Last night at the City Council meeting, Mayor Fuller proposed a $9.175 million general override, debt exclusion overrides for Countryside ($2.3 million) and Franklin ($3.5 million) Schools, and new exemptions. Aiming for a vote on March 14, 2023. Read about it on the CIty’s new override page and on Fig City News.
Mayor proposes $9.175M general override + $5.8M debt exclusion overrides for Countryside and Franklin, and exemptions
by Bruce Henderson | Oct 18, 2022 | Budget, Countryside, Franklin, Mayor Fuller, Override | 74 comments
It is difficult to get excited to pay more taxes, but this is an enthusiastic yes for me. I just read through the override website (https://www.newtonma.gov/government/mayor-fuller/override)…the override invests in everything that makes Newton a great place to live.
Newton City Hall has proved spending out of control, provides poor financial justification for inflated project costs, and is using overrides to cover the splurge.
Few examples:
The five year plan to modernize Newton rail station is in the 500 million range, and only three stations will cost 170 millions – how could someone fiscally responsible come up with such numbers?
The Mayor is constantly trying to influence public (including current override support campaign) by pointing only to positives of projects she is supporting, but ignoring the negatives – this is not fair and should not be allowed.
IMHO: At high inflation, asking for an override shows low concern for Newton’s citizens and high appetite for spending out of control.
No to override!
Agreed. The mayor, however, is getting savaged in the online comments under the Globe article. I offered a different perspective:
I can’t agree with the negativity. Our tax rates are lower than most of our comparable suburban neighbors, and city departments have cut back staff to the bone. We need the override.
My tax bill in 1982 was $5,000; in 2022 it is $12,000. In current dollars, I am paying lower taxes now even though the value of my house has increased ten-fold. If the money is spent well, I am happy to pay the increased taxes. Exemptions for seniors with limited fixed incomes, to be sure, should be part of the deal.
We don’t need the override. Perhaps we didnt need the senior center, or the purchase of webster woods. Etc etc etc.
The mayor has not shown prudent spending habits. The school committee superintendent search group is a disaster and a blind faith investment in the future of schools is risky given the large unknown there. If it was a more balanced search committee then maybe.
The one time ones for countryside and franklin are a yes for me. The general is iffy. I need to see more before deciding but if the vote was today it would be a resounding no (and I blame Tamika and the composition of the search committee for my current view).
Hi Bob,
You say “Our tax rates are lower than most of our comparable suburban neighbors”. While this may be technically true, that doesn’t really tell the whole story. According to the below site, the average household tax bill in Newton is the 14th highest in the state, higher than towns like Needham, Westwood, Andover, Natick, Arlington, etc. The rate alone isnt the whole story, as you cant ignore property values.
https://www.lamacchiarealty.com/highest-lowest-property-tax-rates-greater-boston/#:~:text=The%20average%20single%2Dfamily%20property,%241%2C000%20in%20assessed%20property%20value.
Additionally, you also cannot ignore the benefit we have from our commercial tax base. This should (and does) allow our rate and ideally effective taxes paid to be lower than neighboring communities like Weston, Wayland, Sudbury, etc. I think we offer lots of wonderful benefits that are included in our taxes and/or are offered as a result of a broad tax base (sewer, natural gas access, incredibly fast snow removal, weekly trash and recycling, yard waste, etc).
My only point is, our taxes are where they should be given the incredibly high property values which is a significant barrier to entry for many. If our tax bill was even .5% higher, with a median home value of ~1.3 million, that would mean an additional 6500/year. That burden would mean even less ability for people to afford living here.
Personally I haven’t made a decision on the override yet, but wanted to opine on the tax point you made.
The online comments in the Globe are pretty awful and have a huge group that doesn’t live in Newton, but delight in crapping on Newton in the comments. No one is saying that Newton is perfect, but the Boston Globe comments aren’t worth the time/energy.
I have nothing good to say about the School Committee and Frank may be onto something with regard to tying support for the override to fixing the Superintendent Search group to prioritize academic rigor. I would add athletic excellence to the list as well.
However this override seems largely wise. Our taxes our low relative to our neighbors, and peanuts compared to the NYC burbs. These schools do need to be replaced, regardless of how boneheaded decisions like Webster Woods may have been.
I would also add that the plan provides for desperately needed money for athletic fields that are currently over used and under maintained.
NPS parents should be the biggest supporters of an override and one can’t get that done without their support. This override is DOA with many NPS parents with the way this superintedent search is being run. The way it’s unfolding expect more and more families to go private and good luck getting their votes to pay twice for school.
The mayor should have based the ask for an operating override on her past performance, to assure citizens that they are not throwing good money away.
Over the last 5 years, NPS enrollment is down 8.1%, however the NPS budget is up 19.4%. On per pupil basis, NPS expenditure is up 30% over the same period.
Question: 1. What “education excellence” metric(s) has resulted from this increased spend?
2. In my observation, the offering has been reduced (jazz, mixed use class, clubs at HS, differentiated math at MS, DK about ES). Can the mayor list out increased offering, or improved quality or some other outcome as a result of this investment? (LT/DR- Watch SC meeting from Oct 3rd)
3. How can she demonstrate proper management when looking at the 30% rise or the decline in enrollment?
IMO, the proposal still needs a LOT of work, rooted in past performance to be actually considered seriously. Without above and other answers, as an NPS parent, I will be forced to vote against the operating override (but for the debt exclusion).
In 2003, the City collected $179.7M in property taxes. If these taxes increased at the same rate as the CPI, it would amount to $287.4 in today’s dollars. In 2022, the city expects to collect $388.6. So, in real terms, Newton is collecting over $100M than in 2003. Are schools better than 2003? Roads?
