Showing posts with label Lexington. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lexington. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 4, 2019

Friendly 40B | Neighborhood Meeting RE: 840 Emerson Gardens Road

I’m at the Neighborhood Meeting in Estabrook Hall in the Cary Town Building to hear about “the future of Golden Living Center” at 840 Emerson Gardens Road.

The Golden Living Center is permanently closed, it was shuttered in 2018.

Tonight’s meeting was billed as an informal dialogue to discuss the future of the site and the potential for the creation of multi-family housing.

Some background from me, which I looked up following the meeting:
  • Posting a Google map, mainly for the purpose of showing the surrounding conservation lands (Arlington Great Meadows, including trail head) and the neighborhood being talked about: Emerson Gardens Road; Emerson Gardens, a 150 unit condo/apartment complex adjacent to the site; Bryant Road, leading out to Lowell Street from Emerson Gardens Road and connecting Village Circle, Page Road, Sanderson Road; Orchard Lane








Nearly every seat is taken as meeting begins on time, 7:30 PM
(Stuff in parenthesis comes from me)

Todd Nordblom (I’ll be using TN)
Introduces himself (Vice President, Nordblom Company)
his colleague from Nordblom, Todd Fremont-Smith (who is Senior Vice President and Director of Mixed-Use Projects) and Scott Seaver (President, Seaver Costruction)

(Noting here that Nordblom's website homepage has visuals of recent projects and environments. Seaver has constructed the new Woburn Public Library and is in process of the Shannon Farm 112 luxury condos and Club House on Lexington Street in Woburn).

Doug Lucente, Select Board Chair 
Introduces:
Elizabeth (Liz) Rust, Region Housing Services Office (RHSO)
  • (Info in the email I received from a local neighborhood group said: “Discussion to be moderated by Elizabeth Rust, Region Housing Services Office of the MAPC. The Regional Housing Services Office (RHSO) is a collaboration between the member towns of Acton, Bedford, Burlington, Concord, Lexington, Sudbury and Weston. It was formed in 2011 through an Inter-Municipal Agreement (and amended) assisted by Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), the regional planning agency for Greater Boston. The RHSO serves its member towns by assisting with the municipal function of affordable housing, including proactive monitoring, program administration, project development and resident assistance. For more information on the RHSO, visit their website.”)
Selectman Joe Pato
Selectman Mark Sandeen
Town Manager Jim Malloy
Says Nordblom came to Selectmen to float their idea for a Friendly 40B project this past June
(link to that meeting Agenda and detail back at the top of this post)
This is a preliminary meeting
An opportunity to talk to the neighborhood
This is a good use for the land
Selectmen are here to listen
Those present are encouraged to speak up

Liz Rust:
RHSO is an affordable affordable housing group
Brief overview on 40B and Local Initiative Program, a.k.a., LIP
(for presentation, see link above for Monday, July 22)
Chapter 40B is state law that facilitates zoning permitting in exchange for restricted affordable housing
40B is primarily used as a zoning tool when the underlying zoning does not allow for the planned development
A highly regulated program with significant local input
SHI, State Housing Inventory, counts toward the 10% threshold set by the state
Lexington’s SHI is at 11.1%
Lexington has 1,327 affordable units recorded on the State’s SHI, they are created under different housing programs, including, MassHousing - 27%, Friendly 40B - 1%, Other at 42%
Two 40B housing processes: MassHousing and DHCD
(Department of Housing and Community Development)
DHCD is the Friendly 40B
Safe Harbor: ZBAs can approve or deny 40B and their decisions are held up in the courts
Friendly: local, upfront input before going forward
LIP -- local input process
LIP Application -- proposals to community, formal signature by Selectmen signifying Town support
Project viability is DHCD led

TN with the Nordblom/Seaver presentation
(it’s also in the link noted at top of this post)
Recent projects in Burlington and Woburn
“Local is somewhat regional”
Nordblom Co has been active at Third Avenue in Burlington, including Wegman's, Bancroft Hotel
Golden Living Center was built in 1970; closed in 2018
11.56 acres
90K gsf (gross square feet)
Nordblom is affiliated with Northbridge Senior Living; brought idea to them, they (Northbridge) didn’t anticipate interest
Doesn’t make sense to reuse the building as is
Site is neglected
Zoning process is LIP, 40B friendly to improve the real estate and keep on the tax rolls
Trends: own and manage about 1200-1500 apartment units
People want to live close to work, highways, these tend to be mature professionals; walk up, flat style buildings, professionally managed
Cambridge Linea is a vision; multi-family use 
(on their website and in their presentation to Selectmen, above)
Attention to scaling, massing
Access to Great Meadows (Lex), how to preserve and improve

Questions and Comments from the Public
(As there are no Question or Comment mics in play, TN takes questions of those few initially whose hands are raised)

Q: What’s current zoning?
TN
: RO (Residential Only/one family dwellings) by right single family housing. Nordblom/Seaver want state zoning tool, 40B, to propose specific use, such as multi-family

Q: Change to 40B -- is it up to any builder or only SEAVER?
TN
: This project is sponsored by the developers, Nordblom & Seaver
Not our intention to transfer

Q: Zoning approved first?
TN
: Yes. Then building permit

Q: Are all rental units? How many? Market value? Seeking clarity on rental size, affordable units
TN
: All units would be for rent. 130 or so units. 25% affordable

Q: 130 units -- any traffic studies? Water table studies? Also, most neighbors haven’t received anything (about this proposal), why?
TN: Traffic studies: haven’t studied this specific location
Water table: (no answer, I think)
Coordination: followed the recommendation from the Town for notice to residents within 300 feet of the site
(says as he reads room reaction):
Apologizes for not getting notice out to people 

(Noting here that this is where lots of interrupting, commenting, questions, reactions overtake hand-raising)

Comment: How is this good for the neighborhood?

Comment: Honestly, there are limitations.

Comment: This will generate more traffic. Very big impact. This is a big use.

Comment: There’s not really a benefit for the neighborhood.

TN: We're offering to collaborate with you.

Q: Who are you and how are you with this site? Do you own this property?
TN: We do not (own this property)
A group in NY leased it to the group that leased it under Excel
We have an agreement to buy this site from the group in NY
If not by this proposal, there are many “by right” uses: Day Care. Educational. Religious. Rehabilitation. Single family. Special permitting uses.
Friendly 40B needs neighborhood support.

