As I’ve written before, I’m surprised that the anti-override campaign Moving Newton Forward hasn’t focused like a laser on the uncertainty surrounding the two debt exclusion ballot questions earmarked to renovate or rebuild Angier and Cabot Schools.
Deirdre Fernandes explored this issue in yesterday’s Globe, noting that “Angier’s feasibility study is not expected to be complete until June” while “the Cabot and Zervas school projects are still early in the planning stages.” Then Fernandes adds…
Communities that obtain funds from the Massachusetts School Building Authority typically complete feasibility studies as part of the approval process, and the plans are developed before voters are asked to approve a tax increase to cover the local share. That’s how Lexington and Franklin did it last year.
“You don’t know what you’re doing until you get that done,” Lexington School Committee chairwoman Margaret Coppe said about the feasibility study. And even after the study, the cost to build Lexington’s elementary school still rose past the estimate.
Nonetheless, Matt Donovan, spokesman for the state’s School Building Authority, says the agency is satisfied with Mayor Setti Warren’s approach..
“Newton is doing what’s right for Newton,” Donovan said about the override.
Are you confident voting for Questions 2 and 3 in two weeks without knowing Angier’s and Cabot’s true cost?
The vote text will allow the city to spend any amount it wants. It only says the city can spend what it has to. This is not right, and reflects on the poor and/or deceptive governance at City Hall. I would like to vote for the schools, but after the NNHS fiasco, I don’t want to give open-ended approval for spending on them.
IMHO, the general override should not pass. Here there is no accountability of any sort. At least with the two schools, even if the costs end up too high, the money should be limited to the needs of the schools, shouldn’t it? Until I’m sure, however, I will plan to vote against those two overrides as well.
With all due respect Barry, I don’t really believe you. You’ve always struck me as an “against any tax hike” kind of guy so I’m skeptical that you’d support any plan no matter how perfectly it was crafted.
But you do raise a point that I’d like someone (Steve?) to explain and it relates to this from the Globe story..
I understand that this is how, debt exclusions work. But since there is no dollar figure attached to the question itself, how is “more than expected” defined?
Greg, are you calling me a liar? Shame!
I was planning to vote for the two schools, but not for the general override. But, after reading the text on the ballot, and hearing on the TAB blog that there’s really no reliable cost estimate yet for either school, I don’t want to give the city an open-ended approval to spend whatever they want on the schools. I’m not sure of the best order in which to do things, but we have a history of inflating construction costs over time, don’t we? Rather, I think the city should have presented what they plan to spend, based upon a reliable estimate, and keep in mind how to cut in some areas if other areas come in higher, in order to maintain the promised total cost. That could have been done with NNHS, bit wasn’t.
Greg,
The words I see describing the Mass. government’s guidance about what’s included in a debt exclusion are these:
(emphasis added)
I don’t know if the definition of what’s “authorized or contemplated” at the time of this election is simply the wording in the ballot questions (“the renovation or replacement of the A.E. Angier Elementary School” and “the renovation or replacement of the Cabot Elementary School”) or if the definition includes what’s in supporting documents for project scope. I guess it depends on who is doing the contemplating.
The Department of Revenue has issued an Informational Guideline Release that thoroughly explains how a debt exclusion works, and how DORt determines whether borrowing for costs which are added after the debt exclusion is approved is authorized. Generally speaking:
In other words, a debt exclusion covers borrowing for added costs in modest amounts for the same scope of work contemplated at the time of the vote. Thus, if the cost increases are modest, but are the result of an voluntary expansion of the scope of work contemplated at the time of the vote, for instance singificantly expanding the size of the building, adding new components or amenities such as air conditioning, or replacing rather than repairing a roof, they are not covered by the debt exclusion. By the same token, although unanticipated but foreseeable asbestos removal costs may be within the scope of work originally contemplated for a particularly project, if the added costs are substantial then it is not authorized.
Determining whether the scope of work has changed since the vote is fairly straightforward. With respect to added costs, DOE compares cost increases with objective standards for increases associated with inflation, construction costs and costs for government procured goods and services since the date of the referendum to determine whether cost increases are reasonable or not.
I am no Steve Siegel, but I hope this helps.
Hi, Does anyone know the possible next steps if the Angier/Cabot debt exclusions are not approved in March? Can these questions can be put to a vote again during an election later this year (with the inclusion of $ figures in the questions)?