I agree 100%
I’ve not commented or posted on V14 for sometime, but the override request is a good reason to come out of hibernation.
When I first moved to Newton 25+ years ago, and for years after, I favored higher taxes to fix the many things that needed fixing. It seemed that the impact to my personal tax bill wouldn’t be excessive vs the hoped for return and improvements.
However, I’ve come to agree with Jeff Pontiff’s sentiment. Regardless of who sits in the Mayor’s office little changes. It’s baffling.
I’ve often wondered, I’ve written it here, what would result if Newton’s government was benchmarked against other similar communities? We have a lot of City Councilors, more than most communities, leading committees and directing activities normally led by experienced, professional employees in other communities. Is there something about our governmental structure that just leads to mediocre results, despite good intentions?
We now have a business friendly mayor facilitating developments that will also improve our tax base. It’s hard to say no to the laundry list of popular items that are tied to this override. But I wonder if we should wait to see what happens as these new businesses start paying taxes, if we should do more self reflection on why nothing ever seems to change before approving this override request?
It will be a close vote. But even though I want the things the Mayor lists, I’m not sure that I can support this. That’s a big change for me. My level of trust in this City’s Government on so many issues has declined. I think we need more serious discussion and questioning. I don’t know how this happens anymore in Newton without objective reporting from a newspaper, healthy debate, and fresh out of the box objective thinking.
Year 2022 in Newton
64% higher electric, 40% higher gasoline, 60% higher natural gas, 15% higher labor costs, 12% higher material cost, 14% higher food costs, potentially 80% higher State tax cost for 1mil+ home and investment sales… leading to increased unemployment and homelessness… Sure I’ll be delighted to vote to spend more money in Newton taxes!
And by the way great timing!!!!!!!
I will wait to make my decision until closer to the election date, but my initial reaction is that I will be voting no on all questions.
I feel that this administration, has woefully misused public funds that probably should have gone towards the projects being mentioned in these override/de votes. One example was/is using ARPA funds for lights at both high schools, costing over $1M that was badly needed in other areas to help COVID recovery.
So, the mayor is asking residents for more $ before asking developers (who are driving density increase to use more services)
Where did all the new revenue from weed go? And we spent over 10M for webster woods
Conveniently, Waban got its shiny brand new school first, while schools north of the pike are left with scraps for simple renovations. nice
Sky high inflation, looming recession, worsening academic standards… hard no.
I agree with all the comments. It is chutzpadic to ask for an over ride during these hard times.
But I agree that the senior reduction in Real estate taxes should go from $1 ,000 to $2,000 but I think I only got a $235 deduction.i need more than that on my home in Newtonville. I’m a senior living on social security and a 45 year resident. I paid in enough taxes over the years!
I would like to see firm evidence that NPS is prioritizing academic excellence before supporting these new taxes.
So long as things like eliminating 8th grade honors math continue to be touted as accomplishments… I’m a no.
@Tim In the composition of the superintendent search committee, improving academic excellence is not a priority at all. Therefore I and many parents (other than the members of the constituencies that are represented) are a no as well.
BugeK,
I can show you where all the weed went…..
With a pending recession, growing economic concerns, asking for an override now continues to show how out of touch and tone deaf this Mayor continues to be. “A few hundred bucks” is an added stressor no one needs with inflation and layoff anxiety skyrocketing.
Not surprising though, from a Mayor who professes her love and support of NPS, yet sent her own kids to private school.
Asking for an override now is emblematic of Mayor in a city that votes by identity vs the issues… or doesn’t vote at all. Voter turnout has always been low and this is yet another example of its consequences.
Hopefully things will be different in March, when angry, apathetic voters turn out to vote no on this override.
Remember, this will be the first override that is not tax deductible due to SALT. Compared to past overrides its at least 30% more burdensome
Keep your thoughts to the fixed income senior who has lived decades in Newton who is being ravaged by inflation and a declining nest egg. Lets just kick them while they are down
If they include a proper exclusion for these folks then maybe its passable
From the override information on the City website (https://www.newtonma.gov/government/mayor-fuller/override):
Newton has nine tax assistance programs for eligible residents. Mayor Fuller has proposed doubling our tax relief assistance (technically known as exemptions) for the seven programs for eligible residents who are disabled, older, or veterans (which will require approval of both the City Council and the State legislators). She has also proposed expanding access to both our tax deferral and water/sewer discount programs, both of which require City Council approval. Read more about these proposed enhancements to our Tax Assistance Programs here. Please review the current programs and your eligibility here.
Here’s the link to the proposed changes to the Tax Assistance programs: https://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/92076
I’m only going to comment on the condition of the schools in question and the need to replace or upgrade/expand them at this point. Countryside and Franklin both need to be replaced ASAP. Countryside is filled with mold and is an unhealthy physical environment for students and staff. Franklin was built in 1938 and can’t provide a 21st-century education for Newton students, and in fact, couldn’t even provide for a 20th-century education since the 1970’s. Horace Mann School needs additional space and upgrading to make it a facility that is as close to a total renovation as possible.
If you question the need for these new schools, I suggest you attend the meetings scheduled at each of them to see the conditions that Newton students live in six hours a day. If you want academic excellence, you need to provide the resources for that to happen. Right now, educators in these schools are asked to do just that with the equivalent of having one hand tied behind their backs.
How about asking a few “educators” (teachers) to participate in the process?
I’m sick and tired of seeing outsiders (administrators, superintendents etc) who are in the classrooms maybe 30 minutes a month making all of the decisions on how best to teach and what resources are needed.
We were a Countryside family and have seen first hand what deplorable shape it’s in.
