In any case, from here forward, make sure you’re pointing your browser to http://www.bloggingbelmont.com to enjoy the latest news and views from Bloggingbelmont. Thanks for helping to make this blog a success. I look forward to telling you more about the fun new features to come.

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.

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.

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

Always open minded, though, I went looking for some details on what Question 1 would mean specifically for Belmont. I spent some time perusing both the Vote No on 1Web site and the Vote Yes on 1site. To be honest, the differences between the two sites are enormous. The Yes folks at smallgovernmentact.org offer mostly fact-free, rhetorical arguments in favor. They score some good hits on their favorite strawman: profligate Beacon Hill lawmakers and bureaucrats, but anyone looking for a well researched, factual argument for how, exactly, eliminating our state’s progressive income tax will spur our economy and create jobs will be disappointed. Their argument boils down to this:

1) You’ll get $3,700 back! Woo hoo! (You’ll do even better if you’re rich!).

2) You’ll take $12 Billion out of the hands of Massachusetts Big Government. Woo hoo!

3) Those arrogant SOBs on Beacon Hill will finally have to listen to us! Woo hoo!

The “No” side has a much more detailed look at what the practical impact of Question 1 passing will be and what, exactly, it will mean for the State and for Belmont. Using Mass Dept. of Revenue figures, opponents of the measure estimate that Question 1 passing will result in a loss of more than $11m. (You can read about their methodology here.) Their estimates look like this:

In short, this would be a disaster for Belmont, making contentious budget debates in years past over $1m or $3m gaps pale by comparison. Its no stretch to say that our town would have to come up with an entirely new mechanism for funding its operations and schools. And remember, Question 1 says nothing at all about Prop 2 1/2, so any increase in property taxes would have to come by way of a Prop 2 1/2 override — with all the hew and cry that accompanies those. I see no reason to believe, either, that town voters will feel generous about passing local property tax overrides just because the burden of paying state income taxes has been lifted — we need only look to New Hampshire as an example.

In the past two weeks, we’ve seen what comes of clever tricks and too good to be true promises from the financial elites on Wall Street. Let’s not fall for it again. This is no time for gimmicks, or to toy with the educations and future of our children. No on One!

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.

State leaders and even fiscally conservative groups like the nonpartisan Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation argue that put this Passage of the ballot question to repeal the state’s income tax would be a disaster, requiring spending cuts of more than 70 percent in almost all state programs. Those include: human services programs, transportation, state parks and environmental programs, UMass and other community colleges, state employee pensions and health benefits, the prison system and courts. Mass Taxpayers also points out, in a recent press release, that well-off taxpayers would get most of the benefits from repealing the income tax: those earning more than $100,000 would save $16,295 (MTF says that’s 14 percent of taxpayers), compared to $850 for those earning less than $50,000 (65 percent of taxpayers, according to MTF). In other words, the $3,700 cited by proponents masks how the benefits would be skewed towards the wealthiest citizens in the state. MTF also raises alarms about the blowback should this bill pass, including a loss in capital investments on transportation, higher ed and economic development that fuel future growth, and a plummeting bond rating.

As many state leaders have pointed out, the State simply couldn’t afford to get rid of all that money and still function, given mandated state spending in other areas. The result is that other sources of income would need to be raised — with local property taxes and other fees and taxes leading the way. Massachusetts might have to get rid of its tax exemptions on food and clothing, as an example. Like it or not, our current state income tax is progressive, levying the heaviest burden on those who can afford to pay it. Question 1 and the workarounds it would inspire would be largely regressive: affecting the poor and vulnerable far more than the wealthy.

In short, Question 1 is a gimmick — it’s a ham fisted and poorly thought out effort to “make a point” to those hated bureaucrats on Beacon Hill, consequences be damned. As MTF notes, the state could fire all 68,000 people in its employ and still save only $5b, leaving $7b left to cut.