I’ve commented on this before but it bears mentioning again. While the ballot question for Angier has no price tag attached, Newton is in the process of negotiating with the MBSA over the maximum we can spend on Angier for all hard (construction) and soft (design, administration) costs. The number that is on the table is $37 million and the MSBA is expected to push Newton hard to justify this number. We hope that dollar amount is approved by the MSBA and not reduced as we wish to make sure there are adequate funds to keep the full project scope. But once our agreement is finalized, we must stay on budget or the MSBA can pull their portion of the project funding. Intending gross understatement, this is a powerful cost management tool. Our Owner’s Project Manager understands their role to manage to that number and adjust scope downwards if that is what it takes to do so. In summary the ballot question does not state the cost but the cost cap is baked into the process we have with the MSBA.
The Cabot feasibility process has not started yet, but the cost estimate for Cabot was generated using the same historic state-provided school building cost data as we used for Angier. So that estimate is strongly grounded as well.
Taking the Devil’s Advocate position, Steve, I read into your explanation that the scope of the project for Angier could well be reduced after the March 12 vote, depending on what the MSBA agrees to for the project cost, is that right?
Very persuasive Steve and I do believe what you say. However, no final cost estimates have been done yet. I do remember NN had contingency funds close to $40 million and every penny of that has been spent.
I believe that the final cost of a new Angier which may not be complete for 5 years will far exceed the present estimate of $37 million. The sum of the additional spending will be the taxpayer’s responsibility and may require an additional increase in taxation beyond the present day overrides.
Will Setti be transparent with the electorate on this issue?
That is correct Ted. I would not expect changes to the program or square footage, both of which are part of the negotiation with the MSBA. But changes to floor and wall finishes, sophistication of HVAC controls, and wall section complexity would be common examples of scope tightening in response to a lower negotiated project cost. These are the types of cost reductions that also routinely come into play during construction to manage to a budget.
@Steve. Thanks. I think we called it “value engineering” during the NNHS project.
So, Steve,
Given what you said about Angier, which I appreciate, and which supports what I’d stated elsewhere I hoped would happen, i.e., change of scope to stay within a budget, then don’t you think Cabot is premature, and couldn’t the vote have waited until the next time we go to the polls, which is not that far away?
@Ted, if that what we called that process with NNHS, I’d propose we use some other label than “value engineering” this time.
Maria-If the overrides fail, the BOA and Mayor have every reason to assume that the city does not support these projects at this point in time. There is no way to assess the various reasons for a no vote, so unfortunately, no means no without a caveat attached. Realistically,the possibility of another override election at any time in the next few years for these projects is zero to none. So that means the rebuilding of Angier and Cabot will be delayed indefinitely, and the renovation of the other dated elementary schools will be pushed back further into the future.
The surrounding comparable communities have, or are in the process of, rebuilding/renovating their schools. Part of the problem is that Newton’s competing with communities that are willing to pass overrides to deal with their infrastructure problems.
Jane – I see it differently. If the debt exclusions fail, there’s no way the mayor and the BOA are going to let our children and teachers continue to spend their days in school building that are considered among the worst in the state. I think we’re going to build these buildings regardless. We’re just going to give up a lot to get them done.
Ugh, I wish that I hadn’t read this thread. I am now under the impression that there is considerable uncertainty in the costs of the 2 school projects, and despite Gail’s eloquent urging that we move on from the NNHS ‘situation’, it is so hard to put it aside.
The elementary schools really are crumbling. It’s a shame that most of the City are in them at best once a year on Election Day; it’s easy to forget how terrible they are when you aren’t in them on a consistent basis.
But why wouldn’t the override be put to a vote when the project costs were firmer? NNHS has damaged the trust in this City more than anyone cares to acknowledge and, despite their efforts to do so, the current Administration/BoA/SC has not really reestablished it.
Why should anyone forget what happened with NNHS? Those were extremely valuable lessons that we should demand be used to influence future decisions, just like this one or to be cliche we are “doomed to repeat them.” Another flawed argument by the pro override side. I agree with removing the emotional part, but there is plenty of logic to draw from instead.
@Maria H,
If the schools are the priority in the City’s budget, despite the failure of debt-exclusion overrides, the city can pay for these schools just like we are for NNHS – out of the operating budget. Newton would be forced to reduce staff, cut the pay and benefits of city employees, cut back on other budgets (Historic Newton, Parks and Recreation, Cultural stuff, Library, overstuffed planning department) that are not essential city services to provide to the public. It could get ugly, but it beats going into receivership.
Barbara, I really appreciate your comment. I do believe that if our elected officials honestly outline the the true facts of the fiscal situation then residents will make a fair judgment about tax increases.