Comment: In favor of affordable housing in Lexington. Senior friendly. Believe we all share same goals: concern for impacts from traffic, to the environment, strain on schools, Great Meadows 
Need help getting to this end point.
Asks everyone to be civil and respectful.
Asks if Liz Rust can moderate -- the flier said she would moderate the discussion
Liz Rust: Don’t think can be effective 
(declines to moderate)

Q: What would impact be on Arlington Great Meadow (AGM)?
TN: Entirely new site WRT drainage, etc. more vehicles

Q: Would this affect the AGM?
TN: This is private property, no easement to AGM trailhead, we would put that on the table early on.

Q: How many parking spots are you planning?
TN: Parking ratios are 1.7 per unit
Q: Is that necessary?
TN: We cannot build to 1 (per unit)

Comment: 1.7 cars/unit is equal to 2 cars to me; during commuting times that’s a lot coming from 130 units

Q: 130 units -- assume that includes amenities, like gym, swimming pool, playground, etc. What's included? The other thing is you said you’d like us to work with you...it is plausible that if you have an agreement to buy, something is there, maybe there are some other things we would like to hear about...educational uses means 9-5 ... how do you want us to work with you? What are our choices?
TN: Amenities: we’re very early, have not designed anything; already know no pool, because of ground water table; outdoor recreation, most likely. There’s a lot of land here, maybe a tennis court?
Collaborative nature of the process: this is the conversation we wanted to have, reassess options going forward

Q: Seaver builds single family houses...why not on this site?
TN: That’s a possibility

Q: What physical access for testing is allowed? Saw a drilling rig on the site last Friday/Saturday. What notification was given to Arlington?
TN: On notification to Arlington: followed recommendations from Town Manager on notification; did not provide notification to Arlington
Drilling rig: geo technical for soil boring, soil testing

Q: What other types of testing will be ongoing?
TN: No plans at this time

Q:The property surrounds conservation land -- limitations? Testing? Zoning variances for that?
TN
: Proximity to conservation land -- Conservation Commission (rules) still stand

Comment: He and wife have lived here for 51 years. Former chair of planning board and rep to MAPC. This is a challenging development that may not work. We’re not an island here in Lexington. Terrible shortage in housing across the state, except for the very, very wealthy. Even our Republican Gov is talking about changing zoning bylaws for local decision-making. Keep 40B decision-making local. Completely open process. Shares cautionary tale about Enfield MA and how it ended up at the bottom of the Quabbin Reservoir (Look it up)

Q: Has Q for previous questioner: understands housing need. Separate from this ad hoc process, what has Lexington done for master planning process...one-way access; not amenable to 120 unit property...and they will have 2 cars, and children. Need a strategic approach. Needs to be supported by infrastructure. This isn’t.

Comment: Is a Realtor in town. 25% affordable means people living in complexes like this are not paying affordable rents without amenities. 75% rents are market rate.

Comment: Want to validate what was said before (about potential increase in # of cars): Nursing home was not a good neighbor. Was nearly hit several times. Second issue: woods and stuff were treated as a garbage dump, dirty diapers, drug paraphernalia, beer cans. Qualitative; living here because we want to live in a nice residential neighborhood.

Q: Not opposed to apartment building. 120 units sounds like a lot. Environment. Traffic. Is this project geared for elders or kids? How is it designed and marketed?
TN
: Has yet to be designed/marketed. Probably an elevator-serviced building. Solar-ed carports. Intention is not to have children.

Q: Is it only economically viable for you if 130 units?
TN
: It could be fewer

Comment & Q: Part of the problem with Emerson Gardens (Road) is it’s too wide, people go too fast. We were there when the nursing home was active and people did go too fast. Traffic is an issue. Is it possible to give some thought to mitigating?
TN: Understand that traffic is certainly on the top of the list. We will have resources to look at the neighborhood.

Q: Clarify process: opportunity for input from the community before selectmen signing off. How much detail: traffic study, transportation plan...how much of that will be cleared up?
Liz Rust: apply to the state, then permits. Water table analysis, parking studies, traffic all happens with permits...after application

Q: Still not clear: what are opportunities for this local input? When does the voice of this project have an impact?
TN
: Clearly, this meeting is having an impact

Comment: We love the neighborhood. Bring other options, 130 units feels like a non-starter. Maybe there are other gradations. I’d be interested hearing about some of those

Q: In process of geo-tech studies to see what the property will allow? Are those public?
TN: Would not be accessible to the community. Types of soils, footings for types of structures ...
(reads room...quickly says:) Could make them available. Never have had people ask for them before

Comment: Studies, contact the Town, and Woburn -- Lowell Street impacts (from new development at Woburn's Shannon Farm project coming online, about 2.5 miles away), won’t know about those impacts on Lowell Street for year and a half, at least

Comment: Very worried about rental properties. Rents are so greedy. Targeting new immigrants, scams on water metering. Take advantage of foreigners, immigrants. Lots of families and kids. Only two exits, Emerson Gardens Road and Bryant Road. People enjoy it here, no place to play at Emerson Gardens.

TN: Wanted to have an Open House at the Huntington (in Burlington) so people could get a sense of the environment being thought about.
Comment: That’s a nice place, but it’s not a neighborhood.

Q: Studies on economic viability? On 130 units, perhaps upper limit; what’s lowest limit?
TN
: Other types of housing exist on Town bylaws ...
(Bylaws are HERE)
… a variety of types ...7 single family homes, 50-60 units; duplex.
Could scale down.
Balanced housing provision through planning board and not 40B

Comment: Grove Street was balanced housing project with 10% affordable housing

Comment: For follow up meeting, please include residents at Emerson Gardens -- 150 units there

TN: Is there an association at Emerson Gardens?

Comment: (introduces self) Trustee of Emerson Gardens complex. Come to a community of residential families, been here for many years, with no real thoroughfare ... Bryant Road is a cut-through street. When we hear 130 units, 1.7 cars/unit ... real important point is to think strategically, consider impact on schools; systems are stressed. Did a little research on Register of Deeds, state & federal lien on Lexington Care LLC. Want to be strategic about this project; don’t want to create a hazardous situation with cars and traffic. Hope this is one of many conversations. Other than friendly 40B. Something that adds value for all who choose to live here.

Comment & Qs: Want to flip the conversation. Absolutely support affordable and aging in place. Affordable at all levels, not only at extremes of bell curve. Would love to support your project. What would we need to support your project? Some confirmation of traffic studies, mitigation, to demonstrate the scale, and so forth, works on the site without undue burden to the neighborhood. What are the conditions? If not attainable, some other option needs to be available.
TN
: Yup, I hear you. Come back with some information on geo-technical; etc. is that something you want to have?
(Heads nodding all around)

Comment: Get the info to all in the neighborhoods: Page, Bryant, Sanderson

Q: What else can you tell us about other options and how we can work with you?

