By way of background this is my 42nd year as an elected official in the City of Newton. The first eight years I was a member of the School Committee and for the three of those years I was elected Chairman of the School Committee.
CouncilorFor the past 34 years I have been an Alderman/City Councilor and for the last 22 years I have been a member of the Finance Committee including a 10-year period when I was the Chairman of the Committee.
I have supported Overrides in the past however because I have never seen the City in a stronger financial position than it is now I am voting NO on all 3 overrides questions.
I say this for three major reasons:
1. Free Cash -At the end of every fiscal year the state Department of Revenue certifies the amount of free cash cities and towns have which they are allowed to spend to support programs and infrastructure in the city.
For the 10-year period FY 2013 – FY 2022 the city averaged 9.2 million annually. This current year FY 2023 the state certified Newtons free cash at 28.5 million. More than 3 times the previous 10-year average.
2. COVID 19 Federal Aid
Over the past two years the city has received an additional $88,750,000 in direct Federal Aid. While much of that money has been spent there is still approximately 25 million.
3. Property Tax Overlay Account
This is a separate revenue account established to cover both residential and commercial property tax appeals. The amount of money needed to cover all appeals, a worst-case scenario, is 13 million. The current balance in this account has grown to 32 million meaning there is 18 million that could be declared surplus to help support our operating and capital needs. The last time any surplus was declared was over five years ago which is why it has grown to have the largest balance, by far, that I have seen in my 42 years.
Going forward the financial picture is even brighter. We are in an era of unprecedented growth, with the City Council and ZBA having approved approximately 2400 new housing units with over another 1,000 additional units moving through the permitting process. The city will be receiving millions of new dollars in building permit fees along with millions of new annual recurring property tax revenue, as these projects are built.
It looks like the City was quick to respond to Councilor Gentile’s comments. That response can be seen here: https://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/97874. I found it very interesting that Councilor Gentile was the chair of the Finance Committee, working with Councilor Fuller and the current CFO, in 2011 when the Financial Management Guidelines were created and then approved unanimously by Councilor Gentile and the rest of the City Council. Those guidelines are still in use today, and the current financial actions of the City with regards to free cash, rain day, overlay, and the rest of the city funds are all in line with the language contained within that document. The City’s response included a link to the guidelines which can be seen here: https://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/23913.
The bottom line is that the City of Newton got a large amount of federal funds to help get through the pandemic, but those funds were less than the revenue that was lost due to the pandemic. The City then got a large sum of money from Eversource paying back taxes, but where the case is pending appeal, not only should we not spend the money, but the City must keep funds in the accounts to hedge against the chance the the courts overturn on appeal. Basically, it looks like we have way more money than we may ultimately have. Rainy Day is a big number, but it actually appears that it’s not enough based on the state guidelines. Free cash has some money, but it’s either already being put to critical good use, or it’s being relied upon for the same things it always has and those things that are in line with Councilor Gentile’s Financial Management Guidelines.
It seems to me that pointing to some City accounts that should have large amounts of money as a form of good fiduciary policy, and other accounts that have an large influx of cash that is really a financial liability, and pointing to them as reasons not to support an override. This appears to be nothing more than a smoke screen. Could there be a few million dollars that shake out of these accounts down the road? Sure. Should we use them to fund ongoing expenses? Not in the words of Councilor Gentile and the rest of the City Council in 2011 when they said, “The City discourages the use of one-time revenues for ongoing expenditures.”
Randy, does city hall let you post on V14 during the workday?
Jeffrey, no such luck. The override is a big deal, and I am simply accessing information on the website to help make an informed decision. I check more frequently as we get closer to the election, and the website has been updating pretty frequently over the past few weeks. I was not surprised to find a response to Councilor Gentile’s comments. In fact, I would have been shocked if there wasn’t a quick response. I’ve been posting here for well over a decade. Kudos to you for using your name. I do not simply because I don’t want to subject myself to personal attacks which have been common over the years on V14.
Randy, do you have a link to the city page that, in turn, links to the PDF? Thanks.
Jeffery,
I’ve been checking the Frequently Asked Questions page which can be found here: https://www.newtonma.gov/government/mayor-fuller/override#override_faq. This has had some new information lately. When I couldn’t find a response to Councilor Gentile’s there, I poked around and found the response in the General Override Materials, which can be found here: https://www.newtonma.gov/government/mayor-fuller/override#override_info. At the bottom of that section, I found a letter titled “Response to Questions regarding Free Cash, Overlay, Rainy Day, and ARPA funds, as well as the role of New Growth in the City’s budget.” That sounded like a direct response to the emails and posts I’ve seen all over the place regarding Councilor Gentile’s comments. Clicking that link, I found the following document https://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/97874.