Unfortunately, it isn’t in their best interest to do so. Their role is to spend money which may or may not be done so responsibly. If they tell the real truth they risk failures of all sorts. That is not in their interest.
Colleen – I think our elected officials have been straightforward and truthful about the fiscal situation. They’ve been very clear about where we are in the process on each of the school projects. In this thread and others, Steve Siegel, one of our elected officials, has been going over all of that in great detail.
If you don’t support the overrides, that’s fine but I don’t think you can fault our elected official for hiding the fact that the Cabot plans are preliminary. There’s been much discussion, in many forums about that – its not a conspiracy of hiding the truth from the electorate.
Jerry, I was just reading some former articles from Wicked Local written by Chloe G. Newton has a future unfunded liability of $640 million. Maureen Lemieux has started to put funds into special accounts to try and save for the future but will never be able to satisfy the immense obligation.
Does Setti outline these future debts to the public when he talks about ORs and future spending for schools? I doubt it. Taxpayers would be very shaken by these facts.
Gail, realistically, unless the override and the debt exclusions pass, the city will not be able to afford to replace Angier, Cabot and Zervas for a long, long time. We need financial assistance from the MSBA to make it happen within the next five years, and the MSBA has made it pretty clear the city will not get it without passing the debt exclusions.
Barbara, as Steve Seigel and others have pointed out, the MSBA has far more oversight and control over project costs on Angier and Cabot than it did with NNHS, in no small part as a result of the shortcomings of the NNHS planning process. So, once the MSBA and Newton agree to a price I am confident the MSBA will hold the city to it. But the parties still have not agreed to a price, yet.
I have heard through the grapevine that some people in the override campaign were not happy about my comments in the Globe West story about the timing of the vote, but I was merely being candid about my concerns. Lexington followed the same process with the Estabrook Elementary School–with cost estimates ranging from $30-42 million in the months preceding the debt exclusion vote. Although the project estimates came in at $41 million, after the vote those costs increased by 9.2 percent, including $2.8 million to remediate environmental concerns, and $1.5 million in roadway improvements which were not included in the MSBA approved budget, for which the MSBA would not increase its contribution. As a result, Lexington has had to ask for additional appropriations and reduce costs through “value engineering” (sorry, Dan, but that is what it is called) to get the school built.
I want to emphasize that in Lexington’s case, these cost increases were not the result of mismanagement, but were instead the kind of costs that can be added to any project as the plans approach completion. Nor am I casting aspersions on Newton’s planning process. But I do feel strongly that voters should be fully informed when they go to the polls to vote. It would be hubris to ignore these realities.
Ted –
I don’t buy that the city wouldn’t at least consider replacing Angier if the debt exclusions don’t pass. It would be irresponsible not to. I would think there would at least be conversation about what services should be cut or what buildings should be closed in order to make the numbers work.
Coleen, if your focus and concern is on the very real, long term problems of unfunded pension liabilities, I would think that would be even a stronger reason to support the overrides.
As you mentioned, the current administration has started to think about that issue and “started to put funds into special accounts to try to save for the future”. Without the overrides and with the unavoidable looming school issues, there won’t be any tax revenue available to “save for the future”.
@Colleen, the unfunded liability of $640 million is real and its going to take a concerted LONG-TERM effort to bring that under control, but there isn’t a 2013 solution for that. Yes, we’ve started to put aside a [very small] amount for that, but our current budgetary needs don’t support out putting any more of that aside at this time. The renegotiated contracts of a year ago have had some positive impact on that liability, so Setti is doing what can be done. But we’ll need action at the state level to provide added tools to be used to tame that unfunded liability. And the state legislature already has some actions they’re proposing to make more of a dent. Please note that all levels of government have this unfunded liability problem, including the state and virtually every other city and town.
The point, however, is this was a problem growing out of past contracts at all levels, and Setti is our first mayor to acknowledge its existence in any meaningful way, BUT our current budget can’t possibly help us with this now. I suppose Setti could have asked for a $30-$40 million override to deal with our infrastructure and school growth problems along with the unfunded liability. But an override of that size simply wouldn’t pass.
We must be working aggressively with the state [hopefully with many other communities in support] to allow for further flexibility in modifying contracts that help fuel this liability. Ultimately, we need steps that whittle this down to a far more manageable size.
Letting this get in the way of our immediate critical infrastructure needs would be a mistake of the worst order.
Jerry, as Dan points out no OR is sufficient to fulfill future debt obligations. Who will pay them? Our children who can’t afford to pay their existing educational debts.
