Blogging Belmont

Just a note to all the B2 readers that I’ve added a new subscription option that will allow you to get new posts on BloggingBelmont delivered to you via e-mail. Just put your e-mail address in the field below and click the Subscribe button to have an e-mail sent to you whenever new content is posted on B2.

I’ve also created a perma-link to a subscription page, which is listed under the Pages heading on the right. You can also access the subscription page by clicking here.

Thanks! Hope you enjoy the new subscription feature.

NOTE: The School Committee Meeting has changed locations. It will be held tonight (Tuesday) at 7:30 PM in the Wellington Elementary Music Room, not the Community Room at the Chenery, as indicated on the SC Web site.

Those of you who have lived through a town budget cycle before know that it’s a long process and that there are vertigo-inducing ups and downs along the way, as one or two key budget issues poke their way to the front of the pack and incite the passions of town voters. Last budget season there were a few such issues, including funding forthe schools and full day kindergarten, an ordinance regulating the introduction of new banks in town, and of course a budget override to try to repair the town’s roads.

While these debates often boil down to a key vote, or a show of force by town voters late in the process, the reality is that the shape of the debate and its parameters are often set early in the budget season, at sparsely attended meetings of the School Committee, the Warrant Committee, The Board of Selectmen, and so on. The important stuff is starting now. Coming up this week, the School Committee meets Tuesday at 7:30 pm in the Wellington Elementary Music Room. The meeting is the first of many in which the Committee will begin hashing out the budget possibilities for FY 2009 and, with a sharp economic downturn and falling tax revenue at the federal, state and local level, it will be important to understand, early on, what cuts or changes might be proposed and start advocating one way or the other for them. A full schedule of School Committee meetings can be found here.

It’s important that B2 readers get out to this meetings even though no vital matters will be decided at them. The earlier folks get engaged and voice their opinions and priorities, the more likely it will be that the Town’s elected officials take them into consideration and that the outcome of months of meetings fits the voters’ desires.

So come on out to the Chenery on Tuesday evening and have your voice heard. More information is available here.

As many readers may already know, the Library Board of Trustees recently voted to close the Benton Branch library after more than a century of operation. According to this article in the Belmont Citizen Herald, the recent decision to close the branch is an effort to focus the dwindling library budget on the main branch. Not that closing Benton will free up much cash - Hal Shubin from the Library Board of Trustees said that the money saved by closing the town’s last neighborhood library might translate into some extended Saturday hours over the Summer.

The Benton Branch Library is slated to close. What should the town do with it?

The bigger question is now what’s to be done with the ca. 1892 building that housed the library? The idea of turning into a community center was floated. But there are other options as well - the town desperately needs a new youth center? Maybe some that haven’t even been thought of? I thought I’d put it to the B2 readership in a quick poll:

 Loading ...

It’s shaping up to be a big night for the Democrats, but folks on both sides of the aisle are breathing easier in Massachusetts, as Question 1 went down BIG on election night. While all the votes haven’t been counted, news outlets are now reporting lopsided numbers, with the “No” side collecting as much as 69% of the vote.

This is a huge victory for Belmont, our schools, our town and the State as a whole and suggests that voters, looking down the barrel of a shrinking economy and cuts already at the state level, weren’t in the mood for gimmicks.

Having set the bar low for adoption of its new Green Choice renewable energy program, it now appears that the Belmont Municipal Light Department is in danger of tripping over it. According to BMLD CEO Tim Richardson, just 87 customers have signed up for the voluntary green energy program — less than 1% of BMLD’s 9,600 customers, and short of BMLD’s already modest goal of signing up 100 customers for the program. Total renewable energy purchases for the town, so far, in 2008 have been around 100 MWHr (Megawatt Hours) of green energy.

Green isn

Green Choice (brochure and sign up form are here) was first introduced in May by the BMLD, in response to community calls for more renewable options in its energy portfolio. The program allows BMLD residential and business customers to buy renewable energy certificates (RECs) representing proof that 1 megawatt-hour (equivalent to 1,000 kilowatt-hours) of electricity was generated from renewable energy resources including wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass. This being the electrical grid, you can’t know for sure that the megawatt you consume came from a green source, but the idea is that as more consumers queue up for RECs, energy providers are forced to go in search of them. That, in turn, creates demand for the green energy facilities that generate RECs (along with green power).

