The Newton Beacon reports on two groups (“No Override Newton” and “Vote Yes For Newton”) that have recently been formed to lobby for/against the upcoming Newton tax override vote on March 14.
Groups form to support and oppose upcoming overrides
by Jerry Reilly | Jan 24, 2023 | Newton | 130 comments
I will remind everyone of a simple fact. Support it or not.
This vote, the general, has nothing to do with schools. At its core, the Mayor created this issue for NPS by deciding explicitly not to allocate the 4.5MM to NPS. To be very clear, this wasnt some natural disaster that happen to the city, this was a decision made in good conscious to fund things other than NPS. This was intentional by her knowing the most likely way to pass an override would be to claim it was for schools.
It is disgusting that she is threatening to cut school programs while prefunding a pension 10 years earlier than required. It is disgusting that she is asking for new money during this inflationary period on the precipice of a recession. It is disgusting that she wont borrow on the city’s AAA rating instead of asking us to pony up more money, money that many cannot afford to spend. This is a disgrace. And holding the kids hostage ON PURPOSE.
The narrative of “vote yes for schools” is a smart political game, but it is just that, a game. The real life part is that this was an explicit decision. Please dont be confused by the hoards of people claiming this is for schools.
Please everyone, vote yes for countryside and Franklin (those are for the kids). vote No to the general. The mayor created the problem and should be forced to fix it herself.
Frank, let me very explicit and say thank you for thinking about this issue and supporting the school reconstruction overrides.
I wish the work would have happened earlier so that our family could have gotten the benefit of it. Now I just want a better school for my West Newton neighbors.
Ultimately, we need to understand the plan to get all of our schools fixed so every family has the same opportunities. Just tell us what it will take and how we are going to get there.
The city also needs to provide proof of a maintenance plan to keep the schools in good shape. People need that confidence if they are going to invest.
Frank D. – I totally agree with your analysis and will be voting for the two school overrides, but not the general override. People really need to start looking at Mayor Fuller’s actions with a more critical point of view.
Frank, your pension “fix” is not a long term fix. Perhaps it allows us to delay an override a few years. It also locks in higher costs for meeting that pension obligation (the earlier you fund, the less you have to fund, assuming a constant rate of return).
I have no object to tweaking the pension formula in the short term by a few years, but it won’t come close to covering the full amount of the override, and then by 2030 we would need a much larger one if costs/expenses continue to grow at similar rates.
I appreciate the desire to take better advantage of our bond rating and borrow more. I was in favor of doing that 10 years ago too, when rates were even lower. But debt service needs to be serviced either way. And if the schools and the city are looking at future budget deficits, the ongoing debt service without debt inclusions are suddenly not as affordable or useful.
The key fact that your argument doesn’t address is the ongoing nature of the 4.5 million funding to the schools, and the ongoing fiscal stress of rising school costs. this isn’t a 1 year funding gap or a simple 4.5 million payment. It is year after year. Even if short term fixes like ARPA or pension tweaking can fix it this year and next, at some point that 4.5 million is needed in a major way.
That isn’t politics. That’s reality. And every school district in MA is feeling similar ongoing pressures.
This spirited, lively debate is truly a representation of the best of Newton. Although there is nothing like a consensus on many of the key points, I don’t think any commenter has or would assert that the level of excellence at NPS is anything close to where it should be.
Academics, Arts, Athletics, supported by great teachers and top notch physical infrastructure. This is why we moved to Newton to raise our children.
However you vote on the overrides (I will hold my nose and give them more money), I’d submit the search for the next superintendent is more consequential. With a few exceptions the School Committee is not only unfit for purpose but is actively undermining our broad community consensus for a return to excellence.
Please get involved!
Craig:
We might differ about the job the school committee is doing, but we agree on the idea that the bigger battle to improve the schools lies with the new superintendent and the school committee going forward.
But I very much doubt you’ll see the folks pushing against the override here involved in that process.
Agree. Has to do with waste and mismanagement. I have lots of examples but I will point to only one: library parking and solar cell panels. Solar panels have a wrong orientation and angle, but city bought into it because it is cool (wondering if team paid lavishly to do the “design” was incompetent or ..worse).
If you loose trust your money is well spent, then you tend to vote no on override. I browsed through MA state link on overrides, and most of the cities use the school argument to request them. It is not a political game, it is dishonesty.
Wow. Mic drop.
Very good article that provides useful information, context, and history.
“A lot of people on low incomes cannot afford Newton because of the taxes.”, from the chair of the No group, is kind of a wild quote. I don’t want to minimize how much any cost increase can be meaningful when one is living on a lower income, but “taxes” probably doesn’t make the top five reasons that people with lower incomes cannot afford Newton. (Especially because the group for which that is true, lower-income seniors who have pre-turn-of-the-century housing costs locked in and have flexibility around some of the other costs of living, have programs specifically available to deal with the tax burden.) It’s the kind of reflexive anti-tax screed, speaking to dogma rather than evidence, that makes me immediately discount the remainder of the argument, and I say that as someone whose instinctive position is to be skeptical of at least the operating override.
Jonathan I was thinking about your statement “that makes me immediately discount the remainder of the argument,”
I wonder how many people actually read the information and consider all of the possibilities? I’m guessing that 95% of the yes override people like yourself don’t bother to get all of the information. I would guess 75% of the no people have no interest.
Just speculating
Upgrading the Horace-Mann School is a major part of the operating override. In 2013(ish), it was renovated to be a swing space while other schools were being built, but was never intended to be a permanent facility.
The Mass State Building Authority has established space guidelines for new elementary, middle, and high schools. New buildings must be in compliance with these guidelines in order to receive state reimbursement. The spaces in Angier, Cabot, and Zervas are all in compliance with these guidelines but Horace-Mann isn’t close, This issue needs to be addressed so H-M students receive equal educational experiences and opportunities as students in new schools and the schools currently in the queue for rebuilding.
The MSBA guidelines for school facility spaces can be found at this website: schoolbuildings.org/guidelines
This is exactly the point Frank D. articulated so well. The mayor chose to tether HM building to the override. However, for the Senior Center she chose to pay out of free cash flow. That is the game that is been played with our children.
BTW – She can easily and I mean easily find $775,000 a year to fund HM from operating budget. Even someone semi-famliar w Newton budgets like me can find that money. We know CFO Lemiux is way more competent. HM is a “manufactured crisis”.
Hi Sumukh,
In addition to the Senior Center, the City is paying for the $13 million Newton Early Childhood Program project and for the $47 million Lincoln Eliot Elementary School project with bonding that is paid out of the operating budget – not just non-school projects as you imply. Horace Mann needs to be done. If, the override fails, the project will be delayed and the children will remain in a building that does not meet current standards.
Sumukh-
Paying for three major capital projects through bonding is fiscally appropriate, but there comes a point when the responsible course of action is an infusion of cash to pay for a new building, and we’re at that point.
As one who worked in five old NPS school buildings over many years, I can assure you that $775,000 wouldn’t go far in repairing even the most essential repairs and upgrades in our elementary schools. In fact, it would be a drop in the bucket. The city has made making steady progress over the last 10 years to remediate this serious problem and has used an infusion of funds from an operating override and debt exclusion overrides to fund school projects. Zervas was funded through the 2013 operating override and it is a magnificent facility. If all three overrides pass, then four of the new buildings will be funded through the bonding mechanism and four through debt exclusion overrides.
As I’ve said many times, the decrepit condition of Newton’s elementary school buildings isn’t a problem that was created in the last 5 or 10 years. It’s been decades in the making and will take many years to work our way through. But the longer we wait, the more expensive the capital projects become.
Jane – your statement “there comes a point when the responsible course of action is an infusion of cash to pay for a new building, and we’re at that point.”
Personally, I agree with your statement, but do not agree it should come from an override. The infusion of cash can come via cuts to other parts of the budget, reallocation of funds, etc. Sometimes the leaders of the city have to do the right thing, even if it means less funding for something they prefer or for their pet projects. This isn’t happening here, as it seems like a have your cake and eat it too scenario…with the cake provided by the voters.
As Frank said, and I agree, this is a self inflicted problem and it is inappropriate for the city to claim hardship and that we are in dire need of funding. As a city we are doing fantastic, have a diverse revenue base with a large and growing commercial segment. This is in addition to all the new revenue coming form the gigantic apartment buildings on the horizon.
Lastly, why is additional borrowing bad? Im pretty sure we are in the midst of a new debt ceiling fight about raising the debt limit in Washington. If we can increase the debt limit at the Federal level, why cant we borrow more at the municipal level? I know that an additional 30-40 million in borrowing, while we wait for the new apartments to come on line from a revenue perspective, will not impact our AAA rating. I say again, it will not change our rating.
I agree with a few here, am voting yes to Countryside and Franklin and am leaning strongly toward no to the general.
I don’t believe the infusion of cash can come from other sources outside of the school budget, I believe the school budget is about 80% of our total City budget as is.
What I would like to know is has the City been funding maintenance for the past decade at the level they committed to (3%?). Underfunding maintenance was part of the reason the City’s schools were in such terrible shape to begin with.
@Lucia – of course it can come from Something else.
The mayor would have to defund or lower funding to one of her pet project which she values more than NPS (and there are many!)
So, that wont happen. Sad.
Thank you Susie.
@Jane – I am sure we all have our opinions on what is “fiscally appropriate”. Here are the facts: As of 4/19/22 – Newton’s debt load was 21% of the limit imposed by Mass Laws. Even by its own conservative policy, Newton’s debt service was 5.2%, much less than the upper 7.5% limit. Said differently, we have capacity to safely bond HM today, per our own policy. Hence, tethering Horace Mann to Override vote is a political decision by the mayor.
BTW – The $775K is the annual debt service for HM from the override documents. You should contact the building/finance dept if you feel that is insufficient.
I think this is a fair statement. Horace Mann could have been funded with bond proceeds. Perhaps in place of the Senior Center. I won’t deny that was a political choice by the Mayor. I also would have been fine with a debt exclusion, or swapping the Senior Center for Horace Mann. I’m sure my bias towards the young is showing, but I think we need better schools before we need a new senior center.
But at some point, getting all three projects done requires additional space in the budget.
And this discussion is really an argument about process vs budget. You can decry the Mayor’s choice to select Horace Mann as an override item. Political games. The horror. But to me, we clearly have a gap in our budget long term, we clearly have a gap in our school budget long term, and we clearly have a gap in what we expect of our schools and what they deliver to our kids. How does blocking an override that provides more funds for the schools help improve excellence in our school system?
We seem to want the same goal. Better schools. That’s my primary goal. More resources makes that easier.
Can someone explain to me in detail why voting no on the override is good for our schools or our kids?
Sumukh – I am well aware that the $775,000 is the annual debt service for H-M. But my point remains, we could spend that amount of money upgrading/repairing public buildings and spaces in Newton every year because the neglect has been going on for such a long time. When we moved to Newton in 1982, the public buildings were old, tired, and in disrepair. Forty years of infrastructure neglect has only made the situation worse.
The override is a typical instrument other communities use quite often. Nearby comparable communities have had multiple overrides over the years to pay for new schools, upgraded infrastructure, and other capital projects. Needham has had 14 overrides, Wellesley has had over 20. Since 2000, Lexington has had 9, Belmont and Winchester have had 8 a piece. These are also AAA rated communities.