Dan, I see your point. We have made promises we can’t keep, debts we can’t pay. So why should we stop and consider those obligations? Forget about what we owe and add another$100 million of debt to our list of financial obligations. Forget about the future and live to the hilt in the present. I wonder if your grandchildren would agree to that? You and I will be dead and gone when people down the line have to face the fact that they will be living until 120 but don’t have the financial means to even retire.
Thanks Ted, I love your honesty. However most politicians who tell the truth don’t get re-elected. Obama is a perfect example. The more a politician lies the more he gets elected again and again. Poor Mitt Romney, the reason he lost was he actually told the truth.
Ted do continue to keep us truthfully informed, then the out come of the March 12th election whichever way it falls out will allow all voters to feel they voted based on truth and not a bunch of spin. That is why N. North remains controversial, too many lies.
Colleen – “no OR is sufficient to fulfill future debt obligations” – agreed.
Not raising tax revenue to pay for the looming school issues is guaranteed to dig that hole deeper rather than to begin filling it.
Vote no on the three overrides.
We as taxpayers are not getting the value for our tax dollars that we expect.
Boston benefits from Newton taxpayers as they can send 404 Boston resident children to Newton Public Schools and save $7.5M annually. They save $60M by shipping 3,184 Boston resident kids to suburban schools in Greater Boston.
Gail, if the debt exclusion were to fail, my understanding is that the MSBA would not reimburse any of the costs of the project(s). While I would hope that there is a “Plan B” whereby the Mayor would proceed with Angier, the city would have to bear the entire cost. I could be wrong, of course, but I think it is highly unlikely that more than one school could be replaced within the next five years, if that. But no way will the city be able to replace all three schools over the next five years without both an override and two debt exclusions. No way.
Ted, our understanding is that there is a process that Newton has to follow if it wants to remain eligible for MSBA aid.
http://www.massschoolbuildings.org/sites/default/files/edit-contentfile/Guidelines_Forms/Vote%20Requirements/Policy%20Statement%20re%20vote%20fail%20-%20elig%20period.pdf
We found that if the city of Newton’s elected officials had the willpower to pursue pushing Boston to reimburse the $7.5M/year cost of educating Boston kids in Newton Public Schools, Newton would have enough money to fund all the infrastructure projects sought by the three extravagantly expensive property tax overrides without calling for property tax overrides.
http://www.movingnewtonforward.org/didyouknow/didyouknow.htm#Possible Newton Revenue Streams
Ted, my guess is that a $350 / household annual trash collection fee is the mayor’s “Plan B”.
Joshua, respectfully, your conclusion is based upon the false assumption that removing 400 METCO students would result in $7.5 million savings. It isn’t even consistent with what your website says. I assume someone took the per pupil expenditure and multiplied by the number of METCO students. That is a faulty premise. Removing one or two students per grade across grades K-12 in 15 elementary schools, four middles schools and two high schools is not going to result in a corresponding reduction in the total number of classrooms, teachers, and other staff required, not to mention fixed costs like utilities, debt service, etc. Think of it this way: if you have a family of ten and one of your kids moves out, that does not mean that your living costs will be reduced by ten percent, because even if the variable costs for food and other living expenses go down by ten percent, you would still have the same fixed costs for mortgage payments, utilities, car loans, property taxes, homeowners insurance, etc. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t look at the costs and benefits of every program that the Newton Public Schools provide. including METCO. But the argument that we can find those kinds of savings by simply eliminating METCO is a canard.
Sorry to get off topic here. I just read a story about the City Manager of Camridge Ma, Mr. Healy. He recently designed his own retirement package of $6 million. His annual pay check will be over $300,000. with several other perks such as long term care insurance.
In the article he fully justifies this agreement which has been enacted by the local mayor and city councillors. I myself thought it was a total abuse of power. Much of it was done secretly. So much for the notion of “for and by the people”.
This kind of thinking can not be sustained much longer. Taxpayers simply can not afford any longer the dysfunctional methods of spending by those in power.
@Steve S – thanks for your response. I went to a Town Hall and I heard info consistent with what you said – I understand the city/MSBA joint process and feel comfortable with the control/oversight that occurs once the cost cap is set. What happened recently at Concord-Carlisle HS is a great example of this joint process in action, though it also shows how the town can also still mess things up. That said, that info has no bearing on my questions, which you didn’t address. BTW, I fully agree that the Cabot and Angier projects need to be done (and other schools, too), but I am still on the fence about how I will vote. Why? Because the lack of $$ figures in Q2/Q3 and the feasibility reports – I feel voters should know the final cost cap, program specs that drive the costs, MSBA reimbursement, etc. An another note, you may want to further clarify your statement about Newton “negotiating with the MBSA over the maximum we can spend on Angier”? This could be interpreted as Newton is not trying to spend the minimum possible to meet the program needs.