But $15m is a drop in bucket against the overall tax revenues of Newton. New (and very large) homes are replacing smallers ones every day. Assessments go up, seemingly every year. And to the Mayor’s credit, she’s done a good job advocating for State and Federal funding, so Newton should be flush with cash, yet we are being asked to give more via an override.
I don’t think anyone is saying these schools do not deserve more attention and funding. Instead, it’s an indictment of this administration’s spending choices and prioritiztion (schools being last). Baked into the override is $500k to convert schools from fossil fuels to electric – when every statistic or study shows that the majority of this country’s electricity supply is created from fossil fuels. And one has to wonder about the parallel of the spending $15m (the same amount as the override) on purchasing Webster Woods. Hmmm…..
I need to dig deep into what the proposed override entails but my initial concerns relate to the decision making by the Mayor/City. I’m not sure what is prioritized by this Administration is inline with my priorities/values. I feel overall there is a lack of listening to citizens. In many situations “feedback” is obtained and ignored (Parks & Rec, Schools). Instead it seems like many preconceived outcomes. Thus it concerns me that the Decision Makers may not spend the money in the best manner.
Some other comments:
*The condition of the schools are poor. They are all a victim of the overspend debacle for NN. People were not willing to pass overrides prior to the Zervas, etc override. We have 3 out of 15 elementary schools that are in good shape. That is pretty sad for a city that claims educational excellence as a priority. Franklin and Countryside are both in need of renovations. After all Counrtyside will likely need to absorb at least part of the Northland Development(s) (800 units + possible @400 40b on Needham St). With so much development going on perhaps more offsets from Developers should have been obtained.
*Our streets are horrible.,.bumps and divots.
*Our fields are abysmal. It is clear they have been neglected. That said as I mention above I have concerns about Parks & Recs making wise decisions. Newton Girls & Newton Youth Soccer tried to help the situation (including providing some funding) and their input was ignored.
*Did the Mayor fund Webster Woods via Community Preservation funds? If so as much as I dislike her, those funds would not be able to go used for the items covered in the override as those funds are limited to specific purposes. On the flipside I believe BC is suing the City because if this situation so I would guess there would be legal costs not covered by CPC funds.
Think about this before you vote:
The mayor could have proposed a “high density housing” tax on deep pocketed developers, private equity and hedge funds. This would only have affected large luxury development and be paid by ppl willing to pay over $1M for a condo/townhome and renters willing to pay over 4K a month for a 2BR..
But no, existing residents struggling under inflation, looming recession and job security were asked first before a single sacrafice
Let that sink in for a minute
Bugek:
You mean a real estate tax on high value transfers or purchasers? Great idea. But did you know that Boston, Brookline, Concord, Nantucket and others have tried it? The proposals are on hold in the legislature. Thus far, no traction. Can’t have that type of local tax without state approval. Doesn’t look like anyone is getting state approval, so it doesn’t work. I’m guessing if the legislature opens up that option, most cities with expensive real estate would consider it. But the need for the state approval doesn’t make it a realistic option at this point. Maybe that fact was why the Mayor didn’t rely on it.
I don’t understand why a narrow-based tax on “luxury development” would be any more effective or fair than a broad-based tax with expanded exemptions for low income or older homeowners.
There are many of our neighbors who are struggling on inflation, job security, or fixed income. And, in one of the most affluent municipalities in the Commonwealth, many of our neighbors are not. People who move into a “luxury apartment” (which is mostly marketing speak for new and shiny and, yes, expensive because of it) may just be trying to find a place to live in a crazy market. To assume they all aren’t under financial pressure just like many other people is a broad stereotype.
I believe that we serve our neighbors in need by providing high quality public municipal institutions for the benefit of everyone. Schools and parks are about as baseline as you can get.
Every child in Newton deserves to be part of a healthy school that meets today’s education standards for space and design.
Every family deserves access to parks and recreation facilities they can safely enjoy and meet other people from all walks of life. Parks and schools are the crossroads of our community, helping bridge the social gaps that otherwise divide us, where we can meet and talk and understand each other more, and realize we are on the same team.
High quality school buildings and recreational facilities take a huge load off of families trying to navigate their way through uncertain times. These institutions are the bedrock of Newton’s image as a great place to live. The city has neglected its obligations for decades, but we can’t fix the past. We can fix the future. It’s our responsibility.
@ Mike – what can you possibly not understand. You just wrote up why the things Fuller wants to spend on are good ideas, and I am not sure many will argue that doing positive things for the city is a bad idea.
The issue is where the money comes from.
Firstly, she should have funded schools over the senior center under the existing budget. Then, she should have prosed a 19 million dollar senior center as an override. To the what, 200 people who go into the senior center every day, I am sorry but 13,000 NPS students are more important. 19 million would fund 5 years of expected deficits in the NPS budget, or more!!
Second, taxing developers would not impact the residents. At all. Your proposal is a broad based tax increase with expemptions. So you want to tax the employed population of Newton. Instead, let’s tax the corporations who make millions on building new massive projects within Newton. Think about it, if you added even a one time 2000 tax on all new apartments in the city, which for Northland alone would raise 1.6 million, the developers wouldn’t even bat an eye.
Third, and last, you say it is our responsibility to offer new parks, schools, infrastructure. Yes, it is. I couldn’t agree more. BUT not through new taxes. We can borrow on the noted AAA credit rating, we can cut other garbage spending like bike lanes which in January will be used by what, 3 people a day, or we can stop funding pensions at such a high level. Lots of people are making good points as to why the new tax isn’t necessary. Lots of people like you are making good points as to why we need to do the things outlined as reason for the taxes. But the only way to do these things isn’t with new taxes.
I will not vote for the general override because I do not support Fuller’s prioritizations.