In fact, Newton is the outlier – by a lot – in not having overrides to complete these projects.
In fairness Jane, you haven’t commented on why the other communities need overrides.
Moody’s says that one positive of Newton relative to peers is our commitment to growing our tax revenue at the max allowable cap each year. Perhaps other towns don’t do that!
Moody’s also says that we have a well diversified base of tax revenue including a sizeable commercial and industrial footprint. Does Wellesley have as much? Other towns? We are also FAR bigger in terms of population, so we have a broader base of residential revenue.
My only point, you cant give one side of a story and claim we are an outlier. Perhaps we are, but perhaps we are an outlier in that for a variety of reasons we do not need an override.
Again, this call for an override to rescue us from doom and gloom is very misguided, a political construct, and ultimately a fallacy.
Here is a question for people of Jane’s mindset. Let’s peel the onion back. Why do you think overrides pass so frequently in other communities, but not in Newton. Is it because Newtonians are more stingy? Less intelligent? Less caring?
My guess is people in Newton are just like everyone else. The difference is that our elected officials have done a poor job spending the money they have. Certainly, this is true with out schools.
Jane
just for the sake of accuracy in the time period that Needham passed 14 overrides they had 10 that failed
In Wellesley 4 of the last 7 failed
In Lexington 2 of the last 3 failed
In Belmont 4 passed in the last 33 years and 2 failed ( where did you get 8?)
In Winchester only 3 have passed and 7 have failed in 33 years
Where do you get your statistics?
https://dlsgateway.dor.state.ma.us/reports/rdPage.aspx?rdReport=Votes.Prop2_5.OverrideUnderride&tblProp2_5Votes-PageNr=88&rdDataCache=7126899945&rdShowModes=&rdSort=&rdNewPageNr=True1&rdRequestForwarding=Form
Pat P:
As far as I know, every town increases to the cap, absent major increases in commercial/retail tax revenue. We are definitely an outlier when compared to the cities and towns I typically here Newton residents compare our city too: Wellesley, Brookline, Natick, Needham, etc. In addition, I believe all of those I reference have higher tax rates than Newton than this point, except for Brookline (which has major retail revenue).
There seems to be a consistent theme among opponents of the override that the news articles and supporters of the override are only telling one side of the story, and that the other side of the story is that this is, as Pat says, a “political construct” and a “fallacy”. But the city and school committee has given a lot of detail about the need and the uses of the funds. The “no” posters don’t have similar data about what should be cut or managed better to account for the loss of income. If the majority of the city council, the Mayor’s office and the school committee are telling us in great deal why we need these override/debt exclusions, what is the data refuting them?
If the answer is just that you don’t want taxes to increase, that’s perfectly fine by me. I don’t particular like paying additional taxes either. But I’m not understanding the insistence that an override won’t help the schools improve, or the city do more. Where do folks find the year in year out funds to continue and expand these city services absent additional revenue, when it is clear expenses are increasing on even core city services? I mean inflation has risen by 8% or higher in recent months. Health care is up. Costs are up. All beyond 2.5% property tax increase by a percentage basis. So if expenses are going up, logically to me either income via property taxes go up or services get reduced. Including schools.
It isn’t unfair to point that out. If you have a better solution beyond kicking the can down the road to future years, I’m all ears.
Asking override opposers to provide solutions for cuts is an unfair ask. There are many factors to be considered. To propose cute without all the facts and a seat at the table would be highly irresponsible. But this we do know…
The operational override amount as a percentage of the overall budget is small. Should not be hard to find the money. Opposers have posted ad nauseam about where that can come from. Override supporters just reads what they want.
The slides Kathy Smith presented on what could be cut were not unreasonable and should be at least considered EVERY YEAR, not just when there is an override. Like a corporate or family budget, NPS has the same responsibility as any who has revenue and expenditure to manage. Taxpayers are not an endless piggy back.
Lastly, I go back to Frank D’s initial comments at that top…this is a manufactured crisis; a result of misprioritization of spend. Dangling kids as bait to fund vanity projects is just not cool. Supporters of the Mayors’ housing policies often use the term “fear mongering” as a tactic used by their challengers. That term applies nicely to this override as well.
Matt:
It isn’t unfair at all. The City has provided a good amount of detail as to how the money will be used. Much of it is to maintain valued services in the face of rising costs. The No side often discusses waste and bad decisions, and seems to focus on one-off expenses to be eliminated. But the override is a new stream of cash going forward, each year in the amount of $9,175,000. If there is waste, identify with some details what you would eliminate, from the annual budget. Eliminating the Senior Center when the bonding was brought in around 2.75% barely impacts the override funds long term.
These are tough decisions to be sure. And I’m sure each side is framing the decision to convince undecided voters to their cause. For the yes side, that includes showing how the money will be spent. A huge majority of it goes to ongoing annual expenses which aren’t a candidate for bonding. If the city didn’t do this, you’d be complaining that the city was asking for a blank check. For the no side, I’m happy to listen to complains about the Mayor, but still see a revenue gap from just a basic review of the city and school budgets. So what gets cut?
Most of the proposals I’ve read thus far from override opponents cover a very small portion of an annual increase in taxes of 9,175,000 a year. The city runs a much tighter budget than people think.
Fig the main problem from my point of view is that the property tax as constructed in Newton is a regressive tax that hurts seniors and lower income owners. If the powers that be wanted to make it more fair they would reform it similar to Brookline and Boston where owner occupants receive a partial exemption.
Do you want me to give you the override statistics for Brookline??
Yes supporters are batting 1000 there.
Hi Jackson Joe:
I think property taxes have some regressive features for sure. But it has some aspects that make it a bit harder to define. First of all, property taxes have a benefit component (almost like a fee for service) and a capital tax component. The capital tax component is a tax on your real estate capital. I’m not saying that is especially a great taxing mechanixm, but it is progressive, namely those that tend to have real estate capital tend not to be our lowest income residents.
I think we do try and solve for that by allowing exemptions, just not as across the board as Brookline/Boston’s exemption amounts. For the record, the reason why both of those exemptions work is that so many folks now rent their units or homes in Brookline/Boston. A rental unit is taxed in full. We have a much smaller number of rental housing, so the exemption to make it work for our purposes wouldn’t be nearly as deep.
I think keeping taxes low is a good argument for voting no, especially if times are tight. Higher taxes do impact a lot of people (myself included). And seniors and the low income, if they do own real property, can be hit hard. But I also think the answer to that should be expanding our programs to help those people, or allowing them options to tap into the large amount of growth in their capital asset (their home). Perhaps allowing the property tax to accrue until a sale of the property for those above 75.
I just don’t think agree with the other arguments, like that the Mayor has mismanaged the budget to the tune of 9.5 million a year going forward. Or that the schools will improve if we don’t fund the override.
I do appreciate and acknowledge the comment and concern. I would hope there would be solutions besides under funding our government or not raising taxes to fund needed improvements/ongoing expenses.
@figcitynewtonville – I have a sole focus on improving schools. I would be willing to pay additional taxes for it (I did that in 2013).
Sadly schools will NOT improve, and cut programs will not be reinstated. I see no school related reason to vote YES. Zero! Also, no new roads… whats up w that.
Mayor acknowledged parents frustration with Academic Excellence in her email, but there has been no discussion at SC. At the “override” SC on Monday, it was well towards the end that Ahn Ping brought this up, and it was immediately swept under. Finally, NPS has a structural problem and the budgets are not sustainable – even if the OR passes, we have a shortfall again in 2024-25 (a blog to come when I get time).
Here is my OpEd – https://figcitynews.com/2023/01/op-ed-nps-parent-says-no-to-the-override/
When asked this question – here is mayor’s response starts at 0:44 and that response has not changed. NPS is more than Full Day Kindergarten and Early Education. https://us02web.zoom.us/rec/play/PP4o3Ic7eQQgZYLNo17d9HzHD9a7DULxc4sjiAe0disugO3FNz8S0FAXoj7LtuBDBcp0zioSwv1hd0nO.EytEQwO0ZlXVAC7o?continueMode=true&_x_zm_rtaid=OdRujFWLQs-YWVfo6sMJvA.1674737440071.76f2ebe71c6bb4550107d825919324cd&_x_zm_rhtaid=548
I read your op ed. I’m glad you wrote it. I completely understand your desire to make the schools better, and I’m glad you point out that many parents aren’t satisfied.
But I have no idea why those views lead to the conclusion that folks should no on the override.
Here is where you lost me. Your concluding line:
“We should revisit an override vote only after NPS is on a path to meet its academic excellence goals for all students without limiting opportunity for any.”
The “revisit an override vote only after NPS is on a path to meet its academic excellence goals” makes absolutely no sense to me. For two reasons.
1) Why do you think voting down the override will convince/change/help NPS start on a new path to meet its academic excellence goals? Your argument seems to be, no addition funds until you make meaningful change. I certainly can see someone making the argument that the school system needs to cut the fat, or be run more efficiently. But why does lowering possible funding for the school by 4.5 million a year help them meet the academic excellence goals? Shouldn’t you give the school committee those additional funds, and then vote for a better school committee who can use those funds in the future? Your goal –academic excellence– doesn’t seem connected to your action, eliminate new funding for the schools. Your goal and your action item seem completely divorced from each other. Does anyone on the school committee agree with you? I ask that sincerely, it would be good to know.
2) You say we should “revisit” an override vote in the future once we are on the right path to academic excellence. When? If this override doesn’t pass, there won’t be another for 4 years at a minimum in my view. There is no way the current mayor asks for another overide during this term, and a future mayor (or Mayor Fuller if she gets re-elected) isn’t going to make the another attempt at an override the first thing he/she does. In Newton it takes a lot of momentum to get to an override, and it is a politically difficult task. We’ve gone close to 10 years between overrides. Revisit an override? This process isn’t as simple as that. If this one fails, prior history gives no assurance or guidance that we’d “revisit” on overide while any of our kids are still in the Newton School System. Could it happen? Sure. Likely? Nope.
All voting against the override does is prevent an increase in taxes. It doesn’t improve the schools, it doesn’t put us on some amorphous path to academic excellence, it doesn’t convince the schools to listen to any dissatisfied parents. It just keeps the status quo. Your editorial laid out an argument about parents being dissatisfied with the school system. It doesn’t tell me anything about why that matters at all for eliminating new funding for that school system. How do you propose we get from the dissatisfaction to the “path to academic excellence”? And why is that route made easier without more money.
And the idea that we can “revisit” an override ignores the political reality. I’m sure there will be an override proposal in the future. But it won’t be soon. Why do you think it is possible to revisit?
And as an aside, you mention that we have an upcoming gap even with this additional funding. I agree. So why don’t we want the flexibility of an override?
Again, I agree that the schools could be better. And who doesn’t support “academic excellence”. But as currently framed your goals in your editorial seem counterproductive to your chosen action.
Push the school committee for change. Vote for all new members. But don’t pretend voting down the override somehow improves the schools. And don’t pretend we will “revisit” our decision in the short term if the override doesn’t pass.
I doesn’t. We won’t.
Its simple – you don’t step on the gas when the car is headed in the wrong direction.
First lets acknowledge, this override is not to improve NPS but to barely maintain the status quo. Even if the override passes, we will have cuts this year and a $3.5M deficit in 24-25 and even greater in subsequent years (Deficit is even greater if you include the $5.1M one time costs). Any of the cut programs are not coming back – they are simply not in FY23 status quo.