@Ted – thanks for your willingness to provide a the complete picture /facts. In the Lexington Estabrook School case, can you clarify – did the town win approval of a DO with no specific $ figures, then a cost cap was agreed with MSBA at $41M , and next the cost increased by 9.2% due to the environment & road items? Were the increases a result of lack of thoroughness in the initial planning (I suppose at the feas study phase) or due to previously unforseeable events? Just curious.
Thanks, everyone!
@ Steve again – Just wanted to add that I haven’t heard any discussion/rationale for why the Angier and especially Cabot debt excl questions are being put to a vote before the feas study/MSBA-approved cost caps are done. Knowing this might allay concerns for folks who feel the Q2/Q3 should include $ amounts.
One reason that Setti is rushing the OR process is that there is a $4 million school budget shortfall between now and July 1st. If the ORs pass he can eliminate the shortfall.
At a past SC meeting Setti was openly transparent about this funding problem.
And following up on what Ted has said, MNF continues to use faulty numbers even after numerous commenters have disabused them of those numbers. Apparently if they think that if the number is bandied about often enough, folks will start to assume it’s true?
Credibility is still a valued virtue in support of positions.
@Maria H, while I do not have first hand knowledge, my understanding is that at the time of the debt exclusion vote, the estimated cost of the project was about $40.8 million, of which the MSBA was expected to reimburse 32%. According to a report by the town Appropriation Committee, the cost grew by $2.8 after the debt exclusion was approved, at the point where the construction documents were 60% complete. The MSBA had capped its costs, so the town does not expect that any portion of those additional costs will be reimbursed. These cost increases were attributed to “material costs especially structural steel and greater regional construction activity reducing the number of subcontractors available.” (I misspoke previously when I said the added costs were for environmental remediation. The whole project was to address the fact that the school contained elevated levels of PCBs.) These additional costs were appropriated out of the previously approved debt exclusion. In addition, the town determined there was a need for $1.5 million worth of additional road improvements that were not covered under its cost-sharing agreement with the MSBA, which the town took from free cash.
For more detailed information, you should read the Appropriation Committee report. My broader concern, however, has always been that early on in the planning phase of any project, there are a lot of unknowns. Many of the same cost drivers, i.e., escalating materials and labor costs, beset the NNHS project, as well as substantial costs for remediating asbestos and other site-related issues. That is not to say all of those cost increases were unavoidable, because they weren’t. What I am saying is that we should learn from our experience with NNHS and other communities’ more recent experiences with unexpected cost increases. While it is all water under the bridge now, for the reasons set forth above, I would have preferred to wait until the city was much further along in the planning process (expecially for Cabot and Zervas) before asking the voters to approve a debt exclusion. Because I remember like it was yesterday sitting for hour upon hour in committee rooms and in the aldermanic chamber, where we were told by “experts” who were every bit as sure that their cost estimates were based on “solid numbers” that proved to be sorely mistaken later.
All that said, given the deplorable condition of Angier and Cabot, to do nothing would be unconscionable and so long as voters understand that the price tag could go up, if they agree that these schools need to be replaced they really have no alternative but to support the debt exclusions.
Many schools in Newton need repairs. We do have alternatives to debt exclusions and other ORs. Also many schools in the past 20 years have been repaired and one built in 1973 has been rebuilt.
Many schools have not been neglected. During the renewal process buildings like Angier have not been repaired and now it is their turn. MSBA funding is available only for schools that are to be rebuilt? Is this the reason so many want it rebuilt?
Well I challenge the premise that it must be rebuilt. Especially during a slow economy and high city debt. Most city schools will never have this luxury. Throughout Newton beautiful old homes are constantly renovated to modern standards. Angier could be repaired and used successfully for many years to come. The attitude in Newton by those in privileged positions is that we must have a new state of the art structure no matter the cost. Those values worked for N.North before we all realized there were limits to out of control growth/spending. Those prior policies aren’t plausible now as we confront unsustainable debts which will never be paid in our lifetime.
Hello Barry, Maria, and Colleen,
First, apologies up front for the length of this post.
