Moving on to the next election (assuming no special elections between now and March 13):
Jeff Seideman, who was a leading opponent of both the 2008 override and the 2007 site plan approval vote for Newton North, wrote a column in last week’s TAB supporting Mayor Setti Warren’s proposed override package. For Seideman to come out in favor of such an override is big; for him to support it in such a public and enthusiastic way is huge.
I think Seideman’s column does a terrific job of laying out the reasons Warren is asking for an override – probably better than the mayor did himself — and why people should support him. I distinctly remember Jeff saying that he would support an override if the city ever got its finances in order. For the former president of the Newton Taxpayers Association to acknowledge that such a thing has happened is a big endorsement for the mayor and a major step forward for the city.
Nice job Jeff!
@Benedict Seideman: Nice column. Well reasoned.
@Jeff Seideman -Great editorial
@Jeff. I concur with everything you say in this thoughtful and beautifully crafted column. I, too, opposed the last few overrides for many of the same reasons you cite. I have also been impressed with how the Mayor negotiated with the City’s public unions on a reasonable set of measures to contain future salary and benefit increases and how he has bent over backwards to get input and direction from citizens in every village, ward and precinct. I’m one of those people on retirement income, but to oppose this would be penny wise and pound foolish. The $409.00 extra I would pay each year is little more than what I used to pay for a daily mid sized coffee at Starbucks. I’ve reached some parity on this since I switched to a 75 cent MacDonald’s “Senior Coffee” which very much hits the spot at 5 AM each weekday morning before heading to the Y.
As Jeff’s co-chair of the group in opposition to the ’08 override, I hope it speaks volumes that both of us are fully on board with the necessity of passing this upcoming override.
Jeff spoke eloquently on the reasons for the change and on the circumstances Newton faces that can’t be dealt with absent more revenue.
I’m now an honorary co-chair, along with Rob Gifford, of the committee established to help obtain aldermanic and voter approval, and look forward to being a resource to be tapped in that effort.
I couldn’t be more impressed with just how well Setti Warren took up the challenge that Jeff, and I and others encouraged him to take on in terms of turning the city’s finances around, and rebuilding the trust lost with the prior administration. He did what naysayers said couldn’t be done; taming the so-called structural deficit with several initiatives, most particularly the successful negotiations with our 17 unions to limit labor costs [salary & benefits] to no more than the increased tax levy permitted under Prop 2 1/2, namely 2 1/2 %.
And now he is taking the bold, and necessary, steps to ask citizens to help fund the major initiatives long since ignored. I’m fully behind this override because I’ve looked closely at the services and infrastructure to be covered, and the homework that it’s clear this administration has done, and am convinced that Newton will deteriorate were we not to tackle these now. I earned my fiscal conservative stripes 4 years ago here,and am by nature a skeptic, and even I can see the need.
Makes sense to me. The editorial was well-written, and I appreciated the conclusion regarding moving the goalposts.
I guess my only question is whether they are going to renovate or build new elementary schools. And when is the vote?
Jeff and I are on the same side of the upcoming override votes, but I take issue with a few things he wrote. Specifically his continued criticism of building the new North High School. Unquestionably, mistakes were made in that process, and I concur with Jeff, these mistakes were the result of weak leadership from our then mayor. But let’s make one thing perfectly clear, revisionist history non-withstanding, building the new North was one of the greatest accomplishments this city has seen in the past 50 years.
Jeff was steadfastly opposed to building that school, and to the bitter end clung to his position that the old building should be renovated, despite the fact that at $70M, the projected costs associated with the renovation were grossly underestimated. In my opinion, renovation would have been the worst mistake we could have possibly made, and required all NNHS students to attend different schools for up to two years while the work took place.
So it’s no surprise that Jeff is now playing a little fast and loose with that $70M number, which reemerges out of context in his commentary. “What should have been been a renovation that would have come in $70 million below the eventual cost, turned into a boondoggle that embarrassed the city… “. When Jeff refers to $70M in that context, he’s no longer comparing the debunked, projected cost of the renovation he supported, to the eventual cost of building the new school, [which came in at approximately $195M]. What it appears he’s actually doing, is citing the projected difference between the cost of a third option, often referred to as the “Hybrid,” [a combination of renovation and addition, proposed by the NNHS Task Force], to the eventual final cost of the new North. If I recall correctly, Jeff never supported the hybrid proposal, and neither did I. He didn’t support it, because he just wanted to renovate the old North. I didn’t support it, because I was in favor of building an entirely new school.