Second the timeline is totally controlled by the mayor. If she steps on it, and creates a commission or equivalent, we can have a plan and go for override right away. I want to be part of the solution. At this point, the SC or the mayor (see my correction below) have not even acknowledged that we have a problem. The loss of trust in the school’s direction is corroborated with other data – 20% decline in elementary school enrollment from 2017-27, or lower MCAS scores. Giving any more money without a plan ensures we will not have a plan. Consequently, irresponsible for voters to vote for this OR.
PS – Thank you to the person who reached out and pointed that the mayor never really acknowledged the problems or the 69% data. I guess I interpreted her email, the way I wanted to. I stand corrected.
Jackson Joe-
I found the statistics on the community websites for each of the towns. Each town had a list of attempted overrides, what the funds were to be used for, and whether they passed or failed.
I have the information for about 10 comparable communities but it is now a few years old and I will have to update it..
Jane I showed you my source. Direct from the MA Department of Revenue
@Fig – your arguments to Sumukh’s points effectively rolls up to “chicken or egg”; eg. “how can we make schools better if we cut funding?”
As a parent, I offer the following (low test schools, declining district rankings and private school flight not withstanding)…
Excessive fees for everything from busses to sports to parking. There’s not a week that goes by where there are not classes cancelled due to teacher absence without substitutes. And with a kid who struggled with Covid related social/emotional, the recommendation from NPS’ services (or as Kathleen Smith continues to emphasize – “growing student needs”) effectively was to seek outside support “. Which we did…at a higher cost than the override.
As multiple people noted in last night’s override meeting (road show), budgets have risen steadily year over year. So too has NPS FTEs. Yet despite declining enrollments, how is NPS being presented as underfunded??
And Sumukh has noted, in NPS’s recent survey, nearly 70% of parents do NOT believe the schools are headed in the right direction, not fiscally responsible.
If the override positioned solely to fix/rebuild schools, eliminate fees, introduce new and innovative classes, or even new laptops – I get that. Give more, get more.
But asking for more, because of “inflation” is lazy. Taxpayers live with the same inflation, so we should get dinged twice?
Lastly, inflation is temporary. Biden and the Fed will fix it. Normal economic cycles will fix it. This operational override if approved is forever…like herpes.
Matt, prices are sticky. COLA doesn’t get reduced. We aren’t going deflationary anytime soon. Operating expenses that were increased by inflationary pressures aren’t going down. You ever wonder why a cup of coffee isn’t 5 cents anymore? Hard to argue with you when you say stuff like this.
I mean where is Jeff P. when I need him… ;-)
And my comments to Sumukh have absolutely nothing to do with a chicken/egg argument. That basically is a way of not addressing any of my points. Sort of like how you say “we will have to agree to disagree” when someone replies with evidence refuting your points.
The city and school have supplied detailed evidence of the need and use of the money. Sumukh admits we have a coming funding gap even on top of this override. So without it, the gap is extreme. He also claims he wants to improve the schools. But seems unable to supply any details as to how that funding gap would be filled except hopes and assumptions. And how an “improved” school would later qualify for an override. And why parents should wait 4 years or more for this plan to come to fruition.
I get the complaints about the schools and the fees. You are making my point for me. Excessive fees and the need for parents to supplement isn’t evidence of overfunding, it is evidence of a school system under stress from underfunding if anything. And again, fight that fight at the school committee. Run for school committee. Advocate for changes.
But numbers are numbers. Even with all the cuts to administrators you want, even if you eliminate classes you don’t support, even if every excuse becomes reality, the schools are going to need more money in the coming years. This is a way to do that.
You want to refute that? Bring evidence. Not personal stories of how the school system has failed your family due to higher costs or lack of service. Lord knows I’m not happy either. But I’ll be a lot MORE unhappy when my reading specialist for my smallest gets cut, and I’ll be more pissed off when the college councilors get cut, and I’ll be especially pissed off when special needs get even harder to access.
Because this has real world consequences. Sometimes when the school committee chair and the Mayor are asking for something, it isn’t politics.
Matt-thank you too for your coherent points!
Speaking of last night’s override road show…
A common theme is that, “it’s not a lot of money (being asked for).” Nearly every road show meeting starts with that. Mayor Fuller touts her online calculator like it was some miraculous bit of technology.
Last night, one of the slides presented showed two sides – the left side representing taxes for homes $1.2m in value, and right side, homes $700k in value. When noting the right side, Mayor fuller said, “single family homes….or Condos”.
Guess what…. just did a Zillow search and in a city of almost 90k residents and over 31k households, their SEVEN homes for sale at $700k or lower. SEVEN. All condos. Not one SFR for $700k.
1. Despite all the talk of building more (and Newton has), all these apartments are not helping to bring down the cost of home ownership opportunities
2. Record home values leads to higher tax revenue (even with rate reductions) – and it’s still not enough.
3. The Sally Struthers, “for the price of a cup of coffee” argument is tired.
It didn’t work then and it’s not going to work know. Tax revenue is not an entitlement. Newton taxpayers work hard, and is not an endless piggybank.
To come full circle, Frank D’s initial comment on this post hit it on the nose. This override is not just about the cup of coffee. It’s a manufactured crisis. One of robbing Peter to pay Paul…then asking got the community to aid Peter.
I can be convinced to vote yes for the two debt exclusions (begrudging – because #SallyStruthers) but am a hard no on the operational override.
Finally, no matter how you decide to vote…please vote. Our turnout numbers are shameful.
@Matt Lai – About last night’s meeting, the part that just utterly surprised me was this gentleman – Francis. He was calling from a retirement home, and he is aware of the %age decline in the school enrollment (BTW – mayor never answered his question). I know many NPS Parents who do not know that fact let alone the %age drop.
Hats off to Francis and others who do not have children in NPS. I am glad you are following this dialog. You built a top ranking school system with a terrific reputation. Hold us accountable to turn the ship around and leave a top ranking school for the next generation of Newton residents.
Reposting since my earlier response got stuck in moderation vacuum:
Its simple – you don’t step on the gas when the car is headed in the wrong direction.
First lets acknowledge, this override is not to improve NPS but to barely maintain the status quo. 69% of parents do not believe direction of status quo is right. Go figure! Even if the override passes, we will have cuts this year and a $3.5M deficit in 24-25 and even greater in subsequent years (Deficit is even greater if you include the $5.1M one time costs). Any of the cut programs are not coming back – they are simply not in FY23 status quo.
Second the timeline is totally controlled by the mayor. If she steps on it, and creates a commission or equivalent, we can have a plan and go for override right away. I want to be part of the solution. At this point, the SC or the mayor (see my correction below) have not even acknowledged that we have a problem. In fact at the override roadshows the admin essentially said the “69% people do not believe in direction of NPS” is noise. This “noise” data is corroborated with other data – 20% decline in elementary school enrollment from 2017-27 (equivalent of Angier, Bowen and Burr combined), or lower MCAS scores. Giving any more money without a plan ensures we will not have a plan. It ensures status quo (if at all).
I am not voting for override just to maintain status quo!
PS – Thank you to the person who reached out and pointed that the mayor never really acknowledged the problems or the 69% data. I guess I interpreted her email, with rosy colored glasses. I stand corrected.
Sumukh:
You say:
“Even if the override passes, we will have cuts this year and a $3.5M deficit in 24-25 and even greater in subsequent years (Deficit is even greater if you include the $5.1M one time costs). Any of the cut programs are not coming back – they are simply not in FY23 status quo.”
So your solution is to have no override, so the deficit is even greater?
Again, I get the frustration with the school system. And you say you want to be part of the solution. But all voting against the override does is lower the total resources for the school system you want to fix. Even if you are right, and the mayor takes your view, appoints a “commission”, and then asks for another override, that is, at a minimum 2 years. And overrides never happen in an election year.
That’s a multi-year period where the deficits are much worse. And I think you are making assumptions on all of it. You are assuming a commission will be appointed. That the mayor will call another override. That it would occur before an election. That the next mayor, if there is a different one, would want an override soon. That they would want an override at all. That anyone will vote to approve it after multiple years of underfunded schools and additional flight to private schools.
And those assumptions, if they are incorrect, will have real consequences.
I’ll also note that your deficit doesn’t even take into account that the upcoming school contract is likely to end up with additional increases, as that is where the wider market sits. Even if you hold the line and negotiate a contract that somehow lowers costs, you’ve got cost of living to think of. Teachers are a hot commodity lately…good luck retaining the good ones that are young when you pay less than surrounding communities.
All of that makes flight to private worse. Makes school dissatisfaction worse.
Your battle should be with the school committee. And I just read the article where in the Beacon where you encouraged the school committee not to take a stand on the override. That it would be “divisive”. I strongly disagree. They should vote. So that everyone sees who supports additional funding and who doesn’t. So that everyone who wants to cloak their “no” vote with the idea that it somehow helps the school system get better can’t rely on the fact that the school committee didn’t take a formal vote. And so that I can see which school committee folks I’ll vote for next election.
This is too important a vote to engage in magical thinking, making assumptions based on things you don’t control. One way or the other, the schools will need additional funding. You acknowledge the gap. And nothing that you’ve posted tells me anything concrete on how you would convince the school committee, the mayor, the city council or anyone else to improve the schools enough to support a later override.
All the vote no accomplishes is preventing a tax increase. It does nothing for the schools.
And if the override is rejected, I’m hope I’m around for the time they approve another override…
Fig the problem is that this is a regressive tax that is overburdening lower income owners and seniors. It’s time to institute an owner occupied exemption if you want to get the support of those who are living on a tight budget or are living on a negative budget.
I do understand why the wealthy homeowners of Newton don’t want to shoulder a greater burden but this is the way to make the tax more fair. Please don’t mention taxpayer assistance programs because in Newton they are a joke and rip off but if you must mention them please state the exact terms that they offer so everybody can have a laugh. They aren’t much better than the terms offered on credit cards.
As a parent of an NPS Student, my experience at NPS has been steadily getting worse. The teachers are amazing. Back in the day, my son in elementary school had music class and a separate recorder class. Four years later, my daughter had a combined once a week music/recorder class. Less music. My son consistently in elementary school had a class of 25, and once 27 students. Too many kids in a classroom for ONE elementary teacher.
Post Covid the high school is worse. My daughter sees her teachers three times a week instead of four times a week. Again, she is NOT college aged. I view this as a college schedule, and students need consistency. The electives are harder and harder to get into. The math class has 27 students. Honors Spanish also has 25 students. Where are the small classes?
I have no clue if the guidance counselor at the high school knows my kid. We have tried to schedule meetings to discuss post high school, but she is often out. Never tells me in advance (or sends an email). And difficult to reschedule because she has too many kids on her caseload.
There is ONE college advisor per high school. Each senior class has 500 kids.
The support for kids who need social emotional support isn’t there. The younger grades should have been receiving more help to make up for lost time in the classroom. More literacy specialists THIS year to make up for lost time. Mayor Fuller cut them, and like a super hero flew in and sent the school more money. The kids needs are still there. This isn’t a one year bandaid. The schools need MORE people in the classrooms teaching and one on one with students. Less administration. More teachers.
It is nearly impossible to get long term subs, and there is no such thing as a floating substitute teacher in the high schools. If the teacher isn’t there, he/she posts the work and the class is cancelled. Has been happening since before the pandemic.