In summary, she cannot claim to care about schools if she puts schools on the override instead of the senior center. She paid for the thing she cares about and now is asking the city to pay for what it cares about. Pathetic politics at work people.
@Mike – you don’t understand why it is better to tax corporations vs taxing residents?
No sense in trying to explain if you can’t understand that it is better to tax the people who make money in our city instead of taxing the people who live here.
How about this, Ill say it again, let’s put forth the override for the senior center instead off schools. 13K kids go to school every day. There can’t be more than 100 or maybe 200 people who enter the senior center every day. Seems logical to pay for one in the budget and then the other in an override.
To summarize, again, Fuller paid for what she values in the budget (Senior Center) and is asking the city to pay for what she doesn’t care about, the schools. How sad.
Frank, I’m not the best person to argue the merits of the Senior Center, although I’m rapidly approach the point where I could be a client. However, given that older residents represent the largest growing portion of the Newton population, and the current Senior Center is in disrepair and can’t serve the existing need, and that the city is definitely in need of more recreational spaces and public meeting space that the new center will include, I see a good reason to replace and improve the old one. That leaves us with a question of size and cost, and reasonable people can and should argue the details.
But, whatever the amount, the cost of the Senior Center is only a tiny fraction of the two schools in the debt exclusion proposal. Between Countryside and Franklin its a $100M bond over thirty years. I propose that if a municipality has that kind of money lying around to pay for two schools of their regular budget, taxes are probably too high. It makes *sense* to have high ticket items like new schools come to a line item vote. Schools are likely the most common target for debt exclusion for this reason.
Now, could the Senior Center have been done as an override? Worth a discussion. But that’s not where we are now. And even if the Senior Center were paid for with override, the schools would still require one.
As for my comments on taxing developers, the comment I was referring to said, “This would only have affected large luxury development and be paid by ppl willing to pay over $1M for a condo/townhome and renters willing to pay over 4K a month for a 2BR”. That’s a tax on residents. Maybe affluent residents, but Newton has plenty of residents more affluent even than that. A million dollar condo might be expensive-ish (less so in this crazy market), but so are $3M, $4M, $5M houses in the rest of the city.
What you propose seems to be different, a tax or fee on the developer themselves. But a one time tax isn’t going to bring in the kind of money that pays for a bond on schools over 30 years at like $6M a year. It would be city income, sure, but not comparable to the override amounts. And as fig said, other places have attempted it, but it is blocked in MA. How has it worked out other places? How much money has it made?
These are important discussions, but somewhat complementary to the override itself.
@Mike – you and I alike are approaching 🙁
Look I agree i want a better Newton, I love it here. I just wish fuller had better budget skills. This to me seems like a failure of prioritization.
LOL on the Mayor’s website for the overrides, it’s “Academic Excellence and Educational Equity” So it’s “excellence” first when the tin cup is out but when they spend the money all of it goes to fake equity and not excellence. I’m not falling for the banana in the tail pipe here.
I wouldn’t expect much of a reprieve for older folks when people fifty-five and up account for about a quarter of Newton’s population, and of course an even larger percentage of the taxpaying adult population. Which reminds me: How much is being spent on a new senior center while an override is needed to fund schools and streets, which I believe most would agree are a higher priority?
The Newton City Council voted on August 8 to approve $19.5 million in funding toward the construction of a new Center for Active Living (NewCAL) to replace the current Senior Center at 345 Walnut Street in Newtonville…
It feels like Needham Street has been under repair for a decade now. Until the city can demonstrate they can fix something once and for all, asking for more money is a hard sell.
BTW can somebody explain to me what the problem with Needham Street is?
Agree. I avoid that street at all costs. Needham St. is a road maintained by the state. Details of improvements are here:https://www.mass.gov/needham-newton-corridor-project
Methinks the proposed tax hike will be a hard sell by March 2023. In a better economy, maybe. But with high inflation (due to supply shortages and price gouging), high home heating costs (thanks to a harsh New England Winter and Putin), dwindling 401Ks, and a looming Recession (with many companies laying off workers en masse), it could be a HARD NO for many by March 2023. If you think it’s bad now, in all likelihood it will be worse in 6 months (maybe not 2008 bad, but quite possibly early 2001 bad), with recovery only coming later next year or in 2024.
That being said, I am all in favor of the one offs for Countryside and Franklin.
Why I am not supporting the override:
For years we’ve been spoon fed that Big Development won’t impact school. That the Mayor’s demographers predict school enrollment will go down, not up. That retirees (what retiree would want to pay $4k/mo in rent??), divorcees and young processionals will be living in these apartments, not families. That these apartment residents will take public transportation and ride bikes, not drive.
And what is this override about? Schools and roads.
Look, so far as overrides go, this one is not horrible. Not going to go broke because of it. But this is not soely about money.
It’s about a mayor who will go thru great length to support Big Development the over needs of her “beloved Newtonians”. As much as my heart wants to rebuild our beloved Countryside, I cannot in good faith support and override that ultimately subsidizes Big Development profitability. Would rather write a check to Countryside directly.
https://village14.com/2019/02/01/fuller-schools-could-manage-northland-riverside-riverdale-chestnut-hill-sq-projects/
Now what would inspire me to support the override?
Two new projects will be going thru the Special Permitting process: Northland Charlemont across the street from the 822 apartments they’re building as we speak, and the Toll Brother’s 528 Boylston Street.
Combined, both projects add another 630 apartments. For the math Majors out there, that’s 1,450 apartments within a mile and a half radius.
Also a mile and a half from Countryside, Brown and Oak Hill Middle schools and Newton South High School. Adding stress to our schools and roads (just to skim the surface).
To support the override, we need to see the Mayor and City Council fight for concessions in Newton’s best interest, not her development friends.
