Patch has more here.
With this winter’s total cost coming in just under $4 million, Chief Operating Office Bob Rooney said the city is well within the $5 million it has set aside in the snow/ice reserve account — barring any springtime snowstorms, of course.
Tough winter and still under budget, nice job!!!
SO that doesn’t explain why they never took out the snow near Day Middle School at Walnut and Minot. It was a safety issue for the children – MANY calls from parents, the school and the crossing guard and they NEVER removed the snow. The City and the Mayors office were both called about this. Unacceptable IMHO.
It’s been a welcome relief that the city now budgets properly for snow removal. In the past, this was always underbudgeted.
Such a crapshoot though don’t you think Dan?
Dan is “Mr. isn’t everything Setti does wonderful”. Quite a love affair. And Tom? “Nice job”? The snow removal this year was generally awful, which probably is why it came in under budget. And it really wasn’t a “tough winter” until February. It was pretty free of snowfall until then.
Actually, it was some aldermen who pushed for fuller funding of the snow budget.
Good on the city for properly budgeting for snow removal, but doesn’t it make sense to use a large number in the budget for snow removal? By April whatever isn’t used can be “released” elsewhere at the mayor’s discretion. The budget number is basically just a place keeper and there’s not much damage to use a generous number. Is that right?
I should only hope that the City of Newton can fund $3M-$5M/year in snow removal services for heavy winters considering the following:
The City had $61M in unrestricted cash as of last year
The City had $120M in total cash as of last year
The City had $160M in total current assets as of last year
The City had $105M in net working capital as of last year
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/48342
Barry, I think you need to tell Dan Fahey that he no longer needs to serve as the Mayor’s Mouthpiece anymore. The election is over now. Or is he trying to condition everyone to support the next round of tax hikes. It appears that Lisle Baker wanted to use these tax hikes as a building block to go back to the voters again.
http://newton.patch.com/articles/newton-aldermen-approve-override-ballot-question-special-election
Or is it verboten to quote city officials like Maureen Lemieux?
http://www.boston.com/yourtown/newton/2013/03/03/wenewton/iMCGb5XQGCDIJBevZj2Q0M/story-1.html
Barry, I can tolerate Seideman & Emily Norton more than Fahey since Fahey shilled for these tax hikes more than they did even though Fahey was only an “honorary co-chair”.
At least when Seideman went on NewTV, he went up against Bill Heck straight up. You, Matt Hills and RuthAnne Fuller triple teamed Jeff Goldman?
Joshua, can you be more specific in that last sentence: You, Matt Hills and Ruth Fuller triple teamed Jeff Goldman.
When did that happen? When you say “You” I’m sure you didnt mean Barry Cohen since he would never be in the same team as they are. Who are you referring to as You? And who is Jeff Goldman?
Tom,
I was directing the “You, Matt Hills and Ruthanne Fuller triple teamed Jeff Goldman?” to Dan Fahey not Barry Cohen.
Fahey, Ruthanne Fuller and Matt Hills were on Ken Parker’s program in February versus one of our volunteers (Jeff Goldman).
http://www.newtv.org/video/common-ground/override
That triple team was Parker’s doing. He invites whoever he wants onto his show. The guests just accept or reject.
Tom, I never said Dan Fahey set it up, nor does it look like he had to do so.
http://www.kenparker.org/home/2009/8/28/newton-2020-co-chair-dan-fahey-endorses-ken-parker-for-mayor.html
They were talking about an override long before the Mayor proposed it.
http://www.newtv.org/video/common-ground/the-schools/
Wow Josh, if you’re investigating Dan Fahey, you sure have a lot of time on your hands. Just sayin’
Greg, all I did was run a Google Search “Dan Fahey” “Ken Parker”.
Besides, analysis, research and evaluation is what I do when I’m not doing the Newton political scene. So for most people who visit this blog, it would probably require a significantly larger commitment of time than it would for me.
So I guess you should feel impressed that I can do in a matter of seconds what most people would have to spend hours on.
http://newton.patch.com/articles/newton-aldermen-approve-override-ballot-question-special-election
Maureen Lemieux and Lisle Baker want to do this dance again in about five years. If I was a betting man, I’d put money on the next override package being defeated myself. They only got 54% even with their material advantages and after getting support from Fahey, Seideman and Emily and after a 3.5 month head start? One thing is for sure, they’re not getting a 3.5 month head start next time.
http://www.boston.com/yourtown/newton/2013/03/03/wenewton/iMCGb5XQGCDIJBevZj2Q0M/story-1.html
Whoo boy, am I ever. Think of the countless hours we can save. You can really learn a lot about someone with this Google thing. In fact, here – let me Google that for you.