Newton Public Schools needs an overhaul. I am hoping the next superintendent can help with that.
I am going to to vote for the override because I don’t feel like I have a choice.
I am going to vote for the new schools, because NO student or teacher should work or learn in old decrepit school buildings that flood, have serious heating/AC issues and aren’t designed for today’s teaching and learning. If we don’t replace these old buildings we are fooling ourselves. We each upkeep our own homes differently, but we would not have such issues with our schools if we provided average upkeep. But we don’t. We let the building be used with minimal upkeep and then then 50 years later the building is in crisis. The heating system fails. The water pipes burst. The teachers and the students suffer the most. (Yes, the tax payers suffer, but try to be a teacher in a classroom with a sump pump hose running through your classroom on rainy days, and try to be a student trying to learn those days.)
I don’t agree with how things are going, but I know right now NPS needs help. And NPS needs more people working with students in the classroom. Not less.
@Newton Mom – our son is a Senior at NSHS and I, as well as many of the parents in our circle, share your recent experiences (and thank you for sharing!). But where’s where we differ – I don’t believe we should vote yes.
The current budget crisis is a choice – by Mayor Fuller and the current admininstration – as Frank D well stated at the start of this post, a manufactured crisis.
Everyone will have their own reasons to vote yes or no. For me, voting “yes” is an an endorsement of the way this City is being run. A “no” vote supports the status quo, and I can’t in good faith do that. It’s a slap in the face of our kids today, and does not put future classes in the best position to succeed.
If the override was to provide MORE services than the status quo… I could be compelled to vote yes. But until that happens, I will be voting NO to the status quo. #nonewtonoverride #notothestatusquo
Sumukh, thank you for expressing your opposition to the override in a coherent fashion. We have a spending problem and not a revenue problem. As they say during Passover, why is this night (here ‘year”) different from all other nights(year)???
I haven’t heard an explanation on what has caused this year’s deficit to become so large except some vague claims about inflation. Even if we pass an override this year there looks to be a budget deficit next year and into the future.
Perhaps the Mayor is banking on revenue from all of the new development the city approved to add even greater amounts of money to the city till. For instance, the Mayor predicts the Northland project alone is expected to produce $10 million just in permit fees. Imagine all of the extra property tax revenue that development will produce, but yet Newton’s residents are not getting any benefit from that development. Just higher taxes.
And as Sumukh says-how can we approve additional spending when the school system is not going in the right direction currently? And why are students’ education targeted in the override debate.
I have nothing against the police, fire, administrators or public works employees, but the override debate is shaped about losing 40-50 teachers and not other city employees. I think it is bad faith to put student’s education on the ballot instead of other city departments or projects like the Senior Center or the paving of our city streets. A good school system or a newly paved street? I vote for the school system, but if the override doesn’t pass it’s the school system that’s supposed to face the brunt of the shortfall.
I would like a top notch Newton like everyone else. However, when there’s a debate about spending, it doesn’t seem fair to put the students’ education on the line.
It is Orwellian when Mayor Fuller’s emails keep referring to our finances are “Rock Solid” and our schools as “Excellent.”
Here are some numbers to add to something that Matt Lai noted. Between 2018 and 2023, the number of administrator, principal, assistant principal, department head, and housemaster FTEs per enrolled student, INCREASED by 18.1%. These are most expensive positions in the NPS. No wonder we are in this mess.
One more thing. If the Admin FTEs were at 2018 level, there would be an extra $1.5 million in the budget annually. Plus, since the number of students have gone down, we would still have more admin coverage per student then in 2018. This covers 1/3 of the override. Does anyone remember be under administrated in 2018?
Jeffrey, could you let me know the source of the info? I’d like to review the admin information so I can understand what caused the increase. I know there have been some increases in the counseling services, but I can’t respond unless I can read the source material.
Fig, start here. https://www.newton.k12.ma.us/Page/3204
You might need to go to subfolder for each year and look at the approved budgets. Looking at the 2023 budget, page 37, will be helpful.
BTW, FTE’s for Psych, Guidance, Social Workers, Medical increased by 13.1% during this time. Which pales in comparison to the adminstrative growth.
Food for thought and a little more info on what the override budget would do.
For what it’s worth, the Newton high school population is growing and NSHS is projected to outpace NNHS soon. A last year NSHS lost 2.5FTE and .5 guidance counselors. Projections without the override are losing 2-3 times that amount- that’s 10 teachers with more kids attending. Class sizes are already already extremely large at the high school level. In addition, a bunch of school contracts are up (like with busing companies) who, due to inflation, will increase their prices. Newton also has massive special education services and out of district placements in special programs for some of those students ( which is required by law) but which would account for 40% of the override budget alone. This is in addition to teachers not taking a real COLA in years (accepting 0% multiple times).
The solutions to these would be things without the override AND a serious commitment to a new school budget that are detrimental to kids would be things like limiting sports at the freshmen and jv level, getting rid of clubs, increasing sports fees to cover costs (if they don’t get it from the budget they have to get it from somewhere), even bigger class sizes, more students per guidance counselor, limiting AP courses, and more. No one, especially educators and parents, want to see that happen. But schools have to operate within the budget.
Newton has put itself in this position by not supporting the schools for so long that this is the time of reckoning. We have always expected more and more but are unwilling to pay to support the innovations, renovations, and staffing needs to get us there, relying on the assumption that educators will just work themselves into the ground and that COLA and inflation are just things the school had to deal with separately from the citizens of the city. Kids are suffering for our mistakes. Parents and teachers want to keep standards high and we have essentially gutted our schools over the years by giving less and requiring more in unrealistic ways. Somehow the schools are still functioning well, but we all see the mental health issues, the eta her exhaustion, the infrastructure and building disrepair.
Yes the override still leaves us in a deficit, but it is a starting point and is necessary. We then should be considering how the budget should have been and needs to be increased to support the schools and provide the future of Newton with the best education.
While I see two sides disagreeing, I am happy to see that all sides understand that the budget that the schools have is unrealistic and unsustainable and that’s the solution isn’t to cut more or pull from one part of the school budget to give to another part because that will just make it worse. This is one of the only issues that the mayor, the school committee, the superintendents office, and the union and the teachers are all in agreement on. That the override needs to be passed. I think that means something.
Let me correct a math mistake. Admin and principal FTEs increased 8.5% not 18.1%. The cost of this increase in the 2023 budget is $1.6M, not $1.5.
One more thing. . . As a parent I consistently send Kleenex to teachers. There are zero supplies at schools. Each year in elementary school parents were asked to send markers, dry erase markers, Kleenex, paper towels, etc. I live in Newton, MA and I am sending Kleenex in to help the teachers. I don’t know what supplies NPS actually purchases. I have purchased safety googles for my kids in middle school and high school science. I have purchased the Great Gatsby and Romeo and Juliet, because teachers don’t want to use the versions in the schools.
I asked the teachers what happens if I can’t afford a book. I could ask the principal to pay out of their discretionary budget. How about using the 500 copies of Romeo and Juliet in the supply closet? Are those books collecting dust???
As a parent, I am paying ALOT for what I used to think was included in the school. I have been paying a bus fee for years! $350 this year and last year. My parents never paid a bus fee for me. My son’s peers at college were shocked that we paid bus fees.
So yes, I will continue to send boxes of Kleenex so the English teacher can save her money. But in all honesty, why are there no basic supplies for teachers. BEFORE Covid I would send wipes, paper towels and Purell to teachers. Again, things I used to think schools had in their budget.
I can’t say enough how much I support the teachers.
However, just like all of us, my electricity has increased, my health insurance costs have increased, my groceries have increased. But yet the mayor says our schools are excellent, and then she cuts the budget. Our schools were excellent.
Mayor Fuller despises the middleclass – and sending your children to public school is middleclass.
Debra you are 100% right. It’s time for the wealthy in Newton to shoulder more of the cost of public schools even though they don’t want their children to go there.
Newton needs to join the following local communities and institute a residential homeowner exemption just like the following town and cities have
Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Malden, Somerville, Waltham, Watertown,
Of course the wealthy in Newton will violently oppose this because they don’t send their children to public schools anyway. This is the pathway to solving the school budgeting problem
LETS GET THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION IN NEWTON. Show some real leadership Mayor Fuller
Back on Feb 1, 2007, the mayor and aldermen , now city councilors,
Formed a blue ribbon commission to study and solve the structural deficit facing Newton. That was 16 years ago. This is not a new issue. Mayor Fuller was on that commission, as was Paul Levy, now on the school committee. that report pretty much predicted where we are now.
From my perspective, I wish to thank the city councilors who over the past 10 years fought to stop any development, or stretched out the special permit period on every project keeping new taxes from being produced in a timely fashion. Overrides are the price we pay for inaction by city councilors who want to keep the Newton of 1959.
Jackson Joe-
I’m more than willing to show you the sources of information about passed and failed overrides in nearby comparable communities. Each community has a complete listing of its overrides on its town website. The communities that list their overrides right on their websites include Lexington, Needham, Belmont, Winchester, Wellesley, and at least 4 others.
Just let me know how I can get in touch with you. I’ll print out the information and send it to you.
Jane Don’t bother. Your information is bad. There hasn’t been an override in Lexington in 11 years. Below is the historical record of override and debt exclusion votes in Lexington. It is sad that misinformation about neighboring communities is spread around. It’s time to finance the schools in a responsible and transparent manner. Just because the wealthy don’t use the public school system doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t shoulder the lions share of it’s cost. Please support the residential exemption as used in 9 other communities around us. That’s where Newton is the OUTLIER.
https://www.lexingtonma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1386/History-of-Overrides-and-Debt-Exclusions-in-Lexington-PDF?bidId=
I’m not a fan of many things that are happening at NPS, especially the increasingly diluted focus on academics / high achievement. I don’t see how denying the system more money will help. If anything, the median resident who is on the fence between private and public will probably be nudged into the private side if this over-ride vote fails. We risk a downward spiral of mediocrity that is increasingly difficult to pull out of.
I think the solution to these problems lies with the School Committee. In the next elections (here before you know it), there should be an “Academic Excellence” slate of candidates. Make it easy for voters to pick. If you want a focus on achievement in the schools and a thorough review of NPS staffing levels, to make sure we don’t have too many associate deputy superintendents of XYZ, then vote for the following people. Make sure the candidates are reasonable folks that the median voter can identify with. Put opposing candidates on the spot and make them explain why they don’t want academic excellence. And so on.
And why do I think the solution lies with the SC? Well, as a student of management will tell you, what is measured, is managed. If the superintendent knows that he/she will face an intense line of questioning at every single SC meeting about what has been done recently on the academic excellence front – and what will be done in the coming months – then guess what happens? This item rises to the top of the priority list and gets real focus.
Tim – pulling up from the downward spiral rests not on one shoulder, but many.
As you noted, it starts with the SC (and new Superintendent to be selected) – but let’s not forget the role of the Mayor who determines how much of the overall pie gets
diverted NPS. Together, they must work to eliminate programs and roles that provide a low rate of return, stop funding vanity projects we can no longer afford (Webster Woods much?), not unnecessarily accelerate OPEB funding, etc.
The first stop to force change is a no vote on the override, as a yes vote is affirmation of the status quo. We need a fiscal detox.
Actually @jacksonjoe, it appears that your information is bad.