Q: As a gesture of good faith, could you hire someone to clean up the trash around the area

Comment: And when winter comes, plow the parking lot to access the AGM

Jim Malloy, Town Manager: The whole reason this meeting is occurring, and is Friendly 40B, is because Lexington is over 10% by a little bit. Affordable housing means it is deed restricted forever. If 40B falls below 10%, restrictions fall away after 10 years (I think he said…) Current building built in 1970. Property/surrounds could be enhanced (with this project_) ... How small a project? If single family homes, duplexes, condos, none of those units would be affordable. Last thing: good sized properties are appealing to "by right" projects

TN: Lots of feedback tonight. Next convo will be more inclusive. Because so many people not here, hope to have more of neighborhood represented. Will stick around if there are more questions tonight.

(End of meeting ~ 9:00 PM)

Sunday, April 7, 2019

Remaining Items for Town Meeting


Will this be the final week of Town Meeting? We shall see! We convene at 7:15 PM Monday, April 8 in Battin Hall of Cary Memorial Building (1605 Massachusetts Avenue). Here's what remains (not necessarily in this order; N.B. DATE CERTAIN items):
  • Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Award Ceremony
  • Town Meeting Member Association (TMMA) Presentation of 30-year Awards
  • DATE CERTAIN Monday, April 8: Article 14—Appropriate the FY2020 Community Preservation Committee Operating Budget and CPA Projects
  • DATE CERTAIN Monday, April 8: Article 20g—Appropriate for Westview Cemetery Facility Construction
  • DATE CERTAIN Monday, April 8: Article 6Appropriate for Cremation Facility at Westview Cemetery
  • Remaining parts of Article 16: Appropriate for Municipal Capital Projects and Equipment
    • Article 16g (removed from Consent Agenda): Sidewalk Improvements
    • Article 16h: Hill Street New Sidewalk Project
    • Article 16i: Equipment Replacement (DPW)
    • Article 16m: Municipal Technology Improvement Program
    • Article 16n: Application Implementation
    • Article 16o: Network Core Equipment Replacement
    • Article 16p: Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stations
  • Article 20h: Appropriate Design Funds for a Feasibility Study to Improve the Cary Library Children's Room
  • Reconsideration of Article 28 (technical correction): Confirm Street Acceptance and Title (Portion of Pelham Road)
  • Article 21 (removed from Consent Agenda): Rescind Prior Borrowing Authorizations
  • DATE CERTAIN Wednesday, April 10: Article 38—Amend Zoning Bylaw and Zoning Map, 186 Bedford Street (Owner Petition)
  • Reconsideration of Article 39: Amend Zoning Bylaw—Limited Site Plan Review (Citizen Article)
  • Article 27: Appropriate for Authorized Capital Improvements
  • Any Unfinished Business from previous nights
  • Dissolution of 2019 Town Meeting
No meetings during the week Patriots' Day/school vacation week (April 15-19); Monday, April 22, as needed.

Image credit: Slide from Superintendent Dr. Julie Hackett's FY20 Budget presentation ~ mas

Wednesday, April 3, 2019

Closing the Second Week | Town Meeting


7:32 PM Call to Order

Town Meeting Member Memorial—Carolyn Tiffany, affectionately known as Kay. Kay was a long-time TMM in Precinct 8 for more than 30 years. A retired Guidance Counselor, more than 20 years in Winchester. Organizer. Activist. Prescient on Climate Change. She died earlier this year. A moment of silence for Kay.

The Meeting is now open on Article 4: Reduce Community Preservation Act Surcharge Rate from 3% to 1% Pursuant to MGL Chapter 44B, §16 (Citizen Article)
MOTION that this item be Indefinitely Postponed (IP'd)
Bridger McGaw, maker of the Article, with a presentation, HERE
Select Board (SB): Unanimously supports IP
Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC)
Appropriation Committee: Does not take a position on items for IP
Community Preservation Committee (CEC): Unanimously supports IP
Planning Board (PB): Unanimously supports IP
TMM/P1: NOmic Will support IP; hopes this is the last we will see of this [trying to reduce the CPC rate]
There are no further questions or comments
VOICE VOTE (VV)
Unanimously PASSES

Town Moderator to Deputy Moderator, Barry Orenstein (TMod to DMod)

The Meeting is now open on Article 15: Appropriate for Recreation Capital Projects
MOTION is HERE
Lisah Rhodes, TMM/P4, and Chair of Recreation Committee with the presentation, HERE
Recreation Committee: Unanimously supports
School Committee (SC): Unaimously supports
AC: Unanimously supports
CEC: Unanimously supports the relevant parts
Q TMM/P2: Fees at Pine Meadows Golf Course?
Town of Lexington (ToL): Yes.
Given that there are user fees, why aren't they used?
ToL: They are, 100%
There are no further comments or questions
VOTE on Article 15: 
YES: 157
NO: 1
ABSTAIN: 5
MOTION CARRIES

DMod back to TMod

SB requests TMod take up Article 27 on Wednesday, April 10
TMod indicates that's what we will do

Article 16: Appropriate for Municipal Capital Projects and Equipment
Revised MOTION is HERE
Parts 16a, 16d, 16j, 16k, 16l have already been acted upon
Taking up 16b, 16c, 16e, 16f, 16g, 16h, 16i, 16m, 16n, 16o, and 16p, ultimately
AC: unanimous on all but 16f--comments on that when it comes up
No questions or comments on 16b or 16c
No VOTE on 16b or 16c yet

On to 16e—presentation is HERE
Planning Board (PB): Unanimously supports 16e
CEC: Favors this MOTION
Citizen's Mic (CitMic): Chamber of Commerce supports
YESmic: TMM/P6
NOmic: TMM/P7
Qmic: TMM/P5: Can this section be broken out?
TMod: We will definitely vote this separately
CitMic: Resident and high school teacher is concerned there will be traffic backups in neighborhoods (citing Waze, Google)
NOmic: TMM/P9 Is concerned that before we vote on such a substantial sum of money, we should reconsider the $2M spending for brick sidewalks
YESmic: TMM/P3
Qmic: TMM/P3: Wants to support this. Is concerned about the ornamental lights. Are there shields from above? LED lights?
ToL: Fully shielded, yes to LEDs
Victoria Buckley, TMM/P9, Chair of Commission on Disability, with an Amendment. [To read: In the MOTION, after the word "construction", adding "as approved by the Commission on Disability"] 
Questions about the AMENDMENT
TMM with a Point of Personal Order: Is this appropriate?
TMod: We will hear from Town Counsel
Town Counsel: To the Q just asked: Yes, it is appropriate. Regarding the enforcability: "Approval" is somewhat problematic because SB has authority of streets and sidewalks, so it would be "Advisory"
SB: Requests a brief recess
We are recessed