Anyone who has followed the annual budget debates in town knows how important State Aid is. And, while its true that we might pay more out in taxes than we get back, we’re not an island here in Belmont that can “go it alone.” We rely on a a common infrastructure and a network of state and federal programs, as well as a business climate that supports a steady flow of investment and commerce to Massachusetts and surrounding communities. Major corporations don’t look for cute little towns to invest in — they’re looking at states that are encouraging innovation, producing educated workers and building an infrastructure to support and encourage commerce. Your tax dollars make that possible. As an example, if Wyeth locates a new pharma facility in Cambridge, that’s good for us, even if we don’t get the tax revenue from the plant: Wyeth employees settle down in Belmont, they contribute to our community and have money to shop in our stores.

It’s crazy that, in 2008, with developing countries like China and India investing massively in their infrastructure and sucking precious manufacturing and high tech jobs away we’ve got to keep making this argument and watching out for the fiscal Luddites like Ms. Howell, but so it is. We can’t go backwards. We’ve got to move forwards — fighting waste, abuse and corruption in the way the state spends its money, while also channeling tax dollars into areas that will pay dividends in the future: infrastructure, education, and the development of industries like medicine, biotech, greentech. Question 1 would put an end to all that, leaving each town to, in essence, fend for itself. In short: Question 1 is bad for Belmont, bad for Massachusets and bad for our future. Vote “No.”

Paul…Imagine you are the Mayor of Belmont this Spring. You have campaigned on fully funded FDK, Comprehensive Road Improvements, a new Wellington, a new Library,new Underwood Pool, and new Police Station. It is mid April and you have asked the Town to approve a $4.5m override that will not pay for any of these things above but rather will just cover existing services we have today. The vote comes back and it is defeated by 10%. You now have to cut $4.5m from the budget. What are you going to cut? One caveat… you don’t enough have time to generate new commercial revenues be it Cushing/Waverly square development. — PJ

(I should add here that PJ closed with a suggestion that the town levy a fine on all political yard signs as one way to generate revenue — questionable on 1st Amendment grounds, if nothing else. )

This is a great question because, horrible as it sounds, its quite plausible. Belmont has shown an antipathy towards Prop 2 1/2 overrides. At the same time, the town has been kicking the can down the road with its structural budget deficit for just about as long as possible. There are very few available sources of free cash left to patch over the hole in our budget — at least without affecting our bond rating negatively, decimating needed programs or crossing the line of fiscal propriety. In short: things have come to a head in Belmont, just as on Wall St. and the next few months will require the town to make some hard choices.

Let me start by saying that I think the test of Belmont’s political leaders will be to avoid the situation PJ sketches out. The problem the town faces is no “Bear Stearns” – we thought we were flush, and woke up to a different reality. Town voters, Town Meeting members and our elected leaders have known about the hole in the budget for years and have chosen to put off fixing it — maybe for good reason, maybe not. The bottom line is that this isn’t something that our elected leaders should be playing politics with. There needs to be a consensus and a consistent message from the Warrant Commission, the Board of Selectmen, Tom Younger, the School Committee, etc. that passing an override to fix the budget is an absolute necessity, and that without it the Town will not be able to afford the same quality of life as it has in the past. Period. Town services will be cut, the quality of education offered in our schools will decline, programs enjoyed by younger and older residents (the public library, after school athletics, music and art education, etc.) will be eliminated, needed maintenance to our critical infrastructure — roads, sewers, sidewalks, parks — will be drastically reduced.If the political leadership of the town speaks with one voice and helps organize a vote in favor, I’m confident we can get an override passed.

If that doesn’t happen and we end up in the situation that PJ describes, I think that there’s really very little choice that anyone has — whether Selectperson or Mayor. Certainly we can turn to our excellent representatives on Beacon Hill and try to wrangle a bigger piece of state aid to cover the gap — but we’ll hardly be the only town asking. Obviously, forward looking planning like a new pool/ice rink, library, police station, etc. go on hold. Plans for a new Wellington School to replace the dangerous and failing building that exists would probably be put to a separate vote anyway, depending on when the state gives us the green light. Hopefully that needed project stays above the fray.

Beyond that, I think there are some things you can do around the edges to help pinch the gap a bit closer. I’ve always been puzzled by the Town’s decision to rip out its parking meters on Leonard St. and Trapelo Road. As it stands, we’re giving a free park and ride to out of town commuters all around the downtown Purple Line station and along 3-4 miles of commercial development in town. In a matter of months, I think we could get smart meters installed all along those roadways that are aesthetically attractive and start brining in some revenue. It won’t be $4.5m, but it might put a few hundred thousand dollars a year in our bank account.