I attended the Northland Charlemont meeting a few weeks back, and the developer’s traffic mitigation plan was to piggyback on the other Northland project’s shuttle to the Newton Highlands T stop, and (I kid you not) AN ON-SITE BIKE REPAIR PERSON.
We can do better. Let’s get more meaningful contributions from them to our schools. And until we do, supporting the override is throwing good money after bad.
An onsite bike repair person does NOTHING to reduce the amount of cars on Needham Street. Does Mayor Fuller Bike to work from Chestnut Hill? Does she have an onsite bike repair person? While I think having a bike repair station and expert is a great perk, it doesn’t do enough to reduce traffic.
As for the 1200 new apartments by the intersection of Oak and Needham Streets, I am curious if others buy the argument that the new residents are less likely to have automobiles because they will have to rent parking spaces for them. Has that been the case at Austin Street, with an apparently similar profile? Are the tenants more likely to take public transportation or to walk or bike?
I am all for new housing if a sufficient portion (30%?) of it is affordable and if it doesn’t play havoc with existing infrastructure. But the particular argument about renting parking spaces seems a reach. If a power couple were employed, say, in Cambridge and Waltham, both ends would need a car to get to work.
Hi Matt,
The Northland project approved by the City Council in 2019 and again by the referendum on it in March 2020 included numerous mitigations from Northland. One of them was payment of $1 million toward the reconstruction of Countryside School.
My initial inclination is to be in favor of the capital overrides (though I wish we had done them at some point in the past decade with the lower interest rates) and against the operating override, though I definitely haven’t made a final decision on either. My starting position is always a bit skeptical whenever someone says, “all of these operating funds are going to go towards these nice things [that will help get people to support the override]!”, when operating funds are pretty fungible at the end of the day (and especially a few years down the line). On the other hand, I’m also sympathetic to the fact that if you want to maintain a constant level of services and you’re limited by prop 2.5, eventually you’ll need to pass an override. Just not sure that I’m there yet for this one.
@Bob – I don’t have specifics but I’ve heard (from some people who would know) several times over the years since completion that Austin Street has consistently under-used its allotted resident parking. From living at a couple of different places on the north side, many people can very reasonably do two people living together, even with kid(s), with only one car rather than car-per-person, especially now with Newton popping up on lists of Places with the Most Remote Workers. On the other hand, Needham Street (and frankly most of the south side) are just much less friendly to fewer-car lifestyles right now – even after the current State project improves things slightly, I suspect that Needham Street itself is still going to be a pretty miserable stroad at the end of the day. That said, there’s also a decent bit of academic work at this point that suggests that separating the price of parking from the residence ends up with good results (either less driving or more appropriately pricing the cost of driving), so I’m curious to see how it works out.
Thanks.
There is a Virtual Town Hall tonight that provide information about the override. Go to the override information on newtonma.gov for the Zoom link.
It’s frustrating that money was spent on the mayors pet projects Webster Woods and NewCAL. The money should have been spent on schools and then an override requested for the pet projects to allow voters decide if they’re worth it.
Asking for the override for schools was done intentionally because it’s harder to turn down.
Agree with many here that the Needham Street project seems to be moving at a snail’s pace. And it’s still doing a number on my car’s suspension. It’s supposed to be complete in 2024… we shall see.
For now there has been no improvement.
Suggestion: Use Winchester Street as an alternate route, cut over to the far end of Needham Street via Christina Street/Oak Street. Especially during heavy traffic times.
As for the override plan, the debt exclusions for Countryside and Franklin are really needed. But I’d require a terrific sales pitch to support the other general override items. Timing is also not great, as inflation is going to get worse before it gets better.
BTW, I’d think the new Countryside will have to be a Godzilla-sized elementary school (400+ students) to accommodate the incoming kids from Northland and the planned 40B across the Street. Too bad the city can’t reclaim the old Emerson property in Upper Falls to create a modestly sized elementary school. I think it’s under some type of state conservation restriction.
The new Angier and Cabot are that sized schools. Apparently the new philosophy is larger elementary schools and fewer smaller neighborhood Schools.
Andy, you realize that “Godzilla” size elementary schools are the norm across the state, and that all of the rehabbed schools exceed this number… And honestly, I see little to no difference between the smaller school environment and the larger one. The key is class size, not school size in my view.
One of the reasons we spend so much on our schools is the system of so many elementary schools of small size increases costs. I’m fine with it from a “neighborhood school” view, but if density increases in a given neighborhood, you still have that. If the school gets rehabbed, the size should be increased to give greater flexibility to the school system now and in the future, just like Cabot, Angier and Zervas. Especially Zervas (I remember those folks being upset too, and the city rightfully ignored them on the size).
Now I’ll never understand why we have two middle schools right next to each other though.
@fignewtonville Smaller schools lend themselves to stronger communities and parental support. Parental engagement with the schools, no matter income or education, lead to better engagement. This is well studied.
One of Malcolm Gladwell’s books studied class size and an interesting consesus among teachers is that classes too small (<19 to 1 ratio IIRC) are detrimental to learning because the children do not learn to learn independently.
@Fig I heard that Oak Hill was originally an elementary school. Someone told me that some of the scale if the school was set up for younger and thus smaller kids. This explanation also made sense to me due to their physical proximity,
I found this history which does not reference it as a elementary school but does say how it was closed in 1984 due to declining enrollment and rented out to a few private schools. It was reopened in 1997 when enrollment increased.
https://www.newton.k12.ma.us/domain/1061
Important to get facts correct. Webster Woods should not be in the category as the Senior Center in terms of project source. Webster Woods purchase was funded with CPA funds. Those funds can be used for affordable housing, open space improvements, and historic preservation. They are a separate portion of your taxes dedicated to those items, and we opted in as a community because the state matches (or somewhat matches in recent years) the funds raised. In my view the Community Preservation Act program and committee does excellent work, and we’ve made out well and done some great things for Newton with those funds and the multiplier from the state. If you want to complain about Webster Woods sucking away too much CPA money away from parks/affordable housing/historic buildings, let’s have that discussion. But you can’t use it for schools, you can’t use it roads, you can’t use it for most of the items in the override.