I don’t know why the City didn’t post this in the Frequently Asked Questions section, as that’s where most of the recent information has been posted.
Randy – You have posted a link to a document from “the City” that appears to be anonymous, based on the document contents. Please identify the author.
Debra, I have no idea who the author is. I read it as a response from City Hall to Councilor Gentile’s email/letter over the weekend.
But how did you get the document link, if you don’t know who wrote it?
Debra, the links and how I found them are all posted above in my response to Jeffrey. (Sorry Jeffrey for misspelling your name. )
It appears the Author is non other than Newton’s CFO….
Sorry Randy – I missed seeing your earlier response to Jeffrey Pontiff.
The document is still an anonymous document, however, disputing the views of a City Councilor by name. As such, I don’t think it belongs on NewtonMa.gov or Village14. I am going to ask the City Clerk to remove it from NewtonMa.gov or identify the author. I am also going to ask the Village14 moderators to remove the link.
If this document was written by the Mayor’s office, the Comptroller, or simply another City Councilor, that should be known. Hiding behind the NewtonMa.gov domain while ostensibly representing “City Hall” is unacceptable.
Clearly the response to Lenny Gentile hit the mark. I think we can stop with the Randy works for the city conspiracy theories now, right? Maybe an apology to Randy?
It makes complete sense that the city would prepare a response to Councilor Gentile, as his statement exists as the only triple “no” vote support from a public official, and his statement was his personal opinion and subject to rebuttal from the city and the Mayor’s office, which clearly disagrees with him.
Debra, it is all found on the Mayor’s page for the override. She has her picture on the top of the page. I’m not exactly sure what you are concerned about. The entire webpage is the Mayor’s page supporting the override. Your concern is that she isn’t signing every FAQ section?
Seems to me the Mayor has the right to use the bully pulpit to try and convince people to vote for the override she has put before the voting population.
No one is hiding that the page is partisan. Why would you expect the Mayor’s office and the city not to take a position?
Oh, give me a frigging break Fignewtonville.
I never said that Randy worked for City Hall, only that City Hall shouldn’t be publishing anonymous documents. And I did apologize to Randy for missing his earlier post.
If you want to write 3000 word anonymous posts 300 times a day to Village14, I can’t do much about that. But city officials must identify themselves when writing documents posted to NewtonMa.gov, especially when disputing another city official by name.
Debra:
My first post was in response to Jeffrey, who literally said exactly that Randy was working for city hall. I addressed my second post to you directly. You posted yours when I was writing my first post. So no break for you, but I’d take an apology for your overreaction to my post.
As for your statement that a city official needs to identify themselves, I don’t think that is true since the location on the website is clearly the page put together to advocate for the override. The city administration is advocating for it. I’m not sure I see the issue. And it seems an odd hill to fight on, but your choice…
But if you are stuck arguing semantics about the statement being signed vs the facts included in the statement, I can see how persuasive the city statement is in rebutting Councilor Gentile’s statement. It is difficult when only one elected official supports your position and he ignores his owns standards when he was finance chair to do so.
As for my posts, I only post so much because I know you love to read them Debra! 🙂
Don’t worry though, I’m planning on going on a posting hiatus soon enough. Need a break from the negativity and entering a busy period personally. And the family is getting annoyed with me. (If you find me annoying, just imagine how frustrating it must be to be related to me! the horror!)
Say it ain’t so, @fignewtonville. I rarely post on social media these days, but I do look forward to reading your comments. You are a consistent voice of reason. Enjoy your hiatus.
Be well.
Jeffrey, great point! I was wondering myself whether the bombardment and quick response from many connected to City Hall might actually be a conflict of interest. Or at least, as you note, certainly a serious infringement on “work” time.
I’m guessing one or more person(s) in city hall knew about Councilor Gentile’s opposition, and his specific reasoning -maybe before the rest of us did – and had a response ready. It’d be nice to know who, though.
Thank you for posting Councilor Gentile’s statement. But the city’s response is an unattributed document? Pretty weak in my opinion. It’s impressive though how the City comes up with excuse after excuse about why it can’t spend its cash savings while asking residents to spend their savings. The City is the real NO in this override fight.