In June 2022, Lexington voters approved a debt exclusion override for a new $35 million police station. Before that, in 2017, Lexington voters approved three debt exclusions for projects with a collective price tag more than double the cost of the new police station, or about $85.78 million in total, per the Lexington Minuteman.
https://lexobserver.org/2022/06/06/lexington-voters-approve-debt-exclusion-to-fund-long-delayed-new-police-station/
As a general rule, it’s best not to rely on undated pdfs posted on municipal websites…it’s impossible to know if the information contained in them is up-to-date.
Also, @jacksonjoe: Newton has approved overrides only twice: in 2002 and 2013.
According to the table you shared, Lexington voters approved overrides in the following fiscal years: 1989, 1991, 1993, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008, and 2013…plus, as I mentioned in my comment above, fy18 (vote was in 2017) and 2022. So there’s that.
MA DOR puts Debt Exclusions in a different data set than the Overrides
https://dlsgateway.dor.state.ma.us/reports/rdPage.aspx?rdReport=Votes.Prop2_5.DebtExclusionVotes
it has the recent Lexington votes
2017 5/3/2016 Renovation To Elementary And To Middle Schools
2018 12/4/2017 Bonds For A New Headquarters Fire Station
2018 12/4/2017 Bonds For Maria Hastings Elementary School
2018 12/4/2017 Bonds For A New Lexington Children’S Place
2023 6/6/2022 Bonds For A New Police Station Incl Demo
Meryl I’m a little surprised that you confuse debt exclusions with overrides. There is a big difference
My comment was in response to Jane’s assertion that overrides (not debt exclusions) have been frequently passed in recent history in neighboring towns like Lexington which is not true as my documentation was accurate 11 years is not recent
The information that I found on the municipal websites was up to date and included operating overrides and debt exclusions. To exclude the debt exclusions from the data appears to be disingenuous at best.
I am a little concerned by the words “rate of return.” SPED students have an IEP and receive services need and required. It costs more to educate SPED students because the cost NOT to have OT, PT, Social Prags, text to speech software is more expensive to do it, then NOT to do it. If we don’t provide our SPED student services we break the law and those students suffer. The rate of return phrase is not appropriate here.
And I am nervous about inserting that phrase into our school system. What is the rate of return for gym class vs AP English? NPS is required to provide gym classes. I want NPS to provide “robust” classes with amazing faculty in buildings that are conducive to learning and teaching. I want NPS to provide classes for all levels and supports to those students who need it.
Please let me know what you mean by “Rate of return?”
Of course we should eliminate waste in government, make it run efficiently and try to save dollars where we can. But I also get a bit on edge with “rate of return” just like the whole idea of running government “like a business.” The role of a government is (among other things) to provide services, not to turn a profit.
Seems to me “rate of return” in this context ultimately speaks to how successfully a school system prepares its students for life beyond school, i.e., college and eventually the workforce. But how do you measure that, exactly? Just by numbers of students who are admitted to college?
I know families in Newton where both parents had (at least) a bachelor’s degree, and whose kids had the opportunity to pursue higher education — i.e. they enrolled, had enough financial aid and other means to pay for it — but their outcomes differed: In some case, their children earned associate’s degrees, or simply dropped out.
But these kids, in adulthood, managed to put together lives whereby they support themselves, they come across as very articulate and thoughtful, are generally good citizens overall. That’s a pretty good rate of return, I think.
To me, “excellent public schools,” means one thing. Parents think we have excellent public schools. Period. NPS is not delivering an education that most parents think is excellent. Mayor Fuller or (a few months ago, Fleishman) never walked into a room with parents and said, “What can we do to make NPS better?” That would be a nice starting point.
This whole issue could become a non issue if the way property taxes are assessed in Newton were reformed the way they have been in 9 other communities around Boston. With a residential owner occupied exemption the tax would become less Regressive and would increase the stake that the wealthier property owners have in making everything better in the city including schools roads etc.
The way they are formatted now it’s a game where the wealthy who don’t send their own children to public schools and have more interest in seeing funding go towards parks, senior centers and those areas that they can realize a direct benefit from.
I don’t expect Mayor Fuller to raise her hand and agree that the wealthy should shoulder a greater portion of real estate taxes but why not? Doesn’t she champion herself as a leader with “progressive values”?
Put in an owner occupied exemption and I will be the first one to vote for every override
@Jacksonjoe Your assertion that Newton should adopt the residential tax exemption, MGL c. 59, sec. 5C, is an interesting one, but I think you need to crunch the numbers to see if it would achieve the desired aim here in Newton. Only a handful of municipalities have adopted the exemption, and they are ones that have large multifamily rental and vacation markets. It would be helpful if you could do the analysis and get back to us with some hard numbers and let us know how the shifting would work here in Newton–and especially where the break even point is. (I suspect that a fair number of homeowners who consider themselves squarely middle class would actually find themselves with higher tax bills if Newton adopted the exemption, but you would have to do the math to see for sure.) The Commonwealth shows you how to do the calculations here: https://www.mass.gov/doc/living-with-the-residential-exemption/download. Maybe you could do a powerpoint for us like the one the Malden Assessor did? (You can find it under documents here: https://www.cityofmalden.org/602/Residential-Tax-Exemption-Program) I look forward to seeing your analysis.
As to your assertion above that you were trying to distinguish between debt exclusion and general operating overrides in you comments above…that was not at all clear. What is clear is that you shared an out-of-date document that lacked information about the 2017 and 2022 debt exclusion votes in Lexington. This was flat out misleading. Also, fwiw, folks tend to colloquially refer to both debt exclusion votes and general operating overrides as “overrides.” (For ex: The very document you shared was actually titled “History of Proposition 2 1/2 Override Votes” and included a list of both debt exclusion votes and general operating votes; the title of this post on V14 is “Groups form to support and oppose upcoming overrides”; and an article in Fig City News discusses the “three override proposals.”) But the best example is the fact the the anti group here in Newton has named itself “No Override Newton” (and not “No Override and Debt Exclusion Newton”). I don’t think you’d accuse them of not knowing the difference between a debt exclusion vote and a general operating override. Or maybe you’d like them to change their name?
Good points Meryl,
I will look into doing that analysis but I question whether I have the skillset .
You are correct about most of the communities with residential exemptions have many more multifamily rentals except maybe Watertown which may be similar?
Meryl I spent some time trying to calculate a formula that would determine who would save and who would not with a residential exemption. I am unable to come up with the calculations but I do have some educated guesses.
If the exemption was similar to Brookline the homeowner with a valuation of 1.3-1.6 million would break even and those with lower valuations would have savings incrementally higher by percentage the lower the valuation. I would guess that the break even point would probably be 1.5 million but like I said I don’t have enough data or the proper calculator to be more exact. I base my estimates on median values.
“… eliminate programs and roles that provide a low rate of return.”
That’s some scary stuff! Only someone completely oblivious to the mission of public school education and unwilling to meet its challenges could possibly write those words.
Personally, I can respect both sides of the actual override debate. No one likes to pay higher taxes. Everyone should vote the way they feel on the issue. But some of the rhetoric from override opponents is completely unhinged. Like this…
“Mayor Fuller despises the middle class.”
Seriously? That’s some whacky stuff right there!
Mock the phrasing of if you must, but there’s something behind these statements. The sentiment we’re seeing bubbling up with this override is that the Mayor is out of touch with Newton’s voters.
Voters are questioning her spending priorities. From Webster Woods to Village Center Rezoning and a welcome mat for developers, these are all resources that could be spent to support NPS.
And her answer to inflation? Pass that cost on to taxpayers who are already forced to budget around inflationary pressures in their daily lives.
I doubt Mayor Fuller “despises the middle class”. But she’s far from being its/our champion. #NoNewtonOverride
I am voting for the two school overrides and against the general override. But, as I previously stated above, I also believe that Mayor Fuller despises the middleclass.
The middleclass generally send their children to public school, must work at jobs they commute to, and their home is often their largest financial asset. Mayor Fuller has been terrible for the public schools, is trying to pass a zoning code where cars can’t surface park in the rear or front setbacks of their own driveways, and where selected homeowners can’t build a second story on their homes. [The rear parking restriction and the selective second story restriction are also restrictions that not a SINGLE other zoning code appears to have in Massachusetts.] Meanwhile, she is giving real estate investors complete freedom to turn Newton into a congested overbuilt city that will be unlivable when she is done.
Mayor Fuller is rich person whose children all went to private schools and who, according to her bio, has very little paid work history. She also owns two huge homes, herself. And yet she is painting herself as an advocate for the oppressed. What Mayor Fuller, and her friends like Deb Crossley, really want are two classes. One class would own everything, send their children to private schools, and rely on investment income to support themselves. The second class would own nothing, send their children to poor public schools, and not even be able to negotiate the best jobs for themselves because they are forced to rely on nonexistent public transit to get to work. There is no place for the middleclass in this vision.
The middleclass needs to stop feeling guilty or “whacky” about defending their own interests against the upper class. Wealth concentration will continue to grow unless the middleclass opposes it.
I don’t think she despises the middle class, but I do think she’s seriously out of touch with the middle class and really hasn’t done anything to try to connect with the middle class. I’d extend this to much of City Council, too.
My statement that “Mayor Fuller despises the middleclass” was both too vague and too strong. I should have said that “Mayor Fuller purposely undermines the middleclass for the benefit of the wealthy.”
Middleclass public education, home ownership, and labor mobility via transportation, are all targets of Mayor Fuller and many on the City Council. Middleclass concerns for larger issues such as climate change and economic fairness are also being coopted by Mayor Fuller, and many on the City Council, to squeeze every drop of income out of Newton, regardless of the effects on Newton residents.
Joe –
You can play gotcha about the language of these questions, but it doesn’t change the fact that other communities use debt exclusions and operating overrides to fund capital projects and Newton has not. You should look at the list of capital projects other communities have voted to fund, whether it’s through a debt exclusion or an operating override. All AAA communities; all comparable communities.
Jane there is no “gotcha”. I don’t need to explain the difference between override and debt exclusion to you. This administration has intentionally muddied the waters to create confusion among the electorate
I support the debt exclusions but I don’t support increasing the Regressive property tax as formatted in Newton. I’m a little surprised that since you seem to represent the issues important to educators that you too wouldn’t speak out against such a regressive tax that keeps putting an increasing burden on middle and lower income homeowners which I believe most educators would fit into.
Maybe you are balancing on a tightrope to please both sides.
Jane As you stated where is that list of other communities that have voted to fund CAPITAL PROJECTS via operating overrides?
Cmon
64% of americans living paycheck to paycheck. Shockingly, a large percentage of those ppl earn over 100k.
The mayor is living in a bubble and not realizing todays economic reality
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-30/even-on-100k-plus-more-americans-live-paycheck-to-paycheck
So this debate appears to be mostly about relitigating the last municipal election, which I gather many commenters weren’t on the winning side.
No Ted – This debate is about the UPCOMING March 14th OVERRIDE election.
Sorry, Deb. It is. Not that I necessarily blame opponents, then or now. But the sincere effort to defeat the Mayor that didn’t succeed lingers in opposition to the upcoming override.
@Ted–
I didn’t vote for Mayor Fuller for election or reelection, but I’ll be voting in favor of the 3 overrides. There is obviously some serious dissatisfaction with the Mayor, but she’s won me over, [on the override issue at least], by demonstrating some real vision for the city. In particular Webster Woods, the Senior Center and the Armory.