Folks might remember I was against the eminent domain taking. I still am. But to call that a pet project of the mayor as if it was somehow taking money away from the school system isn’t factually accurate. It was certainly a pet project of the mayor. But it has nothing material to do with the override.
As for the Senior Center, I think at best the ARPA funds can be used for that purpose. That certainly was a choice, and the funds used for the senior center are not restricted except for ARPA restrictions, to the extent ARPA funds the costs. I’ll leave it to others to defend the Newcal project, and I think the Mayor will rightfully be asked to defend that project in the face of the override.
With that said, the override isn’t temporary, and the structure deficit is there regardless. I get the argument that “if only we kept expenses in check we won’t need an override.” and “look at this wasteful one time expense”. But the reality is that we will need overrides now and in the future, just for health care, pension funding, debt service and contract increases for school employees and city employees. The structural deficit is going to get worse. We pushed over hundreds of millions of costs over 50 years. Sewer. Water. School buildings. Fire stations. Parks. Roads. Pensions. School contracts keeping pace with inflation and our peer communities. Health care costs due to contract negotiations. The last two mayors have been smart about cutting costs and funding common sense repairs, but it is a tall mountain to climb. I get the temptation to point to short term waste and say “but why that cost?”. Now do the next 5 years. And the 5 years after that.
I’ll also say this. No politician wants to ask for an override. Or a debt exclusion. It is the likeliest path to losing the next election. Folks are acting as if this Mayor woke up and just decided to take the most damaging path politically on a whim. That makes no sense to me. I get the argument that this is painful and the wrong time due to the wider economy. You can hate the mayor and her choices, but let’s be fair.
I’d encourage the City Councilors to get on record about the override. Have some political courage. If you oppose it, state why and what you would cut to fund the gaps. If you support it, come out and support it. It won’t pass without your help.
@Fig,
While you cannot use webster woods money DIRECTLY for roads and schools…INDIRECTLY you could have used the money on parks and other things mentioned in the override and to reduce budget spend on items fitting those funds…and then use the other, fungible, money on schools.
It is nonsense that we funded 19 mil for senior center, 15 mil for webster woods and 65 mil of arpa money on slew of items…and then we MUST OVERRIDE to fund schools.
This mayor has her priorities backward. We knew this before the election and many ignored it. She sent her kids to private school, couldnt care less about NPS, and is using this as a ploy. What a joke. Its a no for me on the general.
I will vote yes for the direct school funding. those children need the schools to be rebuilt and should not suffer for the MANY budget mistakes of this mayor.
Frank, there are set limits on CPA funds. They aren’t meant as a budget filler. Having them take the place of Parks and Rec expenses doesn’t match the program. Also, the CPA funds are being paid out over a longer amount of time, so each year the amount available is much less. It is debt service payment designed.
I understand your point about priorities and how the Mayor allocated funds. But on Webster Woods, that is pretty much what CPA funds were designed to do. I just wish Mayor Warren had been wise enough to acquire the site years earlier, including the building, which could have made a senior center, or a new pool, or a new park, etc.
I’ve never voted for Mayor Fuller. But she has articulated a vision during her time in office that I support. Webster Woods, a new senior centre, and turning the Armory into affordable housing. So I have no problem paying a little bit more in property taxes to support our schools and those policies. I’ll offer the Mayor my opinion of how well she managed those additional tax dollars, in the likely event she runs again in 2025.
@mike – everything you just mentioned are exactly the reasons I never have and never will vote for fuller. She mismanaged the budget for 5 years now and this override is proof of that statement. Stop funding pensions so much, stop with the bike lanes and nonsense that doesnt matter. 50 people commute with bikes daily in Newton. There are 13,000 elementary school children.
And Id like to know how many people use the senior center every day…100? 200? Seems appropriate to spend 19 million there and then beg tax payers for money to pay for the education of our children. Stop the madness. vote No and force her to face the music.
Sorry, 13,000 NPS students overall.
Frank D has a good point on the aggressive funding of the pensions. My understanding is that the Mayor is doing this to preserve our AAA credit rating. I don’t know what the fetish for this AAA rating is. She keeps talking about it. The difference in borrowing costs between municipal AAA and AA is 20 basis points. Thats 0.2%
Fig, I understand the new model of massive elementary schools. Not saying I’m opposed to it, because communities like Newton really have no other choice at this point. I think there are more than 350 kids squeezed into Countryside now, so it’s going to have to be super big to absorb the enrollment from the new apartment complexes. I think those are fine, too. Voted in favor of.
Just want to point out that several of our elementary schools had 500+ kids including Countryside. The amount of kids from Avalon on Needham st was significantly underestimated. This led to overcrowding at Countryside. Buffer zones shifted kids to Bowen which was then at over 500. Buffer zones were then used to shift kids to Mason Rice. All of these school experienced being well over capacity with over 500 kids. This is why Zervas moved ahead of Cabot in the renovation process and Zervas’ capacity was increased by 100. That wave of kids has started high school. At one point the model was to have 24 classrooms though I’m not sure that has continued.
Avalon has less than 300 apartments. Northlands two projects adds 1,200.
Yet the Mayor is still claiming enrollment won’t be going up significantly…per her handsomely paid demographers.