@Josh: Actually,”impressed:” isn’t the word that comes to mind. More like “obsessed.”
@Trish: Good one.
Tricia, is that going to be BNF’s arguments for the next overrides sometime around 2017 to 2019?
Um, is what going to be BNF’s argument? That in 2013, Joshua Norman was so incensed that someone who had opposed one override (successfully, I might add) could possible support a completely different override, 4 years later, that he called him a “flip-flopping mealy mouthed old fraud” on a public blog? I don’t think that’s the way to go, but I’m not on the BNF committee so I don’t really know.
No, I was displeased that he was disrespecting one of my group members (Bill Heck). I was not happy that he said things about my group and I that were just not true.
I thought Karen Nacht from Ward 5 said it best about my group and I when she said “she voted for the override, but still respect many of the issues brought up by the anti-override crowd. They weren’t blanket “no tax” people this time. They raised valid points ,well grounded in data. METCO must be reviewed, not just about its cost and impact on overcrowding.
It’s also time to strike more balance between maintaining buildings, moving educational excellence forward and ensuring that our children and staff are utilizing the latest technologies vs. raising salaries/benefits when other school systems (over the course of the last decade) have been more modest and opted to invest in children vs. the financial advancement of educators.
I urge everyone who had all that data to amplify it and get out there when it can do the most good. Not when we are considering an override, but when our city is negotiating union contracts.
http://village14.com/netwon-ma/2013/03/watch-and-comment-on-the-overrides-results-right-here/#comment-22303
I just re-read that entire blog thread, and at no time did Dan “disrespect” Bill Heck, either before or after your little outburst. (Pointing out that someone ran for mayor and lost is not dissing them.) Sure, in the heat of the debate I’m sure there were quite a few things that both sides got wrong about the other. But being able to disagree without being disagreeable is really mandatory for anyone wishing to be taken seriously while “doing the Newton political scene.”
Tricia, I’m going to disagree since Fahey misrepresented the agenda that Bill Heck and my group has laid out.
I’ve been instrumental in forming the policy ideas of my group and we’ve been primarily focused on fiscal reform, rather than across the board cuts. I know this because I’ve been heavily involved in this area.
As for doing the Newton political scene, it would be nice if other people doing the Newton political scene weren’t so bent on raising taxes and government spending beyond the Prop 2.5 limits. Prop 2.5 was designed to control the growth in local taxes and government spending. If Newton politicians eliminated the fiscal bloat rather than pushing for more taxes, then my goals would be achieved.
Josh,
Eliminating fiscal bloat is an admirable goal and we know that there’s always areas of inefficiency especially in municipalities.
But fixing a school building may be bloat to a childless resident but a priority to a family with kids. What’s the condition of the school (s) your children go to?
Josh, here’s one thing I don’t believe you understand. There are different types of taxes. There is an open checkbook “believe me I am doing whats needed to be done tax” or there is a tax to improve infrastructure. The tax to improve infrastructure is an investment in Newton’s Future. We pay for it now, so we really don’t have to pay for it in the future.
The CBO (Congressional Budgetary Office) is a non-partisan office agrees with me…they claim that $1 million spent now in deferred maintenance and infrastruture projects can be as high as $6 million price tag in 2 short years from now. All these schools would be just like NNHS and we’d be complaining why we didn’t fix them up years ago. The fight is over, relax. Believe me there’s always a new fight right around the corner:).
Terry, educating 538 non-resident kids in Newton Public Schools is inexcusable bloat. 538 non-resident kids that’s a whole school (Bigelow’s 2013 enrollment was 531 students), an entire school. What’s the cost of that? Oh, about $7M/year (net of state aid). How much was the override package again? I think you can make the connection. We’re paying a lot of freight with these programs and its wrong to ask Newton taxpayers to pay for educating 538 non-resident school kids in Newton Public Schools.
Paying a part of the salary of the teacher’s union president represents bloat.
Leaving $2.1M/year from naming rights on the table is bloat.