Plus, it’s funny to hear the City pin the plan to fund the Pension deficit 10 years early on an unelected unaccountable to the voters Retirement Board. Talk about a failure of democracy and an abdication of responsibility. Oh, but wait-when the Mayor asked the Retirement Board to reduce the City’s Pension contribution in FY 21 they did so quickly and unanimously. It was miracle! If it could happen for FY 21, it surely could happen again if the Mayor asked.
However, the City won’t concede any excess funds in any account despite demonstrated proof to the contrary because then their whole argument for the override fails if they do.
Arthur Jackson:
FY21. I wonder what happened in FY21 that might have made the pension board more willing to make accommodations… (Covid. The answer is Covid. Just making sure folks remember.)
Even if you can go back and ask for a slowdown in pension funding, it just pushes the can down the road. What makes us think we won’t have fiscal pressures of a similar sort in 10 years? The pension funding regime (which is funded this way partially because we need to fund health care costs next in a similar accelerated fashion I believe) is payment for decades of underfunding. It seems contradictory for some folks to be arguing that this administration is wasteful on one hand, but super conservative by funding pensions on the other. Wouldn’t a wasteful administration jump at the chance to push out pension funding and spend, spend, spend today?
In the statement made by the Mayor’s office, which appears to be in response to Councilor Gentile’s clear statement on Newton’s strong cash position, the CFO confirmed there is $28M at the city’s disposal in “free cash” (surplus) certified by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue at the end of FY 2022.
This statement clarified that $14.8M of the Overlay Tax Reserve account is being held in reserve for a potential liability with one commercial taxpayer. Based upon a $32M fund balance that leaves $17.2 million remaining. ($5M per year is added to this fund which is approx. 1.49% of the annual tax levy.)
FREECASH = $28,800,000
TAX OVERLAY = $17,200,000
COVID RELIEF – ARPA = $25,000,000
Total available = $71,000,000
Additionally, this makes Veteran Finance Committee Chair, Paul Coletti, spot on when he said,
“I estimate over $50 million of usable reserves hidden throughout the city side of the budget.”
Debra-I’m not sure what the big deal is about city hall’s responses to Councilor Gentile. The document is not hard to find and is listed along with all of the other meeting and informational documents on the city’s override webpage which was referenced by Randy. If you want to rebut the response then fine. But saying that it should be taken down because there is no author is just petty.
Bruce C. – The document responding to City Councilor Gentile is actually not easy to find, unless someone posts a link to it, and/or tells you exactly where to look. To find the document, the user has to first click on https://www.newtonma.gov/government/mayor-fuller/override and then open “General Override Materials” and then open “Response to Questions regarding Free Cash, Overlay, Rainy Day, and ARPA funds, as well as the role of New Growth in the City’s budget.” I would never have found this without Randy’s post telling me to do this. In addition, following the posted link, by itself, also gives no hint that the document is found by following this path.
The reason I am making a big deal about this is, in my opinion, the lack of record integrity is the number one problem in the Newton government. Lack of record integrity includes incorrect records, deleted records, and, increasingly, the use of anonymous statements by government officials. In my direct personal experience, this lack of integrity has occurred in Special Permits, meeting reports, inspection records, and election records. Virtually every single aspect of the Newton government is marred by a lack of record integrity.
Importantly, I would have had the same opinion about the anonymous document responding to Councilor Gentile, regardless of whether I agreed with Councilor Gentile or not. In fact, I actually do disagree with him as I am voting “yes” on the two school overrides, and “no” only on the general override.
If the CFO, or someone else, wrote the document, their name should have been on it. Period.
Bruce,
You don’t think this unsigned comment is petty and sarcastic?
“We deeply appreciate Councilor Gentile’s breadth of experience and commitment to the financial stability and security of the City of Newton.
Case in point, on April 20 of 2011, Councilor Gentile as the Chair of the Finance
Committee voted unanimously with his colleagues, like the then Vice Chair of the Finance Committee, Councilor Fuller, to approve the City of Newton Financial Management Guidelines, which can be seen here. The Guidelines were created by both Councilors Gentile and Fuller working incredibly closely with the Chief Financial Officer, Maureen Lemieux, who remains in this position today. ”
Saying Councilor Gentile agreed with these plans back in 2011 and all of sudden now he does not-did he somehow lose his reasoning or intellect? I would say no. Look, the City folks can’t admit there’s extra funding so now they’re taking cheap shots at Councilor Gentile. Someone should have put their name on it or else they should not have specifically mentioned Gentile’s prior finance work. Low blow in my opinion.