I’m just skimming this thread quickly (and that’s tough to do) at the end of a busy workday. I too would have prefered that the feasibilities be completed before asking for funding – to me more informaiton is always good. But there are competing issues that have impacted the timing of these ballot questions, and I believe that our Mayor took everything into account and decided that this was, on balance, the optimal time to fund the entire big picture. Lots of people I have spoken to have different opinions about the timing, so who is right? We will find out soon enough.
Here is why the date for the operating override is already late:
1. The school budget is being voted on for next year in the beginning of April. We must know now whether we have the budget for the teachers for the fall to respond to the enrollment surge. There is complex planning that takes place around a given number of teachers and we don’t want NPS to waste their time doing this work twice.
2. This is the best time of year to find teacher candidates for the fall. If we get the budget to hire now instead of months down the road, we will have access to a larger applicant pool that still holds the most highly qualified candidates.
3. The seven modulars we want in place by September (again, to handle the enrollment surge) must be ordered almost immediately to hit the September timeline.
Here is why this is a good time for the Angier debt exclusion:
1. We want to show our financial partners (The MSBA) that the community is fully behind this project. Showing them now will keep us on the fast track for funding approval.
Here is the argument for voting on a Cabot debt exclusion now rather than waiting for a developed feasibilty study. This is actually the first question you folks were asking. I just took a while to get here:
1. Our big picture plan calls for Cabot to be fixed just two years behind Angier. Override campaigns are taxing on the community (I probably intended that pun) and are not a sure thing even when the need is shown to be great. I fear that even if the operating and Angier debt exclusion votes pass, a debt exclusion for Cabot in 2015 may be a tough sell. My reading of the tea leaves (and this is all it is for any of us) is that we are more likely to get override funding for Cabot if we vote for it now along with the other questions, than if we pose it as a single question two years from now. At the same time I have closely observed the methodology that generated the Angier budget and believe it to be quite valid for Cabot. It is based upon the planned student capacity at Cabot, MSBA-recommended square footage guidelines, and recent school building construction costs for elementary schools in eastern MA. It has been adjusted for inflation, a tight-prebuilt site, and a dense residential neighborhood.
Colleen,
The Angier feasibility architects went through a rigorous evaluation process presribed by the MSBA. They developed two plans for renovation and expansion for Angier that were at once interesting and very creative. They addressed the programming needs of the school, but in the end the resolutions were programmatically inferior, did not allow for optimal site use, and were at least as costly as building new. The architects concluded, and the MSBA agreed that replacement offered Newton much better value than renovation and expansion.
Gail-What services would you suggest we cut to fund one $35 million project, never mind two?
If these overrides don’t pass, Angier and Cabot schools will not be built for years to come. We can argue all you want about whether you’re happy about some aspect or another of these packages. Everyone seems to have an opinion about the package and the timing of this override, but for anyone to think that someone has the one right solution is simply fanciful thinking.
The fact remains, in order to rebuild Cabot and Angier and to provide classroom space for the surge in enrollment, we need to provide the revenue. There’s no white knight riding in to solve this problem for us. We have to do it ourselves, just like every other community.
Jane,
By no means am I suggesting that I think we should fund these schools with anything other than a debt exclusion. I don’t think we should cut any services to pay for them. My point was that they have to get built and it would be irresponsible of the administration not to build them. So, they’ll find other ways to get the money: Parks & Recs, Library, trash fees, etc. Things that will really hurt. But that’s what the community will have chosen if they vote down the debt exclusions.
Ted-Did the Globe West contact you or did you contact the Globe West? It seems odd that the Globe would not have contacted the leadership of the BOA for an opinion on this matter.
@Jane: I have no way of knowing but, based on past experience, I suspect the Globe called Alderman Hess-Mahan because he has clearly articulated views on issues, including this one, and is willing to articulate them. Historically, Aldermen Lennon and Lappin rarely, if ever, say much of particular interest to reporters. (They have also decided not to engage in discussions with the proletariat on our city blogs.) That’s their choice. It may even be a smart choice for them politically and personally. But if you don’t give journalists much reason to call — or don’t say anything interesting when you do — you’re not going to be called or quoted very often.
Bottom line, you can be a thought leader in this city without being elected to a leadership position.
Thanks Steve. I heard that said at the Angier meeting also. The same argument was used initially regarding North. Builders prefer to build new structures rather than rehab old buildings.
However I do believe Angier could be modestly renovated but this wouldn’t garner community support.
Dan, during the 2008 override, the anti-override group (which you chaired) raised the same issues about non-resident students that my group and I are raising now.