Amendment offered by Ms. Buckley

9:00 PM We are back in Session
AMENDMENT to the AMENDMENT reflects the discussion that has just taken place during recess:

Amended Amendment

SB: Unanimously supports
CEC: 4-2 in favor of the Amendment
AC: 1-6 AC does not recommend
PB: no position
Center Committee: does not have a position on it because haven't convened on the AMendment
Qmic: TMM/P6: Is the SB voting to do what the Commission on Disability recommends?
SB: We accept the insertion of the language
NOmic: TMM/P7
Qmic: TMM/P3: What is the charge of the Commission on Disibility?
Town Counsel: Charge as per MGL Ch 40 §8j
TMM/P3 will oppose AMENDMENT and the ARTICLE
YESmic: TMM/P7
Qmic: TMM/P3: If we do not adopt and SB does it anyway. are we open to a law suit (due to bricks)
Town Counsel: I think the answer is NO
YESmic: TMM/P4
YESmic: TMM/P9
TMM/P1 Calls the Question
Vote by VOICE VOTE
Debate on the Amendment is CLOSED
Final comments from Ms. Buckley
YES:  128
NO: 35
ABSTAIN: 2
MOTION to AMEND CARRIES
Debate continues on 16e with the MOTION as AMENDED
Center Committee: Unanimously supports
YESmic: TMM/P1
Qmic: TMM/P6 With regard to the road closure test: what was the impact of the lane loss?
ToL: Counts were set up in surrounding neighborhoods throughout the trial; we saw no impact.
TMM/P6: With a later school start time, how will that impact this project?
ToL: We haven't looked at the delayed start time
NOmic: TMM/P6
Qmic: TMM/P4 More information on the Mass Works Grant? Least/Most to expect?
TMgr: The range is specifically for municipal projects; they are substantial ~ $2M
Qmic: TMM/P4: Care and maintenance of new trees?
ToL: Plan is to give them the proper space and soil in which to grow, coupled with irrigation; after that, they will follow with our regular program
TMM/P4 Are there any provisions for extended drought?
ToL: They will have irrigation, plus supplemental waterings from the watering truck
NOmic: TMM/P3
Qmic: TMM/P4: Why is there no funding for improved signage?
ToL: There is signage within the plan, most of it is street signage
YESmic: TMM/P4
Qmic: TMM/P6 Funding sources. Given that we have small businesses in the center, public/private partnerships?
TMgr: At this point the Town hasn't done anything about looking into pub/priv p'ships
TMM/P6: Talked about planters. Will the curbed planters function as protection?
ToL: We think so
Qmic: TMM/P4 Any peer reviewed lit that compare the slipperyness of brick to concrete?
ToL: Unable to find any reports on the slipperyness of brick; there are different types of brick and concrete, but nothing
TMM/P4: Similarly on maintenance of brick or concrete?
ToL: The ad hoc Working Group asked for the same thing, but we couldn't find anything on this either
TMM/P6 asks what materials experts were heard by the ad hoc WG -- ToL runs through a list of experts from memory, acknowledges his list isn't complete
NOmic: TMM/P5
TMM/P6 Calls the Question
VOTE TO CLOSE DEBATE
YES: 114
NO: 47
ABSTAIN: 4
MOTION CARRIES
No final comments
MOTION to adopt 16e as AMENDED requires 2/3 Majority
YES: 121
NO: 21
ABSTAIN: 4
MOTION CARRIES

On to 16f— presentation is HERE
Assistant Town Manager with brief Financing Plan presentation on the last four pages of presentation above: Enterprise Debt and MWRA Debt; borrowing term of 10 years, 4% interest rate. Three hypothetical scenarios; decisions made during rate-setting process in the fall.
SB: Unanimously supports 16f
CEC: 5-1 in support of 16f
AC: 6-3 in support of 16f
Qmic: TMM/P4 Wants to know if anyone has looked at the cost of ownership over time, as in costs of maintenance?
CEC: Yes
Town of Lex (ToL): Average maintenance ~$20K/year
TMM/P4: Spending $6Million works out to ~500/household. Over what amount of time to cover that cost?
ToL: Not a complete return on investment. Automated meters saves staff time, abatements, at ~$250K/year
Qmic: TMM/P6 Wants to know if people really need to put up antennae on their house
ToL: Not every house; there will only need to be a few and they will not go up on houses
TMM/P6: Confirm that no one will be asked to put an antennae on their house as part of this project
ToL: Yes.
Qmic: TMM/P2: How often can we get a report?
ToL: That's up to you
TMM/P2: Can we get it in real time?
ToL: Not in real time but the next day
What about on leaks?
ToL: Sensitive to 1/10th of a gallon,
A lot of questions from a TMM/P2 having to do with particulars of the network system, radio frequency, on which the system is built
TMM Calls the Question
MOTION to CALL the Q PASSES by VV
Debate closed on 16f
VOTE on 16f requires 2/3 Majority:
YES: 121
NO: 21
ABSTAIN: 8
MOTION CARRIES BY MORE THAN THE 2/3 NECESSARY

Voting on Article 16b and 16c together, which had no questions or debate
VOTE requires 2/3 Majority:
YES: 149
NO: 0
ABSTAIN: 2
MOTION CARRIES BY MORE THAN THE 2/3 NECESSARY

MOTION to ADJOURN until Monday, April 8 at 7:15 PM PASSES on a VV
10:31 PM 

Image credit: Superintendent Dr. Julie Hackett presenting her first LPS Operating Budget and School Technology Budget requests Monday Night, April 1 ~ mas

Monday, April 1, 2019

Third Night | Town Meeting


We're in the usual place -- Battin Hall of Cary Memorial Building (1605 Mass Av)
James Malloy, Town Manager (TMgr) has forwarded changes to The Brown Book since printing; they may be found HERE
All Open Money Articles, Debt Schedule, HERE
Schedule of Articles anticipated tonight is HERE

Town Moderator (TMod) has gaveled the Call to Order.

MOTION presented by the School Committee to Reconsider Article 39. TMod states we will take up reconsideration next week.