How long are we going keep letting her spin this fairy tale?
I agree with Bruce’s observation that students sometimes benefit from class sizes not too small. At South I preferred 20-25 students per class, at least for mainstream and honors sections. Classes whose students have serious learning challenges should be smaller.
Also, the NPR program “The Hidden Brain” presented research demonstrating that stress can be positive for individuals, including students, if the individuals themselves have the right attitude about dealing with it. (I refer not to overly stressful situations but to the normal kind of stress humans face at some point both in childhood and adulthood-it’s unavoidable).
Those who embrace the stress and believe they can overcome it succeed at far higher levels than those who complain about it or feel unprepared for it, all other things being equal. It seems unreasonable and even counterproductive to strive to eliminate stress from life altogether, and high school seems the appropriate place to begin learning how to deal with it.
At the same funding levels, effective leadership can improve education. Effective leadership and more funding will create synergies that further improve things. Poor leadership and more funding, at best, is a waste of money and at worst, wastes money and delivers worse education.
Leadership is key. Yesterday, I spoke with the hyper-successful CEO of an investment firm–Marc Rowan. He started extremely effective charter schools that serve underprivileged kids in Israel. He attributes the schools’ success to holding leadership accountable, which resulted in letting adults go. A couple weeks ago, I listened to a podcast with Roland Fryer (an economist at Harvard who studies education), about improving education. Listen to it. https://www.econtalk.org/roland-fryer-on-educational-reform/ He worked on a study with the Houston school district that lead to real improvements in student learning. Like Rowan, he notes how critical leadership is. In Houston, 19 out of 20 principals were let go.
A new superintendent must make learning improvement the number one goal. This goal runs counter to much of the current administration and some principals. The new superintendent will need to drastically restructure the administration. We should explicitly ask all candidates if they are willing to do so.
Korff isn’t making continued investments in Newton because he’s barely scraping by with these projects. He’s made millions. Too many millions.
Fuller has been too accommodating of rich developers and is now asking Newton taxpayers to pay the bill.
That’s been the overarching issue in this City and she hasn’t managed it well.
I’ll support the override if she resigns. Otherwise it’s a simple no.
What does development have to do with replacing Franklin and Countryside, which have needed replacement for decades?
Clawback Korff’s profits and you have the funding for those two overrides.
Let’s not even get started with the School Committee- they’re not trustworthy custodians of our tax dollars either.
So if this Question 1 tax hike passes, and the money is indeed allocated to education by the legislature… do we still need an over-ride? Or will NPS be awash in new sources of funding?
If we ended up “awash” in state funds, we should accelerate the repair, reconstruction, or replacement of our older school buildings. It is necessary, it will save money in the long run, and it is equitable across the city.
Folks –
It is instructive to move beyond the muck mustered up by Mayor Fuller’s massive onerous tax hit to the City’s residents. Simply review her Thursday, September 13, 2022 “Mayor’s Update” on the “Itemization of ARPA Investments” to try to discern why her $15 million tax proposal override is worth its weight in promises aplenty.
Mayor Fuller opens with a bright scenario: “I am excited to share the next set of transformative investments we are making with the City of Newton’s America’s Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds. These investments reflect input from across our community, and they will make Newton more resilient, more livable, more vibrant, more inclusive, and more sustainable for years to come.
She adds: “We are already underway with investments of a little over one half ($34 million) of the City’s $63.5 million in ARPA funds. Today we are committing another $23 million towards pressing needs facing Newton.” Then the lengthy list of six subtitled items we read are similar to Mayor Fuller’s projects wish list in the $15 million-dollar onerous tax on Newton’s residents. The interesting monetary add-on is written in at the bottom of her Update: “We are consciously retaining $6 million, almost 10%, of the ARPA funds.” While those funds are promised to fund COVID-19 related issues or “unforeseen repercussions of the pandemic,” and so on, taxpayers ought to establish a thorough Watchdog group to ensure these one-time ARPA funds are responsibly planned and prudently dispersed!
Raising revenues is the bane of every elective public servant whose trust to the taxpayers is to spend wisely and invest responsibly. In my nearly 40 years (January 1983) of public sector involvement, I have seen City budgets in a medium-sized City (my hometown) to a larger and wealthier City (Newton) balloon to record deficits by City leaders’ knee-jerk reactions to omit creative discussion on raising revenues. Such action will eliminate the need to cower to tax hikes.
A hefty tax burden during these difficult times of exorbitant expenses to provide daily essentials such as groceries and gasoline and monthly utility rates, is imprudent and irresponsible. Where is the City’s investment portfolio? How is it faring on the open market? What about a rainy-day fund? Is it solid or soggy? And what about the monetary value of the City’s Capital Improvement budget? Is it flexible far into the future? With rumors of a Recession next year be prepared.
Homeowners and property owners and small businesses such as restaurants, corner grocery markets, hair salons, clothes stores, Delis, floral shops and so on will all raise prices to pay for the $15 million dollar pile on. Consumers will bear the tax burden and that carries over to potential closings or foreclosures by owners. These hardworking people cannot continue to tap their till, for example, to buy a property worth $2.5 million that will add a mere 14 bedrooms of affordable housing. Developers were chomping at the bit to purchase The Walker Center property and its spate of buildings. That is tax revenue staring Mayor Fuller in the face!
I can write much more about raising revenue without burdening taxpayers. A $500 million City budget gives chills to surrounding communities who dream of such wealth. But a gut-punch tax to Newton’s laborers who work to buy or retain their own homes for decades is morally wrong. We often hear “Don’t worry about the super-rich.” Well, they’ll take their investments elsewhere. And it is indeed exploiting them by hiking taxes.
