Do you support the current NewCAL Working Group proposal in terms of both programming and site selection? If not, what part or parts of the proposal do you disagree with? What should the city do instead? Why?
Kathy Winters
The NewCAL process is all about tradeoffs and priorities. My first priority is that we develop a first-rate senior center. I have no problem with the Working Group’s decision to pursue a multi-generational facility, so long as we can afford it and find a site that accommodates the additional space needed. Otherwise, we should revert to strictly senior programming. As for the Albermarle site choice, I believe we would all prefer a site that is more centrally located, that is accessible to transit, that involved rehabilitation of an existing building, and that does not sit on parkland. I am also very familiar with the parking challenges at Albermarle in the late afternoon/evening and on weekends. But in a built-out city like ours, it is nearly impossible to find a site that checks all the boxes. At this point, I remain open to the process of examining site layout scenarios at Albermarle.
Bill Humphrey
I think everyone at this point is waiting to see what the NewCAL design proposal is, but I’m certainly very concerned about the process so far, which has been fairly opaque to my mind. I don’t want it built on green space. I think it should be a senior-oriented building with primarily senior-oriented programming, although I would include in that category intergenerational programming: specific programs that maintain and increase intergenerational engagement so that our senior population does not become isolated from our broader community and so that our youngest residents have opportunities to form strong bonds with our senior citizenry.
The Albemarle proposal is NOT a Senior Center; it IS a major athletic complex with a few side rooms reserved for senior use and activities which may take priority when there is conflict with non-senior use.
The question should have included commentary about the cost of the additional space for the community center. I hope that the candidates flesh out their answers with their views on two issues:
1. Many people have questioned the cost estimate of the additional space for community center. Do you think that $16m is a realistic estimate for the total project?
2. If a community center space is added to the project, what funding mechanism would you prefer?
Instead of spending $16m on more civic buildings, can we consider the amount of good that $16m could do allocated as additional funding that assists struggling seniors keep Newton affordable?
I can see it now – congratulations seniors, here’s your new and improved center — aaand here’s your new and improved tax bill.
I still have a problem figuring out how to fit approximately 20000 sq ft ( assuming 2 stories ) without taking away green space. I doubt the area used now is more than 10000 sq ft.
A football field is 57600 sq ft.
Sean and Jane both asked questions about NewCAL funding. Do I think $16M is a realistic estimate for the project? I have no expertise in this area, but Needham’s 20,000 sq. ft. senior center cost $8.5M to build 8 years ago, so $16M for 37,000 sq. ft. in 2020 seems too low.
How would I fund it? It depends, right now there are still so many moving parts. If for instance, the 10,000 sq. ft. gym drops away, the cost goes down. If we purchase property to build it, the cost obviously goes up. If the cost is such that we can pay through bonding and the debt service will not crowd out other priorities, we pay through bonding. But I am in agreement with you Jane that if the debt service cannot be covered by expected growth in the tax levy, we will need to pursue a debt exclusion override. I am mindful that our funding plan for unfunded pension liabilities assumes a 7.25% annual investment return AND a 9.6% increase per year in contributions (which outpaces the roughly 4.5% average annual growth of the tax levy over the past five years). Things are indeed tight.
I hope that as this process moves forward we are presented with a number of options as to site layout, programming and cost.
The Mayor states in her August 13 Albemarle NewCAL notice, “In the coming weeks and months, the City will work with many stakeholders to CONFIRM [Albemarle] is the right site and to develop the site plan with the help of the architectural team. … While the Albemarle site will be discussed at length, the City will continue to consider non-city-owned sites UNTIL A FINAL PROPOSAL IS SENT to the City Council.” (emphasis added)
It appears then, at this stage, the City Administration is addressing the question of NewCAL siting essentially as being Albemarle Park versus a yet unidentified non-city-owned site. This generates a number of questions for which I know many Newton residents would like response from the Mayor:
1. Why are city-owned non-park sites (or combination of sites) being excluded from consideration? I’m aware that there have been a number of suggestions from the public.
2. As to non-city-owned sites being considered, will the public be informed along the way as to which sites those are or may be? Again, I’m aware that there have been a number of suggestions from the public.
3. How can sites currently be assessed since the scope of NewCAL has yet to be determined and/or confirmed, which has great bearing as to a site or combination of sites? For instance, the Albemarle proposal is NOT really a Senior Center; it IS a major athletic complex with apparently a few side rooms reserved for senior use and activities which may take priority when there is conflict with non-senior use, which leads to a fourth question.
4. Will alternative scopes for the proposed project be considered and reviewed, and if so, will a process be established in order that the public be informed and involved for input along the way in reaching a final decision as to scope, so that a repeat of the current “Save Newton’s Parks [from NewCAL]” petition will not be necessary, already garnering well over 5,000 signatures (and growing), https://www.change.org/p/mayor-ruthanne-fuller-save-newton-s-parks
Today is the first time i have heard about this proposal. Obviously this was determined beginning of august with a memo released by the mayor. in that memo (see below direct quote) it has been stated current space is too small, some programs are always wait-listed and no space for Zumba classes.
This reminded me my kids elementary school. They are kept in the basement with no light for after school program, all summer camps are in a wait-list the day they are open for enrollment, cannot even sign up to the sports program because they are already full. Btw, you need school building to educate kids and cannot provide that in YMCA or BSC vs both offers Zumba classes.
can someone explain me how this gets priority and yet alone building it by removing most precious open spaces, parks. Let seniors wait for next season for enrolling Zumba classes. Use your resources smarter. Maybe think about fixing the roads and sidewalks so seniors can also benefit, if you really ave extra $16M to spend somewhere.
I hope someone remember this when it gets to elections.
Mayor’s note” One of the key concerns has been the woefully inadequate Senior Center at 345 Walnut Street in Newtonville. Built in the 1930s as a branch library, it is too small and badly laid out to meet the needs of Newton’s seniors. Many seniors are on waiting lists for classes and programs, and there are many opportunities Director Jayne Colino and her staff simply can’t offer because there is no space available. Furniture has to literally be moved out of the way daily to make room for the Zumba class and other gatherings. In addition, the spaces in the basement lack natural light, there’s little parking and virtually no outdoor space.”