cushing Square and Pleasant Street.

B2: The town was supposed to vote on funding a building committee for a new Library at the last Town Meeting, but it didn’t happen. This would be to show good faith to the State that we are serious about building a new library and, therefore, to qualify for State matching funds. Do you expect the issue to come up again soon?

Angelo Firenze: No, I don’t. One way we get ourselves in trouble is to get ahead of ourselves. We need a comprehensive plan for what to do with town property. One preliminary recommendation is to build a new police station in the old library site. That was a $24 million projected cost (for the library), $6 million of which was associated with forcing the library onto that site. You’d have to tear down the building and build underground parking, and I just don’t think it will work. Those of us who have lived in town remember when that site used to be a pond. Now its my personal desire and wish, which is not shared by the selectmen, to build a combined library-senior center across the street. But as long as Paul (Soloman) takes the position he is — and I appreciate it and think he’s a reasonable guy — it’s not going to happen. But how can I support the building of a senior center across the street when I know we need a library? How can I support that when I know that we could end up with a much more cost and use effective (combined) building on bus line in the center of town. But with the new library, you really have to find a balance. It’s the most used building in town. But I think of a new library/senior center with an athletic support complex for the soccer and baseball fields and track with locker rooms, senior center, athletic suppt complex for field. with locker rooms all on that site. There’s no height limit. You could build it to four stories and not bat an eyelash. You could have a state of the art computer room, because everyone seems to need one, and have meeting rooms and a Dunkin Donuts in the lobby to bring some revenue back in. The town needs it. But it’s always cheaper to ignore a problem than fix it.

B2: Well…there are costs to ignoring the problem, also, right?

AF: Not necessarily. One option is to not have it at all.

B2: If you look around town, you notice a lot of empty store fronts. A lot of vacant commercial space. Clearly that’s hurting the town, also, when it comes to paying for some of these things.

AF: Not really, no. Because those owners are still paying property taxes.

B2: Well, those properties would be worth more if they were developed commercially.

AF: Except that we can tax them based on what the value of the property should be.

B2: What are your thoughts on a flat commercial and residential tax rate, as some other towns do?

AF: I’m in favor of that. What I’m in favor of is someone coming in and looking at the property on Pleasant Street and looking at what’s going on in Cushing Square — someone putting $50 million or $60 million into an overlay district in Cushing Square, which would allow us to raise taxes on the development, so instead of getting $60,000 in taxes, the town would be taking in $600,000 on Cushing Square and other underdeveloped areas of town. We could start to build our commercial tax base.

B2: What’s the role of the Board of Selectman when it comes to developments like that?

AF: The role of the Selectmen is to give developers the sense that they have support. So we can hire consultants and work with our director of planning and development.

Selectman Firenze responded in a comment to B2 on Monday which you can read, in its entirety, by clicking on the appropriate link on the right hands side of the B2 blog, where comments are listed. Regarding his comments on the desirability of a combined Senior Center – Library, Selectman Firenze wrote the following:

“I do support the need for a Senior Center in Town. I originally supported the construction of the Senior Center at the Beech Street site. However a lot of things have change since that time. The building turned out to be too big for the selected site, with insufficient parking and many other issues that required over a year to reach suitable compromises and now we have cost issues. In that time, additional land became available on Concord Avenue, and the plans for a new library solidified and the need to address the police station surfaced. These changes with the possibility of a public or private reuse of the current library building are what led me to the concept of building a combined facility.

I also believe my perceived lack of support for public education is totally misrepresented, but I am not sure I can set those straight in a blog.”