My childhood home remained in my family for 52 years until my 82-year-old Mom’s health brought her to live her final eight years with two of my siblings. The Old Homestead — as we siblings and grandchildren refer to it now — would surely be the vibrant, cozy, safe haven had my Mom lived longer. Yet we are blessed she stayed 52 years. Will your mothers/fathers or yourselves be able to claim living 52 years to see grandchildren visit into adulthood in the same home in your hometown?
The American Dream is slipping away.
Part of the American dream, and more specifically a foundation of Newton’s civic DNA, is great schools. They have provided generations of Newtonians excellent educations, as well as increased property values.
We have have lots of debate about the best way to teach our young people, but a great education is premised by healthy, safe, and functional schools that available to all and meet the standards for today’s educational needs.
Our schools, or at least the ones that we have not updated, are far from this standard. Franklin and Countryside have comprehensive and systemic problems that require replacement. Many of our other schools are plagued by roof leaks, problematic heating systems (and often no cooling), and other physical plant issues that directly interfere with the ability of our kids to learn.
At the same time, many schools are not universally accessible, sometimes egregiously so. At Ward School, a student or parent in a wheelchair has access to only one or two classrooms. This is counter to the Americans With Disabilities Act, the standards of the Architectural Access Board, and every standard of equity and excellence that Newton and Newton Public Schools stands for.
These problems are not going to be fixed by best hopes and wishes, nor gnashing of teeth or fists shaken at the sky. Fixing them will cost money. Significant money. Over years. Newton failed to address this problem for decades, riding the coat tails of excellence established by previous generations until that coat became threadbare.
The problem is now ours to fix, for our young people, our neighbors and their families, and the generations to come. The debt exclusion for Countryside and Franklin are targeted specifically at those schools. The third override item includes, in part, expansion for the newer Horace Mann School so that it more fully meets the needs of its community. It also covers repairs for the the environmental control (HVAC) of other schools and civic buildings, replacing older and inefficient systems.
There’s no getting out of paying this bill. The question is whether we own up to our obligations now, or push even more problems and even greater expenses off onto the next generation.
Mike –
A Master Plan — 5 or 10 years — should be created to convince taxpayers that the schools’ you list in poor condition are either rebuilt or receive the necessary upgrades/updates.
In addition, I’ve participated in both the public sector (Charter Revision Commission; New York) and within the private sector (nonprofits; both New York and Massachusetts) that created a Master Plan to purchase (circa 1990) a larger single-story structure to meet the needs of a growing organization. First, find the money to buy the larger building. Second, hire contractors. Third, do the upgrading/updating interior//exterior. Fourth, move in. Fifth, hold the ribbon-cutting ceremony. Within LESS than five years of the Master Plan, all goals were met and the objective achieved!
The above scenario is simply an anecdote of one of my myriad experiences on how prudently to spend precious monies at a nonprofit that relies heavily on State funding, grants, fundraising. Though nonprofits do not pay taxes because of their unique status, the challenge to secure funding became most urgent to meet the criteria of the five-year Master Plan.
Tossing out a public revenue-raising override to citizens who will foot the hefty costs is not responsible governing. Nor is such a public referendum realistic as they’ve been presented. What are the REAL costs? A watchdog group should be devised to ensure the funds go where they’re intended. After all, the citizens will have ‘skin in the game’ as they’ll pay for the projects listed by Mayor Fuller. A check and balance must be part of ANY tax hike. I’ve listened to the tales of woe relating to the schools you list for years and safe/easy accessibility was a big part of the overall problems. But nobody serving the School Commitee was serious about violating the Federal decree of the ADA! Even as Rob Caruso and I — during our 12-year Co-Chair roles invited School Committee member(s) to Commission On Disability meetings to explain themselves.
Mayor Fuller gave $3 million of ARPA funds to the School Committee. Where did each penny go? No watchdog group comprised of citizens available to follow the funds? I have for nearly 40 years actively participated within the decision-making processes of my respective communities. And a check and balance to scrutinize lots of money was in place.
Even the Newton Commission On Disability — indeed the nearly 300 such Commissions across the Commonwealth — is a watchdog governing body. Why? Because the Federal arm known as the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program allots a percentage of the City’s overall CDBG allotment to use for accessibility projects. Members of the Commission choose the projects and review the funds available. Members must vote on certain projects and are obligated to spend the CDBG funds prudently and responsibly. It’s well-documented that the Commission did so. In fact, the Commission works closely with staffers in the Department of Planning, which also includes a senior planner meet with members at its monthly meetings.
Thus, any tax increase ought to include a separate watchdog group directly involved and engaged with millions of dollars of the funds incoming and outgoing. I will never vote to approve any Mayor’s hefty tax hike and override without that watchdog group. At some time in the future homeowners/business owners ought to receive a property tax relief. Only then will confidence in their elective governmental leaders ensue.
I very much question the idea that these immediate pressing problems – sewage and stormwater in the basement of Countryside, or the rotting modulars that make up more than half that school, or the library at Franklin located in the basement that had to be closed for mold remediation, or the accessibility issues at every one of our older schools and playgrounds, or failing boilers and leaking roofs – that the answer to these critical and acute problems is more bureaucracy.
Newton has plenty of ways to avoid getting things done that need to be done. Inventing more mechanisms to delay necessary change isn’t going to help. We have an enormous City Council and a variety of boards who should be able to serve that purpose.
I think it would provide clarity for the city to publish it’s master plan to fix every school, understanding it will take decades. However, plan or not Countryside and Franklin are at the top of the list, and need reconstruction. I don’t think you’ll find many people who would disagree if they visited or saw how far they were from state standards.
So why wait to fix them? The opportunity to make a difference in the lives of our kids, to do right by them, is fleeting.