I think the town would have to look much harder at the regionalization for its schools and town services, where that makes sense. I think you could look at ways to provide town services such as licensing, permits and other items more efficiently using technology — but these are long term fixes that certainly wouldn’t be able to provide any immediate relief to the budget crisis that PJ describes. In a pinch, we could certainly look to whatever free cash we had to spend, but the town also has to be mindful of maintaining its excellent bond rating, which will allow us to borrow money reasonably (once the credit market reconstitutes itself). I also think the town needs to continue to encourage development, especially of our commercial tax base. Cushing Sq. looks promising, but we’ll need more projects of that caliber before homeowners feel any relief from the tax burden they currently bear.

But let’s be honest: we’ve heard time and again — most recently in the Citizen Herald’s piece on the subject — that salaries make up the bulk of spending on both the Town and School sides of the budget. Forced to trim $4.5m in spending, in a crisis like the one PJ proposes, I don’t see how you get there without laying off employees in the schools, and working for the town, in public safety — you name it. Most of the money we spend on Belmont’s government and school system is to pay the public servants who run our town and run our schools. As I said, this would really translate into a reduction in the quality of life the town enjoys. We’d have to reduce the hours the Town Hall was open, reduce the hours the library was open, reduce the number of cops and firefighters on the beat, reduce the number of classes in our schools (and thus increase the number of kids per class). As I’ve written here before, these budget questions aren’t just a matter of putting on the green eye shade. They’re mini referendums on what kind of town you want to live in. I, for example, want to live in a town that has a public library that I and my children can use. I want to live in a town that has a good public school system with well equipped and safe school buildings for my kids to attend. I want to live in a town  with safe  and well maintained streets and neighborhoods. It’s worth it to me to have to pay more for these things if need be, and I’d rather that than see them go away. Other people may feel differently, but I absolutely believe that it’s up to the political leadership of the town to articulate a vision of what the town should be, and put politics aside to get behind that vision — whether its getting behind a prop 2 1/2 override, or shooting one down depends on the circumstances, but there needs to be leadership. I’ll be looking for that this Fall and Spring.

“I am (sic) have not yet made any decisions and will not until after the first of the year,” Firenze wrote in response to an e-mail inquiry by BloggingBelmont. “I have always believed never to make a decision until you need to.”

Firenze said the rumors about his intentions to step down after his term is complete had cycled back to him, as well

“I have now been told that since I have not categorically said that I am running, my response has been translated by some to mean that I am not running and that I am out searching for someone to replace me. Politics is amazing in Belmont!”

For now, Firenze says he is keeping his options open.

The three member Board of Selectmen are paid, elected positions. Each member serves an overlapping, three year term. Firenze first joined the Board in November, 2004, in a special election held to fill the vacancy left by Anne Marie S. Mahoney. He is now the senior member of the Board and has served as Chairman since April, 2008.

But the plan has been receiving steady criticism from residents since it was introduced. The biggest concern — voiced both by residents and the town’s police force — has been that the reduced lighting will increase crime. The idea here seems to be the “broken windows” argument — that dark streets signal reduced activity and invite criminals who want to strike without being observed. Given the recent spate of property crimes in the town, that’s not an unrealistic fear. As a jogger, I know that darkened streets also increase the dangers to pedestrians, so I can’t say I’m heartbroken about the reversal of plans on the streetlights.

The question now is: what next? In lieu of shutting street lights off, I wonder whether its time to replace the street lights with more energy efficient bulbs (compact florescent, anyone?) that will save the town money. And, while the town should do all it can to reduce energy use, the biggest savings will come from the Municipal Light Department encouraging more conservation at home — through peak use pricing and other incentives for residences to use energy efficient appliances, switch to solar and so on. My 2c.

I’m not usually one who stops to marvel at heavy equipment, but this bad boy going by on Cross St. yesterday morning almost rattled me out the front door. I must say, it was pretty cool to see this monster up close, as it rolled by, stripping the pavement right off and leaving a trail of unpaved dirt in its path. Cool stuff, even if it made for a hectic start to the week.