No one likes higher taxes. But taxes are a lot less painful when the money is well spent right here in our Newton community.
Let’s get real. You may agree or disagree with Mayor Fuller’s policies, as people of good faith will, without alleging that she is undermining the middle class in order to enrich the wealthy. I respected not only both of the candidates in the last mayoral election but the classy, honorable way in which they ran their campaigns. In contrast, this kind of demonizing of someone whose policies you oppose has become all too familiar in contemporary American politics…or perhaps it has always been a part of our contentious political landscape.
I also have faith that the funds raised by the overrides, if they succeed, will be well spent. And I appreciate Webster Woods, the Senior Center, and the Armory. You are free to
disagree with me to any extent you choose.
There does seem to be a correlation between those who voted against Mayor Fuller and those opposing this override. A non-rhetorical question for the folks reading: I don’t remember what Amy Sangiolo said about the potential for an override. Can someone refresh my memory? Both candidates were very close on most of the major issues, so I’m guessing they gave similar answers in the debates. My personal opinion is that this override was going to be necessary no matter who the Mayor ended up being. Jack Leader is correct. This type of budget issue has been building for a long time.
As for the vitriol regarding Mayor Fuller, I really don’t get it. I’ve got my complaints about certain things, but I certainly don’t see her an enemy of the middle class. I do see her as someone who wants to revitalize and rebuild Newton and keep it on a solid financial footing. I don’t think building a new senior center or a new Gath Pool is being friendly to the wealthy, far from it. Those folks have gym memberships and club memberships. They don’t need or use those facilities. The rest of us will. My entire family will use the new Gath Pool, and I’ll be using the senior center for sure soon enough. Webster Woods being preserved isn’t somehow against the middle class. Open space is for everyone. Plus that was CPA money. The Armory was offered to Newton at $1 IF we used it for affordable housing. It gets us 10% affordable in the City. No more 40Bs. Why isn’t that something that anti-Mayor Fuller are applauding?
And it is not like these Override funds are going to support the wealthiest of Newton residents, schools, fields, roads, sidewalks, are all the exact opposite of that. Many of the posters have pointed out that Mayor Fuller sent her kids to private school. So? How is that relevant to this discussion? She’s designating half the override to the school system on a going forward basis. How is that showing in the context of the override a neglect of the school system in Newton? It is the EXACT opposite. It is just political point scoring left over from the last election.
Which makes little sense to me. Even if you don’t agree with Mayor Fuller, the Override will continue far after she has left elective office. Even if you feel she will misuse the funds, it really isn’t about her at all. You have the chance to vote her out in 2 years, and then the next mayor will have the flexibility the override offers.
So much of the discourse in Newton is fighting the last political battle. I get that type of trench warfare about development and about zoning, it is hard to reach consensus that everyone can agree on. But in terms of an override, we are really just talking about additional funds for the city. The Mayor and City Council will use them for the remainder of their terms, and then if you hate the Mayor, the school committee or the city council you can vote them out. And then your chosen candidate to use the funds to focus on their own priorities (which are likely the schools, the roads and the parks, because we all agree on most things except the personalities involved (and zoning/development).
One more question for those stating that we need to vote “no” to refocus the school system on a path to academic excellence. What year are your kids in the schools?
I ask because it matters. If your kids are in high school, especially the sophomore year or later, the outcome of this override really won’t be felt by you. It will take a year before the major cuts occur. If they are currently sophomores, they might not get impacted at all. Certainly current Juniors and Seniors will see minimal impact, just based on how the budget process works.
I think we deserve to know. I’ve got a kid in elementary school, and two older kids. I think there is a pattern in public discourse on the schools in Newton. Many of the folks who are most vocal about the school system either have kids that have graduated, have kids in private school exclusively, or have kids about the graduate. Sometimes that is understandable. I often hesitate to criticize Newton if I think it will impact my kids or my kids would get teased. Hence my anonymous posts. But in terms of an override and this focus on how less money will lead to better results, I’m wondering if your kids will be along for the ride.
You are making a case that voting against the Override will improve schools in the long run. With no plan to make it so. No ability to schedule a future override. It is a huge risk in my view knowing the fiscal challenges ahead. But the folks most at risk are the younger kids who will face the changes while this mythical “path to excellence” gets figure out in real time without additional funds.
Fig your post is very condescending.. Seniors like myself trying to make ends meet resent the increases in the regressive property tax. I understand that is has far less effect on someone in your position with many years of working productivity ahead of them. Forcing out seniors and lower income families will create more opportunities for developers and also increase the tax base, Maybe that’s the hidden agenda that you are unwittingly signing on to.
Jackson Joe:
I’m sorry you feel that way JJ. But since the post wasn’t directed at you (I directed at the folks like Matt and Sumukh who are pushing us to vote “no” based on an belief that it will help the schools change direction), I’m not sure why you find it condescending, especially to a senior like yourself. My other post was about Mayor Fuller.
Considering the override will fund additional programs for seniors (see Newton Beacon article from today), and the city is funding a 20 million senior center, I’m not sure why you think I’m signing on to a hidden agenda to force out seniors and low income families. I’m certainly sympathetic if you don’t want to vote for the override because of personal financial circumstances.
Just don’t tell me that vote is a vote to improve schools. It is simply a vote to keep taxes low. I respect your position JJ, the property is regressive and you don’t want to pay more. I think the override is worth it, and perhaps I may benefit longer term than you as well, and my kids will certainly benefit.
My growing frustration is with folks who think there will be no impact, and that the schools will get better, not worse, without additional funds. Your comments have had little to do with that.
Fig, since you enjoy giving me a hard time…
The answer to NPS’ financial woes are in the deck shared in the last SC meeting.
Regularly re-assessing which courses/programs/clubs’ effective and attendance is not a bad thing. While most teachers are awesome, not every teach is (just human nature and the law of averages). Just because NPS says, “supporting social and emotional” doesn’t mean they do it well. Social and emotional didn’t matter when the return to in-person and when our son was struggling with S/E we had to seek outside help. And why does everything have to be about race in schools. While no community is perfect, Newton is among the most empathetic and kind. It’s a slap in face to parents – as if we are unable to teach our kids right and wrong on race.
I think I can speaking confidently for both Smukh and myself that we’re implying cutting funding directly correlates to improved schools. Is an oversimplified accusation.
I think what we’re saying is $280m is a lot for how NPS is currently trending – declining test scores and rankings, parent dissatisfaction with “the direction NPS is going” and “not fiscally managed well” (HYA survey), increasing exodus to private. It’s like throwing good money after bad.
At no point has any of the Override meetings have these issues needs assessed (let alone recognized). Do that and I’ll proudly display a “Yes” lawn sign!!
PS $20m is a lot for a Senior Center (which she managed to fund without an override #priorities). Maybe what we needed is a Senior Center and not “NewCal!!!” – the Taj Mahal of senior centers.
Fig let me try to answer your question “I’m not sure why you think I’m signing on to a hidden agenda to force out seniors and low income families.”
It’s really simple, raise costs enough on seniors and lower income families and they will be forced out of the city to seek more affordable places to live. The city can then enable developers to tear down those under utilized but perfectly functional homes, send that debris to landfill and build a new 5,000+ sq ft home that will be sold and taxed at 4 million plus and generating more taxes (not affected by Prop 2.5) for the city.
I may be in a minority of those that have no interest in the new senior center but that’s not my main focus. I don’t have the expertise to analyze the costs and needs of the schools. I just think with all of the talk about supporting lower income families and seniors it’s kind of disingenuous when a very regressive tax increase gets forced on those same groups that everyone says they care and love. What good is a beautiful senior center if you have to move out to Fitchburg? Please don’t talk to me about the taxpayer assistance programs. I can find credit card programs that are a better deal. Thanks for listening
Matt:
I’m not trying to give you a hard time at all. I enjoy our discussions. But on this issue, you post on this topic more than anyone else, and you and Sumukh have become the primary people posting (and in Sumukh writing multiple editorials) about how voting no will fix the schools.
You both have complaints about the school system. So do I. So do a lot of parents. It has been great for my kids in some ways, a complaint let down and failure in other ways. But what is your plan? You and Sumukh have been clear about not wanting to increase the funding, but how do you get to a point where the schools are improved? How do we get from the “no” vote to the “schools are excellent again” moment?
You say that I’m grossly oversimplifing your position on how the impact of denying the override will improve schools. I disagree. It is your position without a solution that is the problem. Sumukh used a metaphor of a car going in the wrong direction and not giving it more gas. You post personal stories of how the school system has failed your family and how “everything is about race in schools”. I’m not arguing your perspective or your personal experiences. Who am I to do that?
What I’m asking, politely, to both you and Sumukh, is why do you think reducing the school budget by 4.5 million will help the schools get better? If there is wasted money on activities or bad teachers, what are they? Is it enough to even address the additional deficit coming up in later years even if we pass this override? Why aren’t your complaints directed at the school committee?
I’m certainly never going to convince you to vote yes. I’m posting to try and convince others not to listen to you or Sumukh. Generally on development issues there is a difference of opinion on how we want Newton to look and feel. And that is fine and good. As a community we work that out, and often times disagree quite strongly. There is a lot of bad information and bias on the development discussions in my view, and I generally let that go. Because the world doesn’t end if we have a 3 story building in a village center instead of a 4 story building. And any zoning changes will take decades to be fully felt.
But this override stuff feels different. Our schools feel like they are at an inflection point. And I’m calling out anyone who thinks that this override isn’t going to be needed for the schools. And I’m asking why they think voting no will improve the schools. And I’m asking if they will be personally impacted by their own rhetoric. Because if your kids aren’t in the schools or are almost done in the schools, I think that impacts how we should all view your comments. You won’t be along for the ride in that car Sumukh references. You’ll be off the ride, kids safe and sound.
You and Sumukh have more of a voice than you realize. I think publicly saying that the schools don’t deserve the override funds because they aren’t excellent, or because they don’t focus on what you want them to focus on, or because you think we should cut teacher’s salaries allows anti-tax folks to use that as cover. Suddenly, the best argument for the override – -the schools– is somehow reversed. Somehow it will be best for the schools if the override doesn’t pass. Somehow the cuts will only be to underused clubs and bad teachers. Somehow it won’t hurt our kids. And I call b.s. to all of this.
Food for thought and a little more info on what the override budget would do.
For what it’s worth, the Newton high school population is growing and NSHS is projected to outpace NNHS soon. A last year NSHS lost 2.5FTE and .5 guidance counselors. Projections without the override are losing 2-3 times that amount- that’s 10 teachers with more kids attending. Class sizes are already already extremely large at the high school level. In addition, a bunch of school contracts are up (like with busing companies) who, due to inflation, will increase their prices. Newton also has massive special education services and out of district placements in special programs for some of those students ( which is required by law) but which would account for 40% of the override budget alone. This is in addition to teachers not taking a real COLA in years (accepting 0% multiple times).
The solutions to these would be things without the override AND a serious commitment to a new school budget that are detrimental to kids would be things like limiting sports at the freshmen and jv level, getting rid of clubs, increasing sports fees to cover costs (if they don’t get it from the budget they have to get it from somewhere), even bigger class sizes, more students per guidance counselor, limiting AP courses, and more. No one, especially educators and parents, want to see that happen. But schools have to operate within the budget.