After speaking to Jeff Seideman, I can see that he drank Setti Warren’s Kool-Aid with his burgers at Johnny’s Luncheonette. For whatever reason, he still insists on full reimbursement from the sending districts for the non-resident kids.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/02/24/newton-mayor-setti-warren-becomes-chief-salesman-for-tax-increase-newton-mayor-stumping-for-tax-plan/SU0nT9IHaANi4cqAjBuGJN/story.html
You on the other hand, I think it is absolutely absurd to say you drank Setti Warren’s Kool-Aid. It is patently obvious you didn’t even let him mix it. Anyone can see that you yanked the package out of his hand, ripped it open, & snorted it.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/02/24/newton-mayor-setti-warren-becomes-chief-salesman-for-tax-increase-newton-mayor-stumping-for-tax-plan/SU0nT9IHaANi4cqAjBuGJN/story.html
WRT “MNF continues to use faulty numbers”. If anything, we think your group’s numbers are faulty and we thought we had explained the matter to everyone’s satisfaction. If not, then we’ll have to agree to disagree
http://www.movingnewtonforward.org/we_say/Newton%20Override-Education.pdf
Our position on non-resident children in Newton Public Schools is simple:
“Will the experience of non-resident kids change in any way if their home districts collectively sent us a $7.5M check each year for educating their kids in our vaunted school system”?
Jane, you have issues. Deirdre Fernandes left a couple of voice mails for me and I returned her call. Sorry to spoil your conspiracy theory.
Gail and Jane, Newton does not need to cut services in order to underwrite the new schools.
Newton’s municipal labor contracts end on July 1, 2014 and the school contracts expire on September 1, 2014. If Newton freezes compensation for FY 2015, then offers a total compensation increase of 1.25% in FY 2016 and a normal 2.5% increase in FY 2017, it would be able to fund all the spending programs sought by the pro-override supporters without the need to cut jobs, cut pay or override Prop 2.5
Our group has also identified three non-traditional funding sources of funding however we acknowledge that our elected officials have no interest in pursuing them. We understand that they prefer the path of least resistance by raising taxes on Newton residents.
http://newton.patch.com/blog_posts/meeting-newtons-needs-without-raising-taxes
I agree totally with J.Norman. Five years ago I suggested freezing wage increases for 3 years as as attempt to restore savings for Newton’s depleted savings accounts.
No one in leadership would go that far. Setti appears satisfied with the present contracts. If the ORs fail there are viable alternatives to fund future spending. Problem is which sectors bear the burden of fiscal change?
One place to begin is new schools. Repair existing buildings. Funds do not exist to tear down old schools and replace them with new “state of the art structures”.
I know that affluent residents of Waban disagree. They believe they are entitled to better but the money isn’t there for such extravagant spending.
Ted, our model did not just include METCO kids from Boston, but also other non-resident kids (teachers kids, hearing impaired kids etc). We also modelled in state aid as an offset.
Your group’s is engaging in rhetorical doublethink by claiming that 538 non-resident kids at the margin don’t represent a material cost yet hundreds of Newton kids at the margin represent a need to raise taxes through three extravagantly expensive property tax overrides to underwrite $9.2M in new spending for the school system on buildings, teachers etc.
“… it is absolutely absurd to say you drank Setti Warren’s Kool-Aid. Anyone can see that you yanked the package out of his hand, ripped it open, & snorted it.”
As election day approaches, the rhetorical imagery sure is getting vivid 😉
@Jerry
It is kind of amusing, isn’t it? 😀
No conspiracy theories here, Ted. It’s a commonly asked question in this day and age, given the cutbacks to print media, especially at the Boston Globe. It’s had a long, slow, sad decline. That she didn’t bother to locate a source to present the opposing view on the overrides reflects poorly on her, not you.
Greg – being a blogger doesn’t make you a thought leader, nor does being very vocal make you a leader. The people who move a city to a better place are its leaders, and doing so takes a lot of thought.
Colleen – in fact, there is state funding for the new schools. The MSBA will pay for 25-30% of the Angier and Cabot facilities, but the city pays 100% for repairs. That’s not to say we shouldn’t also repair buildings that are a complete mess, but the additional funding is for new buildings and not for repairs.