And let me add this- I’m not buying the City’s claim that future taxes from new development won’t be substantial. And neither is Councilor Gentile. I’ve lived in Newton since 1967 and I’ve never seen such development. Northland and Dunstan East are unprecedented. Add in all of the other major developments and Newton will have millions in extra revenue coming in. The City’s documents themselves say Northland will generate $10 million in just permit fees. Councilor Gentile points that out in his statement and the City doesn’t have real answer. Of course the City is going to low ball future development revenue because they want to justify the override, but they don’t seem to acknowledge the unprecedented development occurring in Newton now.
It is worth considering that former Alderman (City Councilor) Paul Coletti backs up current City Councilor Lenny Gentile saying: “It is disingenuous to say the city has a budget shortfall” and that “Newton has $50 Million of usable reserves”.
While I respect former Alderman Coletti, why does his opinion have any more weight than the current chair of finance? Alderman Coletti has been out of office so long that we still call him Alderman! (10 years or so, right?)
Lenny Gentile is the only current political official in Newton who seems brave enough to actually publicly vote no. That is one out of the entire school committee and the entire city council.
No disrespect to former Alderman Coletti, who served the city for many years. But he hasn’t been in city government for a long time. And everyone but Lenny who IS involved in city government either is voting yes, or not disclosing their vote.
Paul Coletti was Finance Chair at the time when Newton’s schools and roads were suffering from a lack of investment. Perhaps he has some insight into how that happened and how it contributed to the situation we have today. Unlike today’s budget, he was directly involved with the city’s at that time.
It is also worth saying that the majority of current city councilors support the override including the current finance chair, Becky Walker Grossman.
The file was posted by the CFO (I wasn’t kidding before). Very easy to the properties of the .pdf file.
https://app.box.com/s/hq9x2znnmk9ecjeicj1z8a7x85zjrmg5
Thanks Matt: I should have to remembered to check that way. BUT CFO Maureen Lemieux still should have put her name in the document body if she was the author. Not everyone is going to check the pdf properties.
First, I have a great deal of respect for Ms. Lemieux’ work. But a couple of points….
I agree with Debra. As CFO, she stand by her assessment, put the memo and City stationary and sign her name on the doc. While I don’t completely agree, there is some good work in there and it shouldn’t read like a blogger. Here’s where I disagree…
Ms. Lemieux lists a number of initiatives and dollars ear marked for Free Cash and ARPA…which reinforces the point that a great deal of funds are spent on things other than NPS.
Successful organizations come up with creative solutions to ever evolving problems, not remain focused on a playbook for 2011. While I appreciate Ms. Lemieux’ response, I tend to agree with a Councilor Gentile’s original POV…
…Newton has short terms funds to close the current gap…plenty to handle short term inflation until new growth, millionaire’s tax revenue and increased State support from Governor Healy.
Matt, there is no indication there will be any significant support for Newton from the millionaire’s tax. Look for the governor’s proposal. There’s also no assurance that an increase in state aid will go to an affluent city like Newton.
And sure there are funds being spent on things other than NPS. Fire engines, sidewalk snow plows, a variety of other things. People can differ on the priorities, but just because NPS is important doesn’t mean that everything else in the city magically isn’t.
I have mentioned this before: would you bet $100 of your own money that Riverside will be revenue producing in 6 years? Of not, why should the city?
Confessions of an undecided voter:
I will most likely vote for the two debt exclusions, but am not sure how I will vote for the operational override.
In my opinion, the two debt exclusions are easier to understand. One need not go inside any of these schools to see that they are old and in poor condition. What the city is asking for is concrete.
The operational override lacks this sense of concreteness. Yes, inflation is increasing costs and the override will add to the school’s budget and funding for roads, etc.
However, the mistake the Mayor is making is that there is no talk of belt tightening. If the city of Newton is going to ask me to pay more, I also want to see from city government an effort to save money. I see no such attempt. Sure, increase funding to the schools but don’t tell me that you are only going to add money to the budget and not look at programs to cut.
Having a child who recently graduated from NPS, I can think of programs that to me are either a waste of money or whose effectiveness has not been adequately assessed. If the “yes” side wants to persuade voters, then they would not only do well to discuss how the money will be used but also what efforts they will undertake to save money.