Why is this important? Because understanding what happened in the past, helps you make better decisions in the future. When facts are taken out of context and memories blurred, no lesson will ever be learned. The real reasons Newton North cost so much, do not support the theory that we would have been better served by a renovation of any type. The new North carried a hefty price tag for two reasons. First, because the political process was painstakingly long at a time when construction costs, [particularly the cost of steel] were rapidly rising. Second, because the architect was not given a budget in advance of design.
I take further umbrage with Jeff’s pronouncement, “No more Taj Mahals.” Newton North High School is no “Taj Mahal,” and quite frankly I’m tired of hearing this ridiculous reference. It’s a term that’s worked well for talk radio hosts, but not at all reflective of reality, or conducive to an informative debate about the building’s pros and cons. The new Newton North High School is what we should aspire to build as a community. A beautifully designed and constructed facility that supports and inspires the educational process.
This is what I posted on the TAB blog about this subject, and got no response. Seems that no-one wants to or knows how to answer fundamental questions about what these over-rides are all about. So, I’ll try one more time.——–
I think there are legitimate questions to be asked about what these over-rides are really about.
(1) How long do the debt exclusion over-rides last?
(2) What do the new Angier and Cabot schools actually cost to build?
If 20 years, then we’ll be spending $26 million on Angier and $34 million on Cabot. If 30 years, then we’ll be spending $38 million on Angier and $51 million on Cabot. Seems like a lot of money for elementary schools.
We are also burdened with some kind of debt that’s not clear for NNHS. How much is that costing us annually?
(3) The general over-ride includes $1.7 million for the “small” Zervas elementary school renovations only, more than for Angier and equal to Cabot, which are completely new schools and which are covered by limited time debt exclusion over-rides. What’s this all about? If it’s for one year only, then what happens to that money in the ensuing years?
(5) Added staff are recurring expenses, a general over-ride is understandable if justified. The school budget seems bloated already, and Setti wants another $4.5 million for it. Seems like some budget cuts would be better than further bloating the staff or salaries or pensions and benefits.
(6) Fire station repair and police equipment are not recurring expenses. Are the dollars that Jeff quotes one-time costs, and, if so, what happens to that money after this stuff is paid for?
My impression is this is kind of a shell game. Perhaps more money is required through some kind of over-rides, but the explanation given by Jeff, and Setti in his article, leaves a lot of questions unanswered as to what we are getting into. David Cohen already pulled a fast one on us. We don’t need another one.
Read more: Seideman weighs in on the proposed override | Newton TAB Blog http://blogs.wickedlocal.com/newton/2012/11/07/seidman-weighs-in-on-the-proposed-override/#ixzz2BkwWZAZl
The “Read more” is not part of my post. It gets carried along when you copy and paste.
Any answers?
Well, let’s try here as well as the TAB.
So, how much will Angier and Cabot cost? Or is this like NNHS where we get screwed?
And what does the money for Zervas mean? Or is this a trick to get new money into the coffers?
People, including me, of course feel very emotional about schools, and can be tricked.
If Setti can’t explain this, then everyone should stop praising his fiscal accomplishments.
I’m inclined to support the overrides and care deeply about the schools, but I too have questions. Does anyone know why they can’t build the new Angier in the playground while using the old school during construction? This is what they did at North of course, or it would have cost even more. Also, is the private partnership idea to build a new fire house completely dead?
@Adam– I’m glad you asked about the proposed, public-private-partnership, which would have replaced the Newton Centre fire station and Fire Department Headquarters. The idea to further develop the so-called “firefighter’s triangle,” originated with Newton’s former mayor, Ted Mann. I was told about Mayor Mann’s plan to build a parking lot on the site, when I ran for office in 2005. I took a closer look at that idea, recognized the development potential of the site, and proposed the concept of a public-private-partnership that would get Newton a new fire station. The plan only made sense if the triangle’s one private property owner was involved. It was former aldermanic candidate and local architect, Anatol Zukerman, who did all the work. He got the property owner on board, and spent countless hours designing a potential mixed use building, which included the new fire station and fire headquarters. Unfortunately, Mayor Warren has not pursued the idea. Although I’m disappointed the concept hasn’t materialized, I still support the Mayor’s proposed package of overrides, because I believe the city would be best served with more revenue. I do think Mayor Warren should take another look at this idea though, because it could potentially save the city millions of dollars.
I fully support the override but I’m glad that Mike Striar called Jeff out on Newton North. Mike is absolutely right in his assessment of the Newton North situation. Let’s move forward but let’s not make it anything about Newton North.