We pay 48% more in terms of general fund expenditures per student than Hingham yet Hingham gets better test scores than us?! Don’t tell me that there is no waste in Newton Public Schools
Tom,
With regards to infrastructure, we can easily afford to fund the rest of the Mayor’s Capital Infrastructure Program as well as the necessary maintenance without a new dedicated tax or another property tax increase via another Prop 2.5 override. If the fiscal reforms my group and I have identified were adopted, we wouldn’t need a Prop 2.5 override and if they are not adopted, then the city government shouldn’t be asking Newton residents for more taxes.
We oppose the idea that the government can hold infrastructure hostage to higher taxes and more government spending. When you talk about infrastructure taxes, you forget that money is fungible. All an infrastructure tax such as a tax surcharge or a debt exclusion override does is put more money into the put which ends up to support more of that 80% of what we’re spending on already (compensation and benefits).
“The fight is over, relax. Believe me there’s always a new fight right around the corner:).”
I know and you helped tip my group off to it.
Josh,
There’s no question that we can improve in many ways. It’s an ongoing process. But if you have a child in (or soon to enter) a deteriorating school, you can understand why they may not want to wait for Newton to be the pure citadel.
I’ll ask again, what’s the condition of the school your kids go to?
P.S. I’m not sure that the bucolic Town of Hingham (a homogeneous population of 22,000) is a good comparison to the City of Newton (a relatively diverse population of 85,000), other than we pay slightly less in taxes than they do. And the town doesn’t collect the trash! But if you want to cherry pick…
“other than we pay slightly less in taxes than Hingham does.”
Newton residents will pay a slightly lower residential tax rate than Hingham residents but Newton businesses already pay a significantly higher tax rate than Hingham businesses.
“I’ll ask again, what’s the condition of the school your kids go to?”
I’m not a parent. If Newton didn’t incur $7M/year in expenses in order to fund a public education for 538 non-resident students, we could have the money to fund 4 or 5 school bonding projects without raising taxes.
The good news is that you provided a more original answer to the Newton Hingham school question than I have heard from our elected officials. The bad news is that even if we take the $1.3M/year that Hingham spends on its waste management program and add it to its school budget while taking the $6.5M/year that Newton spends on its waste management program and subtract it from its school budget, Newton’s adjusted spending per student is still 38.7% higher than Hingham’s spending.
Wait – all the non-residents students in NPS are at Bigelow?!? So we just have to end all non-resident placements and close Bigelow and we save $7M??? It’s the Holy Grail! What’s that – they’re not all at Bigelow? They’re not even all in middle school? They’re actually spread out in different classrooms across 13 grade levels at 15 elementary schools, 4 middle schools, and 2 high schools??? So ending non-resident placements wouldn’t allow us to close a single school, let alone save $7M? Never mind.
I was originally displeased that Tricia was twisting my words around but I figure if she has to resort to that, her argument wouldn’t be able to stand up on its own merits.
I pointed out that the number of non-resident kids was equal to the number of total kids at Bigelow Middle School. Plus it should be noted that 36% of the kids in the largest non-resident program (METCO) receive SPED services. When Newton sends kids outside of the district, Newton pays full freight ($13M for tuition and transportation net of state aid in FY 2014). Newton only receives $3M/year for its 538 non-resident kids that come into the Newton Public School system.
When we consider the fact that the number of non-resident kids (538) is nearly double the enrollment of our two smallest elementary schools (Ward and Williams), we could close one or two of our elementary schools and redistrict. When we consider that we have more elementary schools than we have villages and that all of the schools are within 2.5 miles of another school, we could easily close one school if we were to stop providing educational services to non-resident kids. We could also reduce the number of teachers in middle school and high school that we’d need to hire if we stopped enrolling non-resident kids. Instead of hiring 51 net new teachers, we could have hired 35 to 40 instead.
Of course, if their home districts collectively combined to kick in $7M/year, this wouldn’t be an issue.
We find it interesting that if the 538 non-resident kids were no longer enrolled in Newton Public Schools, it would have offset about half of the growth in Newton kids that took place from 2002 to 2013. We also find it interesting that the number of staff kids grew by over 150% from 2003 to 2013.
I hate to intrude on a discussion of a serious issue, but may I comment that Tricia has outdone herself this time. I’m just loving this – a woman finally winning a smack-down on the blog!
Jane, I think you mean that Tricia is engaging in whining on the blog.
My arguments can be objectively supported by facts, unlike hers.
No, Josh, I’m actually just having a good laugh. All is good.
BTW, Tricia doesn’t know how to whine.
This has been fun, but I’m off – have to go get in line for the Aqueduct Tour tickets before they’re gone!