On the other hand, the “No” side needs to get away from this conspiratorial line of thinking that the Mayor is some evil being who is in the pocket of developers and is purposely stashing away money that could be used. I have yet to see a politician on either side of the aisle not spend money if it is available. It’s a specious argument and just turns off voters.
I can see the need for an override, but I also recognize that there will be a point, at least for me, where taxes will bcome too high for me to stay In Newton. Maybe not today, but certainly in the future. Either wa,y it’s a tough decision and a tough pill to swallow whether I vote yes or no. Just my two cents.
Bruce, thanks for your comments. I agree that the city should be more explicit about the cuts that have happened during the pandemic. NPS has, including layoffs since personnel is most of their costs.
I suggest looking at the introductions to the school budgets to see what the shortfalls and the cuts are (see the letter and executive summary):
FY2023: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/130_B4RXYRXpfOLj_KCADzi0c90ud9tRM
And also the budget preview:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1tXYo4ch8-Tu2PcJM65E-DGbUGxOVJ7B8
The other piece about both the NPS budget and the city budget is inflation. It means can do less with the same, and not enough even when we get a little more. The biggest problem during the override is that many people think about a single inflation number, consumer inflation, and that makes sense because that’s what they hear and what they face. However, the cost of special education services or paving a road or building a building are also inflating, but by a different amount, and typically much more than consumer inflation.
It would be great to see those inflationary numbers presented in an understandable way, because the response to inflation is a cut in buying power for the city. When we don’t see a clear explanation, all we see is the negative: fewer roads paved for example. That’s frustrating, but it’s not incompetence. It’s just that roads are really expensive.
Meryl Kessler has posted some ideas about making the city budget more transparent and accountable to the taxpayer, with examples from other communities. I think that’s something we should do, in addition to making much more civic data open.
Mike, I have already looked at this information. Not a pretty picture with or without the override. Which brings up an interesting point. There is going to be a school budget deficit that will only increase over then next several years no matter what the outcome, especially with a new teachers’ contracton the horizon. One of the proposals is to raise fees. Personally, if my taxes went up and I I had to pay more for the school bus or sports participation, it would be a tough sell for me.
As an aside, I would hypothesize that most viewers of Village14 are probably more informed than the average Newton voter. There is no newspaper anymore and the Newton Beacon and FigCityNews while excellent resources are not that well known to the person who votes but doesn’t pore over the details of free cash . Where does the average voter get their information -most likely from the Mayor’s office, and the “Yes” or “No” group”. This is where I think the Mayor has a distinct advantage. Of course, if a voter is asked to check a box three times to raise their taxes, will they check all three reflexively or will they pick and choose?
Bruce,
Overrides are just incredibly tough to predict. It is just a tough sell to ask a community to voluntary raise its own taxes. I think the debt exclusions have a lot of community support. I’ve got no idea what will happen with the override. I don’t think the Mayor has any sort of advantage. It is a heavy lift.
Bruce, agreed it isn’t pretty. I think there’s a lot of hope that the new Superintendent will bring in a new era of communication since that’s what Natick parents I’ve heard from say she’s excellent at. I am so happy to have someone who will actually be missed by their previous community; in this political and educational climate, I wasn’t sure if that was possible anymore. She just shouldn’t have to start out with a major crisis on her hands (only a minor one).
Where should we get to? I believe the override could be a turning point for more communication of information and education about policies. This is the first time that the issue of development vs. higher taxes has been made so explicitly clear to me. Watertown fixes schools without an override because of development. Lexington has great schools but much higher taxes (28% higher). Newton is stuck for maybe a decade because the development it approved got whammed by pandemic and interest rates, and we have no strong leverage to do anything about it. Remember Millennium Tower in Boston, AKA hole in the ground for six years?
So more information and more partnership would be a nice outcome. And I for one would love to see an estimate for “fix our schools, pave our roads, fix our parks, staff our services, provide a sustainable path for NPS”. Maybe taxpayers are ready to see the full menu, as long as they get the great meal they order. I don’t think consensus on core stuff like this is that hard. Paying for it is hard.
I no longer have kids in the school system so I didn’t follow the superintendent search very closely. I’m curious a bout what people think in general. Anybody know why Paul Levy abstained?I noticed he also abstained on the Override. Seems to me a lot of abstaining on two critical votes. Maybe it’s for a separate thread.
Bruce, I’d welcome that as a separate thread. Not so much focused on Paul Levy, but the super search
@Bruce C – regarding paul, he voted for Dr Nolin, it was unanimous.