Under Belmont’s Green Choice program, you can purchase 100 kilowatt-hours’ worth of green power for $6. There’s no cap on the number of RECs you can buy (BMLD notes that the average household uses around 800 kilowatt-hours of electricity each month). It’s also worth noting that the $6 is in addition to the base BMLD rate per kilowatt hour.

So what’s behind the slow adoption — is it a failure on the part of BMLD to promote a well intentioned and forward looking program. Or is this simply economics: why should customers pay more for something when its not clear what (if anything) they’re getting in return besides a clear conscience? What’s clear is that the BMLD is falling down on what, to date, has been its flagship effort to spark more use of renewable energy sources and put the town on a greener path. Environmentalists in town, who backed the idea of Green Choice were already skeptical of BMLD’s goal of signing up just 1% of customers, saying that it showed a lack of heart in really promoting the program. Now, as the Department falls short even of that, some are saying that much more needs to be done to promote conservation and clean energy sources within town.

One of the issues that’s facing our town (and state and nation) in the coming years is the environment and how people can learn to live more lightly on the land and leave a smaller environmental footprint. There are goings on all over town - from green development at the Senior Center and other planned projects, to energy saving efforts by the BMLD. But simple acts like recycling are where the rubber meets the road for most town residents when it comes to the environment. That’s why I took the time one recent morning to sit down with Deb Lockett, who sits on the town’s Solid Waste Recycling Committee, to talk about progress in increasing the town’s recycling rate and other environmental initiatives in town.

Deb Lockett

Deb’s a great asset to the town — a dedicated environmentalist who is working on projects such as a Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) program to retrofit school buses with emission control devices that reduce diesel fumes that pollute the air and contribute to health problems like childhood asthma. Here’s her take on some items that are at the top of the town’s environmental agenda

Recycling

Through the Solid Waste and Recycling Advisory Committee, Deb is among a group of people working with the town to increase its waste recycling. Lockett says there’s room for improvement — echoing the evalutions given by others of the town’s efforts. As it stands, all four of Belmont’s elementary schools (Burbank, Butler, Wellington and Winn Brook) and the Chenery Middle School have active recycling programs. The High School, however, doesn’t yet have a formal program beyond basic paper recycling. Lockett said that a full-bore recycling program there could have a huge impact: getting students more directly involved in issues that effect the environment and, not least, saving the town around $70 per ton in waste disposal costs. As it stands, Lockett said she is waiting for buckets to be delivered that will put a recycling recepticle in every classroom, and for posters to be hung around the school. Even more important: she and the town will be looking for hard data from the custodial crew there on the progress of the program, once its up and running. Shocking as it may seem, Lockett said there is no true “model“ program in the state that Belmont or other districts could base their recycling program on — each town, in essence, develops a program unique to their school and town. Time is an issue, too.

“I think the teachers and principals have so much on their plates, that (recycling) seems like just one more thing for them,” she said. Lockett and the Solid Waste subcomittee are working with BHS staff to try to develop a systemic process that will carry forward from year to year as students come and go. Beyond that, Lockett and others say that there’s a powerful economic argument for recycling, especially in these lean times. “For every ton (of recyling) we divert from the waste stream, we’re saving $71,” she said. However, as it stands, schools don’t get charged for what they throw away — nor do they get credit for what they’re saving through recycling. That needs to change, but Lockett says it will take leadership at the top to make it happen.

Anti-idling

Having just participated in a $16.5m program on improving the quality of exhaust from school busses, this issue is one that is close to Deb’s heart these days. She says that, so far, the efforts of Sustainable Belmont and other groups within town have some tangible results: a grant was obtained that resulted in signs being posted in areas identified as “hot spots” or idling zones that notify drivers that idling is illegal. Police Chief Richard McLaughlin also placed a letter in the Citizen Herald that called attention to the idling problem, and a state law that forbids idling.

But more needs to be done, Lockett said. First of all, the signs that have been posted around town have created some confusion, with wording that implies that idling is only forbidden when its in excess of five minutes. “It’s not like you get five free minutes of idling,” she said.

Sure, it seems like the kind of nit-picking that confirms the general public’s worst suspicions about “do gooder” environmentalists, but Lockett said that idling contributes enormously to air pollution. At most of our schools (like the Wellington), idling from cars dropping off students has caused engine exhaust to get sucked into the school’s HVAC system, degrading air quality in parts of the school. Lockett said that Sustainable Belmont had ordered more signs, which would have been deployed around town, but the town wanted to proceed very cautiously and did not allow more than 35 to be hung. As a result, densely settled areas, such as Grove St. have only three signs are posted, rather than the 5 or 6 needed, reducing their overall effectiveness, Lockett said. The group has also put notices in the paychecks of town employees and coordinated letters to the editor to try to raise awareness of the environmental consequences of idling. “Would you drive into your garage, shut the door and leave the engine running?” Lockett asks. “No, because you’d die. But when you’re idling you’re doing essentially the same thing to the environment.”