Article 2 is now open; the Article remains open throughout TM, to receive reports from Officials, Boards, and Committee

Article 2: Report of the Appropriation Committee (AC)
The Report is received and placed on file
Glenn Parker with brief remarks about the AC Report


Article 2: Report of the Superintendent of the Minuteman Regional High School
The report is received and placed on file
Being presented by Kevin Mahoney, Assistant Superintendent - Finance
Presentation HERE 


Article 2: Report of the Lexington School Superintendent

The report is received and placed on file
Superintendent Dr. Julie Hackett's presentation is HERE

The Meeting is now open on Article 11: Appropriate FY2020 Operating Budget
MOTION is HERE
TMod will go through each line and will take questions from Town Meeting Members. Vote will be taken at the end.
Select Board (SB): Unanimously supports
School Committee (SC): Unanimously supports
AC: Unanimously supports
Question/TMMP6: on Education, LPS and Minuteman. LPS Health insurance: is this a one-time increase?
TMgr: Brown Book has been updated, amount has been reduced; every year there are new employees who start working here, that number is based on our estimated number of new employees
TMM/P6: Can you report on the number of METCO students enrolled relative to the space
LPS: 215 METCO students in the system, looking at a potential 25 more students.
Q for MM School from TMM/P6: 1). Operating cost/pupil?
MM: $32,000
2). More students to drive down costs?
MM: Students decide if they wish to attend.
3). Facilities for swim team at LPS -- when will it be demolished?
MM: Building demo will begin August 1; running modest use of pool in July.
Q from TMM/P4: Rough outline of how allocations are made relative to split?
TMgr: 73% for schools, 26% for municipal
Time to Vote:
YES: 167
NO: 0
ABSTAIN: 1
MOTION is UNANIMOUS, as it carries more than the 2/3 required
TMod turns gavel over to Deputy Moderator (DMod), Barry Orenstein

Article 19: Appropriate for School Capital Projects
MOTION is HERE
Dr. Julie Hackett with the presentation
Presentation is HERE
SB: Unanimously supports
Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC): Unaimously supports (S/O for the 5-year plan)
AC: Unanimously supports
SC: Unanimously supports
Q from TMM/P6: Fully supports. How are we disposing of or recycling these after their useful life?
LPS: Using zero landfill; recycling
TMM/P6: Donating?
LPS: Yes!
Q from TMM/P8: Do we Bring Your Own Device at school? Many students have their own, have the schools considered this?
LPS: We have had this conversation; BYOD for seniors and juniors may opt out if they so choose. Goal is to create equitable systems for "ease of use" for teachers and students.
TMM/P8: Will BYOD be phased out?
LPS: That is the current thinking
Time to VOTE on the MOTION
YES: 161
NO: 1
ABSTAIN: 2
MOTION CARRIES by more than the 2/3 required

Article 5: Establish Qualifications for Tax Deferrals

MOTION is HERE

Vicki Blier (VB), TMM/P9 with a brief presentation
SB: Unanimously supports
AC: Unanimously supports
Q from TMM/P: Very much in favor. Do we have any idea of the percentage of people applying?
VB: It's difficult to know; we do know that 477 seniors qualified for the State Circuit Breaker
Q from TMM/P: What can the Town do to publicize?
VB: The actual tax bill did have something included with it to describe the program. Item included in newsletters, newspaper. Conversations at Community Center, other times, places.
Q from TMM/P3: What is the rationale for $75,000?
VB: We started at the State Limit of $40,000 and have been notching it up.
Q from TMM/P2: What is the interest rate?
Pat Costello: Approximately 1.96% currently; 2.55% in 2020
Q from TMM/P4: Do more people actually apply for the tax deferral?
VB: We've had steady increase
YESmic: TMM/P6
VOTE on the MOTION (simple majority):
YES: 164
NO: 0
ABSTAIN: 1
MOTION PASSES
Returning the gavel to TMod

Article 10: Post Employment Insurance Liability Fund
SB Chair Barry recuses herself

MOTION is HERE
SB: Supports 4-0 (1 recusal)
AC: Unanimously supports
Q from TMM/P4: Where are we WRT meeting our full funding for Pension?
Town Of Lexington (ToL): On target to be fully funded by 2024
Q from TMM/P3: How are we doing compared to other towns?
ToL: Many other Towns have not funded its Pension, some are ahead of us, they are the minority
VOTE on the MOTION
YES: 147
NO: 4
ABSTAIN: 3
MOTION CARRIES

Article 12: FY20 Enterprise Funds Budgets
MOTION is HERE
SB: Unanimously supports
AC: Unanimously supports
Seeing no questions
VOTE on MOTION:
YES: 154
NO: 0
ABSTAIN: 1
MOTION PASSES

TMod passes gavel to DMod

Article 13: Departmental Revolving Funds
MOTION is HERE
For occasional peer review of water management systems
SB: Unanimously supports
AC: Unanimously supports
Q from TMM/P7: Who can invoke the process? Is it mandatory once requested?
ToL: Not necessarily applies to every building application, but where the Building Commissioner recommends referral for peer review
TMM/P7: Are there no guidelines?
ToL: Because there are no standards, and the Building Commissioner is not a Civil Engineer, which is why we need a Civil Engineer
TMM/P7: Is there an appeal process? 
ToL: Not unless there is a Civil Engineer in the roles
TMMP7: Is there a waiver?
ToL: There is no waiver process
TMM/P7: Subjective, can't support
TMM/P1: By what authority is there for charging this fee?
Town Counsel: MGL, Ch. 53G accounts
TMM/P1: Does it cover imposing a fee for the town to hire?
Town Counsel: Yes
YESmic: TMM/P9
Q from TMM/P3: How many homes have been affected? Average amount?
ToL: Have had, last year, 71 homes torn down, not all required, but each one has had to be
looked at. 8 reviews per month maximum, 4 hours per review, $150/hour
No further Questions
VOTE the MOTION:
YES: 149
NO: 4
ABSTAIN: 2
MOTION CARRIES

DMod to TMod

Consent Agenda: (For Articles 14c, 14l, 14m, 16a, 16d, 16g, 16j, 16k, 16l, 18, 20a, 20b, 20c, 20d, 20f, 21, 23, 24,25,27)
MOTIONS are HERE
SB: Asks to have Article 27 removed (it will not be taken up tonight)
Q from TMM/P3: For sidewalks not included in Center Streetscape?