Newton has put itself in this position by not supporting the schools for so long that this is the time of reckoning. We have always expected more and more but are unwilling to pay to support the innovations, renovations, and staffing needs to get us there, relying on the assumption that educators will just work themselves into the ground and that COLA and inflation are just things the school had to deal with separately from the citizens of the city. Kids are suffering for our mistakes. Parents and teachers want to keep standards high and we have essentially gutted our schools over the years by giving less and requiring more in unrealistic ways. Somehow the schools are still functioning well, but we all see the mental health issues, the eta her exhaustion, the infrastructure and building disrepair.
Yes the override still leaves us in a deficit, but it is a starting point and is necessary. We then should be considering how the budget should have been and needs to be increased to support the schools and provide the future of Newton with the best education.
While I see two sides disagreeing, I am happy to see that all sides understand that the budget that the schools have is unrealistic and unsustainable and that’s the solution isn’t to cut more or pull from one part of the school budget to give to another part because that will just make it worse. This is one of the only issues that the mayor, the school committee, the superintendents office, and the union and the teachers are all in agreement on. That the override needs to be passed. I think that means something.
The issue is setting the right priorities and managing within budget. No amount of money will ever be enough. Have we spent money wisely and set the right priorities? Can we be managing better? This should be the focus of the discussion. The taxpayers of Newton are already hard hit. We are dealing with high inflation and the real possibility of a recession. The City has seen substantial new growth which should offer enough new revenue for the general operational override not to be needed. I will Not support the general operational override.
Much of the “substantial new growth” that the city has seen is not online yet (Northland, Riverside Dunstan East). It will be an indeterminate number of years before they are producing tax revenue for the city.
In contrast, the schools have extra expenses and need to maintain services now. We need to continue our school reconstruction program now.
Must be great to live in the “newton bubble” where inflation and job layoffs simply dont exist
Agree or not , its reallt bad timing economically for ppl who are not millionaires
Bugek:
I don’t disagree about inflation or energy costs. But the former seems to be far more under control than just a few months ago. Energy costs are certainly higher, although Newton Powerchoice has been a great option. We have record low unemployment too. Home values have risen 50% in the last 7 years, 100% in the last 20.
The two debt exclusions won’t raise your taxes until 2030. The Override raises them now, to the tune of about an additional $240 per million dollars of home. The debt exclusions will raise your taxes by about $150 per million dollars of home value in 7 years or so.
There is no “good” time for a tax increase. But the deficit is real as well.
Any additional amount in tax isn’t easy. Sarcastically calling all of us supporting the override as living in a Newton bubble is unfair. For many of us, myself included, the pain of the additional taxes is worth the services provided. If you disagree, I get it. But don’t insult me along the way.
Bugek –
For my household, the operating override would cost roughly the same as a pizza each month at Four Corners Pizza.
You don’t need to be a millionaire – not close to one – in order to be able to afford this particular tax increase that will provide services for people throughout the city. For those who can’t afford an increase, there are supports that are being put into place.
@Jane – While some people may not be able to afford an increase, you continue to miss the point. Mismanagement of budget is the biggest issue.
Hear me out here. We renegotiate NTA contracts to be inflation + some small spread, perhaps inflation +.5%. Seems reasonable right? Well, what if inflation is >2% for an extended period? Dont we just need another override next year? and the year after?
I would support an override to pay for teacher salaries. I do not support an override to PREFUND the pension, pay for a senior center and whatever other nonsense Fuller puts ahead of NPS. She doesnt care. I vote no as protest for her mismanagement of the budget.
Before you ask the voters for more money you are supposed to exhaust ALL options. We simply arent doing that, not even close. Newton is doing fantastic. So why?
Vote no on the general one. but, please vote yes for franklin and countryside.
Roads underinvested in, schools underinvested in, pensions and healthcare underinvested in, COVID school disaster, 1000 students leaving NPS, what has local government done right in the last two administrations?
Why would I have any faith in giving them more money? I’m a no on general, yes on the two school questions.
It’s a battle of opinions at this point, most people posting are ignoring the facts but will be voting on emotions and whatever makes them feel better. Poor performance should be corrected with appropriate measures not given a pass/bandaid until the next time. If asking taxpayers for more $ is the answer to everything the citizens of Newton should be ready to be nickled and dimed.
I will also vote yes for fixing the 2 schools but no to the general, the city needs to come up with a strategy other than passing the buck along until the next time.
A few questions to consider: 1) How much new tax growth/revenue is projected with all the developments in current progress? Certainly in excess of 14 million not to need a general operational override. 2) What cost efficiencies and streamlining has the City implemented in both the School and City administrations that is savings to the taxpayer?
Major new developments in the city already approved won’t be producing revenue producing for years (Northland, Riverside, Dunstan East).
The operating override addresses additional expenses or previously neglected costs that have a shorter timeframe, whether you support them or not.
If in later years additional revenue provides greater budget flexibility to the city, I would support an accelerated school buildings renovation and replacement program, acknowledging that the system only has limited capacity to support temporarily closed schools. This is a cost we know we will need to bear sometime, and we can use it to pay forward for future generations. Even just the need for dependable air conditioning and heating is too much for us to pay to address for now.
I would also like to see an accelerated update of our local transportation system infrastructure, from new traffic signals that reduce everyone’s wait time to a complete sidewalk network to full ADA accessibility to enhanced traffic calming with rapid response to crashes.
We have plenty of “bare metal” infrastructure projects that could benefit from a more flexible city budget. It would be great to be ahead of them for a change.
Peter – I share your concerns with #2 especially when I read of a discussion with City Staff on how to integrate a year‐round pool into the Capital Improvement Plan for the Ablemarle area. “the feasibility study for an indoor pool has been added to the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for the Parks, Recreation and Culture Department. It was noted that this feasibility study would include looking at the budgeting parameters and subsequently developing a business plan for the project.” $200,000 estimated cost for the feasibility study in 2023.
Why does Newton need a new indoor pool at this time? What happened to the idea of NNHS sharing its pool with the public? https://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/96718 (pages 5 and 23)
If you can afford a tax increase during a time of record high inflation, and have time to be triggered by Firefighter memorial flags and a city logo that shows John Eliot and Native Americans relaxing together, then you are one of the most privileged people on earth.
Newton is indeed home to some of the most privileged people on earth, as well as many others.
That doesn’t obviate our need to replace substandard infrastructure like our aging schools or better maintain our parks and open spaces. In fact, I would argue it falls harder upon us to provide for the civic needs for current and future local generations, and not shirk our responsibility like some previous Newton generations did for us.
Those future generations will face a variety of social and political challenges, some that we can relate to and some that we cannot imagine. But at least the bedrock of their community — their civic buildings, parks, and other infrastructure — should be able to support the them.
Building maintenance is predictable. Year after year, the city budget increases by 3.5%. This has widely outstriped inflation. We owe it to future generations to live within our means. Our local officials have shown little fiscal responsibility. They will consume every dollar at their disposal.
Jeffrey Pontiff says “building maintenance is predictable”. Is it? Was the discovery of lead water pipes in the schools a few years back, demanding remediation, predictable? Was the failure of Franklin’s boiler predictable? Was the past flooding of Franklin’s K wing and its fix predictable? What about ADA accessibility, which could get Newton a big fat non-compliance lawsuit someday?
Maybe these items aren’t strictly maintenance. But that’s the problem. They are the problems our old schools face, and will increasingly face as they age long past their design life.
That’s overlooking the fact that their design life includes new educational requirements, not just physical plant. School buildings that do not meet state educational standards will not be competitive in the future. That isn’t Newton gold plating.
“Outstripping inflation” has enormous asterisks around it. It assumes we weren’t taking on additional costs like full day kindergarten (done with no override) or accelerated street paving (got an override) or post-pandemic student assistance and support (proposed override). It also assumes that the inflation of costs faced by a municipality is comparable to consumer inflation. I don’t know if it is, but I know municipalities and individuals buy completely different things.
I personally do not believe that Newton is spending enough on basic boring things like school building modernization or modern traffic signals or sidewalks or parks and open space maintenance or neighborhood traffic calming. Those are all big ticket items. All neglected for years, and won’t even be covered in this override.
Assuming the public values any of those things, they are additional expenses and therefore are not described by inflation, or by platitudes like “live within your means”. We may be voting on the extent of the means, but we are also voting on the “living” part: what we expect from the government for our taxes.
@Mike – Im glad you consider yourself privileged. Some of us work hard and make less money than the median Newtonian and just cause we live here doesnt make us rich.
I just want the city to leave me alone. Home values have risen to the point where many people will not be able to afford the new assessments on homes. Now an override. A recession. Eggs cost 7 dollars in Stop and Shop. The city wants to drop 3500 condos on the south side, 4000 on the north side to further crowd our schools and/or make up for the students they pushed out into private school.
People complain that webster woods needed to be bought back to preserve woods. The same people want golf courses that are privately owned to be eliminated for condos. You people are all non-sensical NIMBYs. the city owns webster woods…make that condos! but nooo, we need green space…unless its a golf course which you cannot afford so you b1tch and moan that we have a golf course. Stop it. If you didnt have fancy golf courses and if you werent so close to the city then your houses wouldnt be worth crap and we would be somerville. that would suck.
be thankful. shut up and enjoy life and stop complaining about everything (that goes for me too). I promise once we are all dead that the environment, 40B housing, preserving woods, etc wont matter at all. All that matters is the time you spend now with your family. No one person or group of people from one small town with the MOST homogenous political thought can solve the world’s problems. Banning oil and gas in Newton wont do anything when Florida, Texas, China, India, etc all still use it. Bike lanes wont get cars off the road, because, its cold as shit for 4 months a year.
Everyone needs to take a moment and reflect. Spend time with your family. Stop with the affordable housing, DEI, excellence, development, blah blah bullshit. If you dont like it, move. And I cant wait to see fig newtonville’s 84,763 word essay on why I am wrong, although I can count on one hand how many of the words I will actually read before falling asleep…
I should point out that concerns about inflation notwithstanding, the median income for a Newton household in 2020 was over $154,000. Should the overrides pass, some seniors on fixed incomes, to be sure, should be granted an abatement. But with all the McMansions that have sprung up in the past dozen years, the young families moving in have lots of disposable income. They can afford the override…if you believe that it merits support. That’s why I think we should argue its merits more than the cost to our increasingly affluent households. Newton has changed, and the number of working class and lower middle class residents has been diminishing for some time.
Bob I like your plan to assist seniors and lower income homeowners. Oops what plan? Who cares about seniors and lower income homeowners. If we can kick them out of town and raze their homes we can replace them with McMansions that will pay higher taxes and that will ease the tax burden on everyone else. As I heard a politician say not too long ago “It’s a great plan, it’s a beautiful plan”.
I am with you in being appalled by the demolition of affordable homes and their replacement by McMansions. Indeed, if you have read my columns in the Tab and here over the past ten years, the McMansion movement and the concurrent rise of luxury developments with modest set-asides trouble me greatly. But the attempt to halt demolitions for one year to study the trend lost overwhelmingly in the City Council. And councilors that I respect assure me that few developers will dedicate more than 15-20% of their units to be affordable, whatever that means. Municipal and state government mostly want to leave the creation of affordable housing to the private sector, and that is why we are where we are, for better or worse. So I have resigned myself to fighting for the crumbs.