Further actions need to focus on reducing the number of kids getting driven to school — either by encouraging walking or car pooling, Lockett said. The BPD might step up its activity, as well — issuing warnings or even tickets to motorists caught idling, she said.

I got a lot of responses to my post from the other day about the pending ballot initiative to eliminate the State income tax, which was sponsored by former Libertarian candidate for Governor, Carla Howell. Both were along the same lines:

1) That ‘opponents are using scare tactics to convince people to vote against Question 1,’ and

2) The disingenuous claim that ‘we don’t know what the impact will be, and anyone who says we do is lying and trying to scare you’ (see item #1)

In that vein, “ncitizen” wrote that “No official statement has been made by the legislature that states where if any cuts will be made. It would make life easier for both sides if they did then we could argue the merits of the cut.”

Of course, the fact that the state hasn’t spelled out exactly what cuts it would make hardly means that elected leaders are scaremongering.  If someone came along and told you that you were going to lose 40% of your income next year, you might not be able to say exactly how you’d tighten your belt, but you’d be able to paint a picture in broad strokes, which is where we are now and what we’re hearing from our elected leaders and other stakeholders (Chamber of Commerce, teacher and transportation unions, public health experts, librarians and legislators).

A chorus of warnings

In the meantime, lots of groups have come out with very detailed pictures of how the state might be forced to act should this ballot initiative pass. The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation (headed by our own Town Moderator, Mike Widmer) is just the latest. Their report concludes that passage of Question 1 would be a disaster for the state and its citizens. Then there’s the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, which has designed an interactive Question 1 Budget Game that lets you try your hand at eliminating 40% of the state budget without slashing existing programs like healthcare, education, and local aid.

As fed matching funds leave the State, a vicious cycle of cutting

One of the interesting revelations of the budget game is what a vicious spiral we would find ourselves in, were Question 1 to pass. Why? Because so much of the federal aid we receive is contingent on the level of state aid. For example, the Department of Early Education and Care (EEC) receives $590m in combined state and federal aid. Just so’s you know, this is money that’s used to provide child care subsidies for 69,000 low-income children and fund a Universal Preschool program that sustains 502 pre-school programs and 8,500 low-income children.  Even if the Patrick Administration were to try to zero out EEC’s budget in a post-Question 1 world, it would only save the state $137 million, not $600 million. Why? Because as we cut state aid, we’d lose federal matching dollars as well. In other words, as we slashed programs to try to shrink our budget, we’d also watch federal dollars being sucked out of state and back to Washington D.C., in response to our lack of good faith, leaving Massachusetts poorer and more desperate than ever.

In search of hard numbers for Belmont

Read the rest of this entry »

With all attention on the Presidential race, races and questions lower on the ballot are getting much less attention than they might otherwise. That’s especially true here in Massachusetts, where a whopper of a ballot initiative, Question 1, threatens to blast a hole in the State’s finances. For those of you who haven’t yet heard of Question 1 should familiarize yourself - in a hurry.

The text of Question 1 is fairly straight forward — voting “yes” would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65% for all categories of taxable income for the tax year beginning on or after January 1, 2009, and would eliminate the tax for all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2010. A “no” vote leaves the state income tax unchanged.

The question, which was put on the ballot by libertarian Carla Howell, Chairwoman of The Committee For Small Government and is similar to a previous proposal that failed but attracted significant support at the polls. Howell and supporters claim — without citing specifics — that removing the personal income tax, which would translate to an average savings of $3,700 for state taxpayers, and slash state revenues by approximately 40%, would “create hundreds of thousands of new Massachusetts jobs” while not raising property taxes or other taxes and that it wouldn’t require cuts to essential government services.

That last assertion is vigorously disputed by pretty much everyone who works in government at the state or local level. Opponents note that:

The $12 billion in lost revenue goes to support, among other things, critical services such as public safety (fire, police, paramedics), education, infrastructure improvement (roads and bridges), and healthcare for the sick and disabled and the elderly. In other words, the money would need to be replaced, or those critical services would be sacrificed — unsafe streets, crumbling bridges, crowded and ineffective classrooms, you name it.

Read the rest of this entry »