ToL: Annual item, not part of Center Streetscape
TMM/P3: Same material?
ToL: Regular sidewalk repair, so in-kind repairs--if asphalt, asphalt; concrete, concrete
TMM/P6: Center Streetscape project is substantial cost, please separate 16g
TMM/P3: 16 j, k, l -- where is the work to be done?
ToL: They are done at existing signals throughout town. Off of Lowell Street is one area. Street improvements are townwide -- update website, mailings to abutters (15 miles each year). Map is put on the website each year
TMM/P3: Walnut Street on the list?
ToL: have to take a look to see if it is on the list this year
TMM/P3: I don't live there, but is one of the narrower roads, many potholes, was hoping, yes
Seeing no questions
VOTE on CONSENT AGENDA (Not on the items asked to be pulled out):
YES: 150
NO: 0
ABSTAIN: 1
MOTION CARRIES


There is time permitting, TMod asks for a MOTION for TM to take up Articles scheduled for 
Wednesday, April 3; SB Chair Barry with the MOTION; TM approves:
Article 17: Appropriate for Water System ImprovementsMOTION is HERE
SB: Unanimously supports
AC: Unanimously supports
CEC: Unanimously supports
Apologies for missing the questions from TMM/P3!
Q from another TMM/P3: Given the discussion last year, can you tell us the inspection process that goes into the 100-lifeyear cycle of water mains?
ToL: Water system is under pressure, inspections are much more difficult to investigate.
Seeing no further Questions, VOTE on MOTION (requires 2/3 majority):
YES: 146
NO: 0
ABSTAIN: 1
MOTION is UNANIMOUS

Article 22: Establish, Dissolve, and Appropriate to and from Specified Stabilization Funds
MOTION is HERE
Requires 2/3 Majority
SB: Unanimously supports
CEC: on parts a and b--unanimously supports
AC: Unanimously supports
Seeing no questions
VOTE on MOTION
YES: 143
NO: 0
ABSTAIN: 1
MOTION CARRIES

Article 26: Amend FY19 Operating, Enterprise, and CPA Budgets
MOTION is HERE
AC: 5-0 in favor (just took their vote with the members remaining at the table)
SB: Unanimously supports
VOTE on the MOTION
YES: 141
NO: 0
ABSTAIN: 1
MOTION CARRIES

No further business tonight
We meet again Wednesday, April 3 at 7:30 PM
Until then—we are adjourned
10:11 PM

Image credit: James Malloy, Town Manager introduces Senior Management Staff to Town Meeting on Wednesday, March 27, 2019 ~ mas

Articles Anticipated Tonight


Tonight will be our third session of the 2019 Annual Town Meeting, starting at 7:30 PM in Battin Hall. The anticipated schedule of Articles has been forwarded by the Town Moderator as follows:
  • DATE CERTAIN: Article 2—Report of the Minuteman School Superintendent 
  • Article 2: Report of the Lexington School Superintendent 
  • DATE CERTAIN: Article 11—FY20 Operating Budget 
  • Article 19: Appropriate for School Capital Projects 
  • Article 5: Establish Qualifications for Tax Deferrals
  • Article 10: Post Employment Insurance Liability Fund
  • Consent Agenda (For Articles 14c, 14l, 14m, 16a, 16d, 16g, 16j, 16k, 16l, 18, 20a, 20b, 20c, 20d, 20f, 21, 23, 24,25,27). Consent Agenda MOTIONS are HERE
  • Any Unfinished Business from Previous Nights
  • Time Permitting, begin Articles scheduled for Wednesday, April 3:
    • Town Meeting Member Memorial—Kay Tiffany
    • Article 4: Reduce Community Preservation Act Surcharge Rate
    • Article 15: Recreation Capital Projects
    • Article 16: Municipal Capital Projects and Equipment
    • Article 17: Water System Improvements
    • Article 20: Public Facilities Capital Projects (except 20g)
    • Article 22: Specified Stabilization Funds
    • Article 26: Amend FY19 Operating, Enterprise and CPA Budgets
Live-blogging from the floor commences once we are gaveled to order. Tweeting, too, @MAStewartMA using #LexMApoli.

Wednesday, March 27, 2019

Anticipated Articles | Tonight


Below, the updated proposed schedule of Articles for tonight's Town Meeting from Town Moderator, as of last Friday, March 23. Note that none of the Articles are DATE CERTAIN.

Article 2 remains open throughout Town Meeting for Reports from Officers, Boards, or Committees to be presented and placed on file with the Town Clerk.

Article 2: Report of the Town Manager (Items Referred Back to Board of Selectmen) 

Article 2: Report of the Capital Expenditures Committee 

Article 7: Creation of a Lexington Economic Development Strategy (Citizen Article)
MOTION that this item be Indefinitely Postponed (ID'd) 

Article 8: Funding for Sustainability Actions (Citizen Article)
MOTION that this item be IP'd 

Article 9: Sustainability Director (Citizen Article) 

Article 39: Amend Zoning Bylaw – Limited Site Plan Review (Citizen Article, referring to MGL Chapter 40A, §3, "Dover Amendment Uses") 

Articles 33, 34, & 37: Rename “Board of Selectmen” to “Select Board” 
 
Article 2: Town Manager’s Budget Report (First tab of The Brown Book, pp.i-xvi)
Any Unfinished Business from the Previous Night

Town Meeting starts at 7:30 PM in Battin Hall of Cary Memorial Building (1605 Mass Av). Live-blogging begins once we're graveled in. Residents may address Town Meeting, with comments and/or questions pertaining to Town Meeting business, through the Town Moderator and must arrange to do so in advance.
Image credit: Some of the 2019 Town Meeting Reports: Town of Lexington Annual Report, The Brown Book (Recommended Budget & Financing Plan), Capital Expenditures Committee Report, Town Warrant

2019 Town Warrant is HERE
MOTIONS updated 3/25/2019, HERE
Consent Agenda MOTIONS, HERE
MOTIONS by Article Number, HERE
Articles with MOTIONS, Reports, and Presentations, HERE

Recommended Budget and Financing Plan (The Brown Book), HERE
Report of the Appropriation Committee (AC), HERE
Report of the Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC), HERE
Report of the Community Preservation Committee (CPC), HERE
Votes of Town Meeting Members (TMMs) by date, HERE

Wednesday, March 13, 2019

Citizen Articles Coming Up at Town Meeting


The 2019 Town of Lexington Warrant includes thirty-nine Articles for Town Meeting (TM) beginning March 25*.