@DanF
Since you are the master of the numbers and critical of the faulty numbers of MNF (did you not criticize the numbers of the pro-override position when you were against raising property taxes in 2008?),please address the following which our tax dollars funded last year: (if you can’t, maybe some other qualified representative from the city will…)
1. $9 million in “other wages.” On the payroll, this column doesn’t specify what these “other” wages are. Since you are such a good buddy to Mayor Warren, maybe his office will let you in on this so you may share it with all of us Don’t you agree we deserve transparency in this number? Why are we not using this to fund firefighters, police and more teachers that we so desperately need?
2. $1.28 million in “longevity wages.” Isn’t a pension a longevity bonus? Why do we offer these bonuses to employees who are already guaranteed a pension for life after just 10 years of working for the city?
3. $90,000-$104,000 paid to three custodians. Is this the “going rate” for this type of work?
4. $39,000 paid to the Newton Teachers Association president, on top of continued health care and pension payments while he is NOT teaching in the classroom. Am I the only one who doesn’t feel our tax dollars should NOT be paying the president of a union we don’t belong to? In other trades, the union employees are paid solely by their membership.
Jane, did you actually read the article? Deirdre also quoted Ald. Crossley, who supports the override and gave a different point of view on the topic I was asked to weigh in on. I think your snarky question about whether I contacted GW says volumes about what your real issues are.
I actually think Deirdre did a pretty good job reporting, and not just restating competing campaign slogans. She reached out to leaders in other communities who have had recent experience with cost overruns on MSBA assisted projects. They have no axe to grind. the fact is that, as the economy continues to recover and construction picks up again, the costs for labor and materials are going to go up quite a bit. Maybe Newton’s estimates will be right, but so far, the modulars, Day, Carr, and Fire Station 10 will all end up costing more–in some cases a lot more–than this administration originally estimated. You can’t blame David Cohen for that.
In my law practice, I sometimes represent investors who are challenging proposed corporate mergers and acquisitions or other kinds of transactions involving public companies. The relief being sought is usually to require additional disclosures concerning material facts that are not contained in the statements filed with the Securities Exchange Commission and sent to shareholders prior to seeking a shareholder vote to authorize the actions recommended by management. The principal is more or less the same with debt exclusions and overrides.
IMHO, any project that is 2 years out or more is inevitably going to be affected by the same inflationary factors Lexington experienced. And the other fact is that Lexington’s voters thought they were going to fund a $41 million project with a debt exclusion when they voted to support a debt exclusion, but now they are actually funding almost $3 million more than that without having another vote. All that said, I am willing to accept the risk and am going to vote for the debt exclusions because there is really no acceptable alternative offered. Nevertheless, I continue to believe the voters should know that so that they can cast an informed vote. And the next time the media calls me for my opinion, I will continue to tell them what I think. I fully recognize that some people don’t like that.
Greg asked me to devote some time to explaining why we at Moving Newton Forward are specifically opposed to Questions 2 & 3.
http://newton.patch.com/articles/letter-vote-no-on-three-tax-increases-enough-is-enough
Actually Josh, I had proposed that it would have been smart for your group to focus on defeating the second two questions as a political strategy. It think it’s too late now.
Greg, we were focused on defeating all the questions. In our view, we see them as “Three tax hikes, one shrinking paycheck, one answer” as we urge Newton voters to vote NO on all three tax increases.
@Joshua: I know what you are doing. I even know your views on the matter.
What I was proposing was a political strategy for your group. Since it is very likely that we are headed towards a yes sweep on Tuesday, your group should have tried to stem the tide (or as you’d say, minimize the paycheck shrinkage) by looking for a split decision by concentrating all efforts on defeating one or both of the debt exclusions.
But you didn’t. It’s too late now anyway.
Greg once asked me why I and the rest of the MNF activists tried to defeat all the 2013 override ballot questions, rather than focus on one or two of the questions. If anything, the debt exclusion questions had more support going into the polls than the operating override. V14 poster “Patrick” supported the debt exclusions as did Barry Cohen and Gloria Gavris. Even Greer Swiston, the lone Republican on the Board of Alders at the time supported the Angier question.
In Brookline, the ostensibly fiscally responsible set followed Greg Reibman’s strategy to defend against their overrides as well as had more time to prepare an override defense than MNF did in 2013. Heck, they even agreed to an operating override, just a slightly different amount than what the PIG proposed. Unfortunately, they did worse than Newton, much worse, despite following Greg Reibman’s strategy and having more time to prepare. I would have thought they would have done better, but they didn’t.
http://brookline.wickedlocal.com/article/20150505/NEWS/150507891
When one stands on basic first principles such as fiscal stewardship, life, liberty, limited government etc, it may not be a guaranteed winner, but its gets better results than putting politics over principles.