@Adam: Many years ago the field adjacent to Angier was gifted to the City with a deed restriction that would prohibit the open space land swap you are suggesting. A half-dozen years ago the Cohen Administration thought we could address the restriction through the legal process, but since then Newton’s legal department has concluded that the hurdles are steep, success is unlikely, and the timeline is not under our control. But I believe that this topic will be discussed more definitively as we move through the feasibility process on Angier, as part of the MSBA-mandated study of alternatives.
No-one here will comment on this, but I just did a calculation using city pdf files referenced by another blogger and posted on the TAB blog. Think about this in reference to only schools in the over-ride dispute
According to the middle of the construction estimate range for each school, and the current enrollments, we will be paying, not counting finance costs:
Angier (409 students) $88,000 per student
Cabot (418 students) $111,000 per student
Zervas (325 students) $123,000 per student, for renovation, not teardown and rebuild
while we paid, for the building considered an extravagance, NNHS (1940 students), about $98,000 per student.
The elementary schools surely don’t have the special facilities that NNHS has.
Doesn’t this sound out of line? Did I do something wrong?
@Barry Cohen – I’m not sure how useful a $$/pupil ratio is when evaluating these projects. It seems to me that a more useful comparison would be whether these price tags are in line with comparable, recently constructed schools in other towns. Even if $$/pupil is somehow a useful metric, comparing the $$/pupil for a 1940 student school (NNHS) vs a 408 student school (Angier) doesn’t seem terribly useful – i.e. apples and oranges
Jerry,
I don’t know what schools in other systems cost to build. I’d like to hear that if someone has it. We all should.
I don’t think it’s “apples and oranges”. I think that, if the per pupil cost of elementary schools exceeds NNHS then it’s indicative of something problematic. It’s not the whole story, but it requires explanation as to why it should be so.
I don’t disagree with an over-ride of some sort. The city is hurting. I just think our money should be used wisely. NNHS may be cool to look at it, and may appeal to snob instincts, but it was a poor use of tax money. We shouldn’t do that again, and again, and again. There’s too much that needs to be done to allow wasting money where it is unnecessary.
On a side note: I don’t understand the mentality that if a person is trying to find efficiencies in a project or dept., etc. they have become labeled as opposed to that project or dept., etc. Money is scarce and if we can find cost savings, it means we can have more money for other things.
By the way, the topic of this blog, Jeff, doesn’t seem to want to get involved. So, I ask, given my estimates of $ per student, how do you explain a comment in your article “led the School Building Authority to revise its funding rules so such an affront to fiscal sanity never happens again. No more Taj Mahals”? What’s putting $40 million into repairs and upgrades at Zervas, a school with 325 students, all about?
Barry,
I just posted this on the TAB blog in response to your post. I can also tell you that the estimate for Angier (the process of which I have been observing directly) is derived from MSBA-provided actual construction costs for recent elementary school projects within the Commonwealth. Angier has been estimated near the top of the MSBA range due to complexities of the site, the neighborhood, and other relevant factors unique to this project:
Hingham East Elementary School, Hingham, MA
Total Area: 91,000 square feet
Total Cost: $25,656,000
for 611 students
Burlington Memorial Elementary School, Burlington, MA
Total Area: 80,000 square feet
Total Cost: $16,742,506
for 500 students
comments???
@Barry Cohen – hmmm. that does make Angier and Cabot sound very expensive. It would be a good question for the next hall town meeting that Steve Siegel mentioned.
I assume we all understand that the two new schools would educate thousands of students over the lifetime of the buildings. If you’re going to go the route of assessing per pupil costs, why not divide the total cost by the expected number of students who’ll attend the schools over the lifetime of the building?
Not that I think either is a valid way of assessing building costs, but just thought I’d mention it.
The thing I am trying to convey is this. We are swimming in infrastructure needs in old buildings, roads that look like they have nests of snakes with all the tar patches, etc. David Cohen made a huge mistake in putting so much into NNHS, leaving us unable to do much with other needs, and requiring a higher level of ongoing maintenance or it will quickly deteriorate with high school student mistreatment. I don’t care how much it seems that Setti saved in his budget, it shouldn’t give him the right to make that mistake again by building beyond what is required just to have showplace elementary schools, and then leave ourselves again unable to do other repair and rebuilding. Honestly, $40 million for repairs and some expansion to Zervas, an existing building for a small student population sounds really self-indulgent, unless it can be intelligently explained.