TM Articles are described and organized as Financial, General, or Zoning Articles.
Ten of the Articles (25%) have been inserted by Citizens of the Town (inserted by an individual and 9 or more registered voters.) While that, in and of itself, isn't a crazy notable number (last year's ATM had 9 Citizen Articles), it's the nature of each Article and where they fall that strikes me, particularly.
  • 5 Citizen Articles fall under the heading of Financial Articles (Arts. 4,6,7,8,9), beginning middle of page 5 of the Warrant
  • 4 are General Articles (Arts. 30,31,35,36), at about the middle of page 13 of the Warrant
  • 1 is a Zoning Article (39), near bottom of page 15 of the Warrant
Four of the Citizen Articles focus on environmental sustainability:
  • Two are Financial Articles: 
    • Article 8: Funding for Sustainability Action, has been inserted by Ricki Pappo, a TMM in Precinct 2 and Co-Chair of Lexington Global Warming Action Coalition. The Article seeks to establish a revolving fund or some other mechanism, from the earnings of projects promoted through the Sustainable Action Plan for the Town to invest in future actions proposed under the Sustainable Action Plan. This Article has been scheduled for an Info Session on Tuesday, March 19 and is an opportunity to hear from the maker of the Article and ask questions.
    • Article 9: Sustainability Director, also inserted by Ricki Pappo and 9 or more registered voters, proposes that funds requested under this Article go to the salary and benefits for a Sustainability Director, whose duties will include recommending, developing, monitoring, and securing grants for programs designed to enhance Lexington's long term sustainability and resilience. TMMA Info Session scheduled for Tuesday, March 19.
  • The other two Citizen/Sustainability Articles are found under General Articles:
    • Article 30: Amend Town Bylaws—Reduce/Ban Polystyrene Materials for all food serviceware and packaging in Lexington. This Article has been inserted by Lin Jensen, a Precinct 8 TMM and Lexington Green Teams volunteer -- it's included among the other Articles up for discussion at the Info Session scheduled for Wednesday, March 13.
    • Article 31: Amend Town Bylaws—Reduce/Ban Single-Use Plastic Beverage Straws and Stirrers, also offered by Lin and among the Articles included in the TMMA Info Session scheduled for Wednesday, March 13.
    • Note: Many local organizations are already going the way of eliminating one-time use plastic straws and stirrers, as well as polystyrene. Student/parent groups worked with the Lexington Public Schools to remove polystyrene and straws from the public school cafeterias. All of the Town's school/parent groups are going plastic-free for their events and community events, too. More of that history is HERE.
The remaining three (Citizen) Financial Articles are: 
  • Article 4: Reduce Community Preservation Act (CPA) Surcharge Rate from 3% to 1% Pursuant to M.G.L. c.44B, § 16. This Article has been inserted by TMM Bridger McGaw of Precinct 6. No funds are requested with it, which seeks to reduce the current CPA surtax rate, thus providing an immediate tax break to all Lexington residents. Additionally, special considerations must be given to covering debt for previous CPA-funded projects, maintenance of historic properties, and future conservation land purchases. More about that to come at the TMMA Info Session scheduled for Tuesday, March 19.
  • Article 6: Appropriate for Cremation Facility at Westview Cemetery. Will see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate a sum of money for design engineering and architectural services including site work, value engineering, and cost estimating for plans and specifications to construct new Cremation Facility at the Westview Cemetery and for the payment of all other costs incidental or related thereto; determine whether the  money will be provided by the tax levy, by transfer from other available funds, by borrowing, or by any combination of these methods; or act in any other manner in relation thereto. Funds requested are unknown at this time. This article was IP'd last year pending further study. TMMA Info Session scheduled for Tuesday, March 19.
  • Article 7: Appropriate Funds for the Creation of a Lexington Economic Development Strategy is a proposal to see if the Town will vote to appropriate $100,000 to fund the cost of developing an Economic Development Strategy to be led by the Economic Development Office. The report will be submitted to the Town Manager and Selectmen and published on the town Website within six months of passage of this article. The funds will go toward the development of a holistic Economic Development Strategy to provide recommendations for changes to zoning, permitting, design guidelines, marketing, outreach, and development mitigation. TMMA Info Session scheduled for Tuesday, March 19.
Four of the Citizen Articles fall under the heading of "General Articles":
  • Previously mentioned, Article 30: Amend Town Bylaws—Reduce/Ban Polystyrene Materials.
  • Previously mentioned,Article 31: Amend Town Bylaws—Reduce/Ban Single-Use Plastic Beverage Straws and Stirrers
  • Article 35: Amend Article III of Chapter 118 refers to the Code of the Town of Lexington, which is an effort to improve debate and subsidiary motion procedures. It proposes revisions to Town Meeting's rules of debate, subsidiary motion, and/or amendment procedures to develop criteria for ensuring a minimum of debate has occurred before subsidiary motions can be offered or debate closed. TMMA Info Session is scheduled for Tuesday, March 19.
  • Article 36: Implement an Outcomes-Based Approach to Town Building Projects is an article seeking Town Meeting approval to adopt an outcomes-based building management process that emphasizes:
    • Setting clear targets or outcomes for the performance of current and planned buildings in the areas of health, energy performance, energy management, and resilience;
    • Assessing gaps against those outcomes; and
    • Utilizing those outcomes for the beginning stages of future building development and in prioritizing operating/capital budget projects. 
    • TMMA Info Session is scheduled for Tuesday, March 19
Finally, the Citizen Article found within Zoning Articles:
  • Article 39: Amend Zoning Bylaw-Limited Site Plan Review (Inserted by Jeanne Krieger, Precinct 3 TMM and member of the Zoning Board of Appeals, ZBA). This is a proposal to see if the Town will vote to amend the Zoning Bylaw to reasonably regulate land uses protected by MGL c. 40A §3 through site plan review, or act in any other manner in relation thereto. The changes proposed would provide for site plan review, to the extent possible, of exempt uses protected under the MGL c. 40A §3, pertaining to "Dover Amendment uses". TMMA Info Session scheduled for Tuesday, March 19.
⸺⸺
Image credit: Creative Commons, Isaac Harris Cary Memorial Building, 1605 Massachusetts Avenue, Lexington MA

* The 2019 Annual Town Meeting opens Monday, March 25 and continues the following Wednesday and every Monday and Wednesday thereafter until all of the Articles in the Warrant have been considered by the Meeting. There are no Meetings on April 15 or 17, as it is LPS vacation week.

Wednesday, February 6, 2019

Fund Our Future


Educator friends asked me to moderate two forums organized in Cambridge and Lexington in the past week for the Fund Our Future campaign. Fund Our Future is a new campaign to see public education in Massachusetts, from PreK-12 and higher education, funded at appropriate levels. Attendees are asked:
  • What if all public schools and districts had all of the Chapter 70 dollars they deserved? 
  • How do we access those dollars? 
The growing coalition seeks equity and fairness for every student and to end the systemic underfunding in Massachusetts gateway cities, urban districts, and communities of color.

Forums are being held in communities across the Commonwealth. Each is an opportunity to understand the state of funding public education in Massachusetts and to learn about options for revenue, plus two legislative proposals that attempt to fix the problem: PROMISE and CHERISH Acts.

The coalition is asking Governor Baker and the Legislature to invest, at minimum, $1.5 billion per year for public education, and to phase it in over five years: $1 billion for K-12 (in accordance with the recommendations of the Foundation Budget Review Commission, FBRC, 2015) and $500 million for higher education (in accordance with the recommendations of the Higher Education Finance Commission, HEFC, 2014).