I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the city has a tax abatement provision for needy households. If not, it needs one.
As noted on the city website, Newton has nine tax assistance programs for eligible residents. The City Council approved Mayor Fuller’s request to double tax relief assistance (technically known as exemptions) for the seven programs for eligible residents who are disabled, older, or veterans. I believe we are now waiting for approval by the State legislators. City Council also approved access to both tax deferral and water/sewer discount programs. Read more about these proposed enhancements to our Tax Assistance Programs here https://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/92076/638016201398170000
Alicia to qualify for the maximum $1,000 per year abatement you must “must have an income less than $25,123 if single, $37,686 if married, after subtracting an allowable exclusion”.
Someone mentioned that the median income in Newton is around 150K but if you are a single senior making over 25K you don’t need any help?
Is that the attitude of all of our councilors?
C’mon
JJ, the alternative is tax deferral, which is less restrictive and allows the value of the property to later be used to address deferred taxes. The requirements are not as stringent.
Mike compared to what is offered in 9 other nearby communities (where moderately priced housing is protected by owner occupied exemptions) it’s an embarrassment. I still say that the politicos would be happy to see the old folks kicked out, their houses razed and replaced by McMansions which will increase the tax base and revenues collected. Tax deferment is a slightly better option than Tom Selleck’s reverse mortgage offer.
JJ, Here is the Lexington report on implementing the residential exemption, from 2006. It is well worth a read:
https://records.lexingtonma.gov/WebLink/0/doc/202398/Page1.aspx
I have previously supported this idea of a residential exemption. However, the “cons” listed in the report are significant. In particular, renters would be hit with property tax-related rent increases from their landlords. It would be a challenge for such an exemption to pass in the face of significant tax increases for more valuable properties, owned by more powerful people.
As for tax deferral is a far better option than reverse mortgages. It doesn’t involve actual principal, the interest rate is something like 1.75%, and it’s the government and not a private mortgage agent. There’s fundamentally no perfect way around the problem of people with fixed income living in their main illiquid asset, but tax deferral is just about the more straightforward.
Mike it is an interesting read and most of it makes sense to me. I hope you noted that the report didn’t make a recommendation one way or the other.
I did find the idea that renters would face an increase to be ridiculous. It insinuates that landlords aren’t charging the maximum rent that they can get and are philanthropically only charging what they need to get a reasonable return. That may be true in a handful of cases but I would place a wager that 99+% of landlords charge what the market will bear and if costs for water, insurance or taxes go up is basically irrelevant except for hearing landlords weep about not making enough money on their investment.
There are certainly some cases of some seniors who have given up their homes due to affordability and in most of those cases they have joined the renters population increasing demand and that does raise rents for everyone (supply and demand). So in a perverse way the lack of a residential exemption can cause rents to be higher.
Personally I find it insulting that you feel that it’s ok for seniors to be forced into reverse mortgages and abatements and deferrals with variable rates (yes now it is low) when they may need their home equity that they have for greater care needs as they age. This still didn’t address the needs of lower income families who are struggling.
Yes the rich and powerful don’t want to pay one cent more for taxes and they have the financial power to fight tooth and nail to make sure that this REGRESSIVE tax doesn’t change but I would’ve thought that you would have been swayed by that report to be more in favor of the exemption, because I was.
The idea that landlords will pass on the cost of a tax increase to their tenants may seem ridiculous to you. Maybe so, maybe not. Since all landlords in Newton would face this increase, it would distort the local market and make it easier to justify an increase because “everyone’s doing it”.
As the report points out it, whether that cost actually gets passed on to tenants isn’t the whole story. Landlords can use the possibility of the tax to get tenants to vote against it. Tenants certainly won’t get any benefit from it like homeowners will. To make the exemption be fairer and more politically palatable, some benefit to renters might be thrown into the pot (Cambridge allows 50% of rent to be deducted from state income taxes, for instance.) Renters are already getting the short end of the stick by not having the tax advantages of home interest deduction.
Yes, property tax isn’t an awesome way to fund government. But Mass. General Law limits the mechanisms that are possible. It’s better than the sales tax, but that’s not saying a lot. The bottom line is that a residential exemption isn’t a 100% slam dunk easy idea. You’d have to tailor it just right to accomplish what you want without negative impacts, and if it’s revenue neutral some very powerful people, and possibly lots of renters, would work very hard to defeat it. A potential 20% or so tax increase will surely make them notice.
Mike I’m not sure where to start with inaccuracies in your post
1) The Cambridge 50% deduction is not a “Cambridge deduction. It’s a statewide deduction
2) Landlords will charge the maximum that they feel that they can get. That’s elementary supply and demand economics. If they charge too much then consumers will look in neighboring towns. Nobody has to live in Newton
3) The idea or perhaps misstatement that renters would face a 20% tax increase is totally false. That didn’t happen in any other community where the residential exemption was implemented
Unfortunately you are correct that seniors and middle and lower income homeowners are a powerless group when pitted against the wealthy homeowners and landlords that love the REGRESSIVE property tax. I’m just saying if you want to consider yourself a progressive minded person you would probably favor a more progressive form of the property tax
JJ, apologies on the rental deduction. It has been a while since I rented.
“No one has to live in Newton”, but people may choose to for a variety of reasons. Each town and city has costs baked in, and rents and real estate prices match that. But arguing about it is pointless, since we can’t accurately predict it. The Lexington report suggested that the mere fear of a rent increase was a political threat for passage, and I agree it might well be a threat. Fear of future impacts is a big Newton thing.l come voting time.
As for what I might personally want, I at least have gone to the trouble of considering the idea and doing a little research….
My response to Mike Halle.
Our current budget is $112 million dollars more per year than it would have been if our expenses increased with inflation since 2003. Despite this we are being told that we need an override make ends meet. Of course, financial planning requires estimates about costs. Yes, maintenance is a cost. Yes, you can estimate it. Were city officials negligent in underestimating costs or were we just incredibly unlucky year-after-year with boilers breaking? Maybe the intention is to spend what you have and when you run out, say that we need an override for school buildings. Maybe gullible voters won’t realize that money is fungible.
Mike rattles a list of great things that apparently amounts to $112 million dollars per year in value. Newton must have been crummy 20 years ago. Let’s reflect on one list item–full day kindergarten. I watched the school committee meeting where it passed. Correct me if I am wrong, but we were already employing the kindergarten teachers for the full day. We did not have to spend one penny on it. Yet, we did spend money. In fact, we decided to do so in the costliest way possible. This was recognized by at least one school committee member who brought up ways to save money. The SC voted for the most expensive approach anyway. Heck, it was not their money. When the money runs out, they can tell us to vote for an override.
@Jeffrey Pontiff I believe there was a cost to full day kindergarten of $1-1.3M. Though NPS already employed and paid Teachers, this cost was for aides to be added to K classrooms to provide appropriate staffing.
As my kids were already past the K level when this was implemented I am not certain how these aides were deployed and whether bodies were added to each classroom but that was how the cost was explained at the time. Also why funding was considered a delay in not implemented full day K sooner. I always thought the beauty of the old system was the ability for the teacher to have the time to work with smaller groups each afternoon so adding the addt’l staff had some merit to me. It would be interesting though to hear how it all actually plays out.
On the flip side you would think there would have been some cost savings with not running buses for the K run however I never heard any mention of that. Those savings would have likely evaporated by now due to bus shortage/increased cost but it would have been nice if they had also considered putting the saved bus costs into funding a better high school end time. Still a later start but not the late end time that exists now where transportation costs drove the educational decision rather than vice versa.
Newton Highlands Mom, thanks for recalling some of the details. We were also beyond kindergarten by the time full day was implemented. Whatever the educational advantages, the erratic schedule was highly disruptive for working families and basically necessitated either after school programs or nanny-like help. Franklin has limited space for after school, so parents needed to sign up two years in advance and also pay more for the extra K hours.
At the time, some people told us the extra time at home was good for the kids, but our kids had spent more hours in preschool since they were 18 months old.
I am sure there were good reasons for the schedule, but it always struck us as a highly inconvenient system that deprived kids and families of the benefit of regular structure.
The cost savings for families alone likely justifies full day kindergarten. Babysitters and nannies may disagree.
There used to be an overall roadmap document of planned school renovations. The most recent one I could find below is from 2019 which is a out of date as there have clearly been changes as in this Ward was before Franklin.
https://www.newton.k12.ma.us/cms/lib/MA01907692/Centricity/Domain/1099/FY19%20Long%20Range%20Facilities%20Planning%20Timeline.pdf
Does anyone know if a newer version exists?
I’m concerned that Newton taxpayers are paying to fix the roads thar National Grid is ruining all over our city with its pipeline expansion and road trenching projects.
Ratepayers are already shoveling money to National Grid for its expensive pipeline expansion projects in Newton and to add insult up injury we also have to clean up their mess with our tax dollars?
They have lower cost trenchless options to manage their system for safety but only get cost recovery for maintenance, not the 10% guaranteed monopoly investor profit for trenching & new pipes. It’s difficult to stomach ratepayers subsidizing them even more by paying to clean up their roadway damage with our taxes.
Sometimes the city knows when utility work is coming, sometimes it doesn’t. If a road needs urgent repair even before utility work, the city will do a basic repave. Otherwise, a delay in utility work could pose a danger to the public or to the integrity of the roadway.
Some roads like Ward and Waverly require work by multiple utilities (eg, gas line must be moved so that an MWRA pipe can be rehabbed or replaced). In that case, the road may be dug up for a while. When the work is done, the city will take the contributions from the utility and bring the road up to city standard with accessible curbs and bike lanes if possible. So the city does do its best to reduce the waste of repaving (and once the work is done, no non-emergency can be done for 5 years).
I hope utilities can do more non-invasive repairs in the future. Newton, however, has limited control over them. Perhaps work at the state level is needed.
I agree with Nathan! Why is no one at 1000 Comm Ave doing anything about this?
Two things often overlooked about overrides:
1. The municipality is only accountable to spend the money as advertised in year 1. In subsequent years, (the Mayor) can choose to spend this however they want going forward.
2. You’re not voting for an increase in taxes for the advertised amounts. “Once approved, the override amount becomes a permanent part of the levy limit and increases by 2 1⁄2 percent each year after its acceptance.”
It’s the gift that keeps on giving. #nonewtonoverride
https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2017/09/09/overridesandexclusions.pdf
An operating override like this one, according to the Mayor, allows important priorities that were not fully funded to be built into the budget rather than put at the mercy of “free cash” end of year leftovers or no money at all.
The city budget is always subject to reapportionment. I mean, that’s how money gets diverted from “free cash” (money that could not be spent in a fiscal year) to things that need it (like unexpected repairs to a school, like Franklin a few years ago.
An administration could reroute the money, but they also have to face the voters. The last override promised money for roads. That’s something that existed through two administrations. It would be foolish to promise money for schools and trees and parks and not deliver them, because those topics are getting their own election.
The debt exclusion items are different, they are locked to the bond they pay for. That may be slightly bigger than a school itself — the city usually improves the roads and sidewalks immediately adjacent to a new school — but it doesn’t become part of the general fund.
The mayor cares about the items in the override; she has funded them on the edges when she could, funded them to lesser budgeted amounts, or used one time federal money to keep them going. I see no reason to expect this mayor or another mayor to significantly change the funding allocation for these items.