CAMBRIDGE FORUM
Colin Jones, Senior Policy Analyst at MassBudget and Policy Center (MassBudget), focuses on early and K-12 education policy and finance. He presented *the funding problem* at both of the forums I moderated, beginning with the background and history of Chapter 70—how we got where we are today, what the funding gap looks like between some gateway cities compared to wealthier suburbs—and concluding with some of MassBudget's research on options for progressive revenue. Colin  briefly addressed the Governor's budget proposal on this matter (which phases in fewer dollars over seven years. Some other relevant links are at the end of this post).

André Greene, member of the Somerville School Committee, shared the impact of underfunding from the school and district level. He stressed the need for equitable funding for all students. With better funding there could be more and better materials in classrooms, as well as smaller classrooms. André also noted the importance of adequate capital investments, including for vocational education, and the need for increased MSBA funding to speed up school replacements and renovations in communities.

Senator Pat Jehlen of Somerville, formerly a member of the Foundation Budget Review Commission (FBRC), noted that language in PROMISE is identical to FBRC's recommendations. She had us visualize the *three-legged stool* of education reform and how badly out of kilter things are in the 25+ years after enacting those reforms, absent critical Foundation Budget updates (which she has written about HERE). Senator Jehlen stressed urgency in providing the means for every city and town to  offer an adequate education to every child, and that we are not fulfilling our obligation to educate all students as mandated by the Massachusetts Constitution (Chapter V, Section II).

LEXINGTON FORUM
Superintendent of Lexington Public Schools, Dr. Julie Hackett, formerly of Taunton Public Schools, talked about the inequities that follow in classrooms, schools, and districts as a result of underfunding. Taunton is a gateway city with a higher number of students who are economically disadvantaged and/or are not native English speakers. Student needs are higher as a result and funding education via property taxes has real limits for the city's meeting their Net School Spending level (NSS), as opposed to Lexington which can (and does) contribute well above their NSS level. This comment of hers has stuck with me:
In Taunton, we spent most of our time figuring out how to fund our learning; in Lexington we spend our time learning.
Max Page, MTA Vice President, has been a professor of Architecture since 2001 at UMass/Amherst.  He shared the importance of improved PreK-12 funding, in addition to the legislative proposals, the PROMISE and CHERISH Acts. He explained that our PreK-12 schools lack funding necessary for students to be adequately prepared for their future and the PROMISE Act will help to change that. In higher education, he said the financial burden has shifted from the state to students; infusing the state budget with $574 million gets us to the 2001 level for higher education and that we need our legislators to fund our future with the CHERISH Act.

ABOUT PROMISE AND CHERISH ACTS
PROMISE
An Act Providing Rightful Opportunites and Meaningful Investment for Successful and Equitable Education, the PROMISE Act currently S.D.101 (and H.D.434), is a proposal offered by Senator Sonia Chang-Díaz, Senate Chair of the Joint Committee on Education. She is also former Senate Chair of the Foundation Budget Review Commission (FBRC, 2014-2015).

By way of brief review, FBRC's final report recommended changes to the *four pillars* of our outdated financing system (10/30/2015, Senate), specifically, in the areas of:
  • Health Insurance
  • Special Education
  • English Language Learners
  • Low Income Students
The report concluded:
"...the good work begun by the education reform act of 1993, and the educational progress made since, will be at risk so long as our school systems are fiscally strained by the ongoing failure to substantively reconsider the adequacy of the foundation budget..."
PROMISE acronym excellence notwithstanding, I note (again) the Senate has acted on FBRC each year since the report was delivered to the Legislature in October 2015. The House has not acted. (Conference Committee came close before *time ran out* last legislative session...but hey, let's be honest and recognize THAT decision was a choice by House leadership—and a poor one, too).

It's more accurate to say that time has run out for a generation's worth of students. How many children have had to *bide their time* while the Legislature has failed to adequately address Massachusetts' public education funding system? It's well past time for the Legislature to act.

CHERISH
Senator Jo Comerford has introduced An Act Committing to Higher Education Resources to Insure a Strong and Healthy Higher Education System, currently S.D.740. CHERISH builds on the previous work of the Higher Education Finance Commission (HEFC, 2013-2014), predating FBRC. HEFC report concluded:
"...the Commonwealth must reform antiquated financing systems that promote inequity and inefficiency..."
CONCLUSION
I've said before and it bears repeating: We all have a stake in the solid education of all our people, least of which are countless situations where our personal interests, safety, and well-being depend on others' competence, empathy, and compassion.

MassBudget reminds us: Anyone who has set foot in a public school, driven on a road or across a bridge, or gone to a public park has been touched by the state budget. What we fund in our state budget reflects our values. Government isn't some big blob *out there*, government is us! No essential services would be possible without the revenue to pay for it—and it's important that we consider whether the state is raising revenue adequately and fairly. If the state budget isn't funding the things we want at the levels necessary to close gaps and prepare students, why not?

Two things to understand about our revenue system: 1). It's inadequate and 2). It's unfair. Decisions made beginning twenty years ago have left us with a budget gap of about $4 billion. Every. Year.

The education funding system established in 1993 has never been updated. It's inadequate. It's structurally broken. In 2015, FBRC made the necessary recommendations which have only been acted upon by the Senate. Four years later, we may be seeing movement toward taking action in the Legislature and in the Executive Office.

Please ask yourself and others:
  • What if all schools and districts had all of the Chapter 70 dollars they deserve?
  • How do we pay for it?
  • What are one or two insights you have?
  • What's one action you're prepared to take?
    • By when?
    • Who will you share it with?
The biggest insight I had after reflecting on the information presented in Cambridge and Lexington is that more education on how to fund public education appropriately is necessary! This post represents then, one of my actions to spread the word to more people. Please share it.

It was pointed out at the Lexington forum: If your elected Rep/s have co-sponsored either PROMISE or CHERISH, thank them. Especially in the House, ask them to go further and advocate for the bills to House leadership, as well. It's not enough to co-sponsor these proposals. They will not move ahead without your Rep's advocacy!

Another thing you can do is to urge local elected School Committee, Select Boards/City Councils, and public college campuses in your region to pass a resolution in support. More details on that HERE.
- - - - -
Image credit: Word cloud generated, Part D, "Conclusion and Next Steps", Foundation Budget Review Commission, 2015

View past issues of Senator Pat Jehlen's excellent newsletter and sign up for it HERE.

Massachusetts Association of School SuperintendentsProject Equity

Fair Share Amendment: S.D.1709 and H.D.3300 proposes a legislative amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to provide resources for education and transportation through an additional 4% surtax on incomes in excess of one million dollars.

MassBudget Resources:
Cross-posted on PDM