Regarding the override, he was the only one courageous enough to stand up to the political machine. Read his statement which is making its way around. Agree with his decision or not, hard not to respect what he said.
Frank D:
I disagree with Paul on this one. I can’t respect his choice to abstain, and then lecture everyone from on high. It was the most important vote he will likely take except for the vote for Super. And he abdicated his responsibility by not voting. I certainly would have respected a no vote as a vote of principle. But by abstaining, he wanted to have it both ways. And was left with nothing.
This isn’t a personal criticism. I’ve enjoyed my conversations with Paul prior to his school committee role. But I certainly can’t call him courageous for not voting. Quite the opposite. He brings an important perspective to the school committee, but the idea that I should respect his decision in this case when he didn’t actually make a decision and instead took himself from the voting arena, well, that’s a bridge to far.
And if I was a “no” vote supporter, I’d feel the same. Because as much as the “no” side is quoting his words, the fact that even with the speech he made, he…didn’t actually vote no. So on some level, he knows the need for the override, no? It shows how few people are endorsing the “no” side that they are block quoting someone who voted “abstain”.
Sometimes when we seek to please both sides, we please no one.
Frank, interesting to see that the “no” campaign is using Paul Levy on a flier advocating no on all three items.
I think that’s way overstating what Paul said. In fact, Paul specifically said, “all the facts are out there, let the voters decide.”
Fig I respect Paul’s decision to abstain. I think it’s totally appropriate unless you are living in North Korea or some other place where it’s not allowed. The problem that you don’t seem to realize with the school system is that it is structurally broken and your position is just to keep throwing good money after bad. I believe that Paul knows this and wants the other simple minded people in this community to face up to why the system is failing and how can it be repaired. Your solution is throw more money in that direction and I doubt that will change any of the current trends of student flight and teacher flight, and lower and lower test results. It’s time for people to face the facts that this is a problem that involves more than money.
For today I will leave out the racial inequity aspects of a “yes” vote and how it benefits the mayor’s machine and her well heeled campaign contributors.
I’m with Mike on this one. I read the email sent by the No group and Paul’s statement was neither for or against it. Lenny Gentile’s statement was very clear and gave specific reasons about why he is choosing to vote no. Paul basically said all the facts and figures are out there and let the voters decide. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for a No vote.
Jackson Joe:
Ok, a few things. First of all, of course Paul Levy has the *right* to abstain. Your North Korea line is just a non-sequitur. I wasn’t saying he couldn’t do it, I was saying it just wasn’t courageous. The fact that I don’t respect his decision doesn’t mean he didn’t have the option to do it. But it wasn’t a bold statement, it was wishy-washy at best. Both side-ism. Not a leadership move. He basically said that the school committee hasn’t earned the people’s trust to weigh in, ignoring the fact we elected him to do just that.
The option to abstain did nothing. He just gave up his right to take a stand, and called himself wise for doing so. I disagree.
If Paul wanted people to do something, he should have said so. He said nothing of the sort. Read his statement. It basically said the people should make the decision. He abdicated his authority. And now the “no” side is quoting him out of context, allowing them to once again push the canard that a vote for the override is a vote *against* the school system. And up is down once again.
And Jackson, you talk about how the school system is broken, and you presume to know that my position is to throw good money after bad. That is not my position at all. My position is that we have a new superintendent, and I want to empower her to make changes and make the school system better, and with the structural gap, having more resources will help in that. New leadership deserve a chance to thrive and deserves the resources to do so.
And Jackson, don’t think that I missed it when you called me and the folks who don’t agree with you “simple minded”. .. not sure that was polite on your part…
Fig actually I wasn’t at all referring to you as “simple minded” and sorry you interpreted it that way, but some people think that more money will fix any problem. Those are the ones I was making a dig at. Change is not easy to accept but when results and trends are going in the wrong direction ………. I do read your entire answers and find many interesting ideas and thoughts in them.
Bruce,
I think the issue is that none of us can agree where “belt tightening” should occur.
For example, NNHS – due to “belt tightening” – no longer offers Chinese 1. Kids coming from the middle schools go directly into Chinese 2. “Belt tightening” AND “academic excellence,” am I right?
Except… in 3 years of middle School they cover Integrated Chinese Level 1, lessons 1-4. Usually, about 1/4 to 1/3 of the kids are asked to start over/repeat Chinese 1. This year, those kids got thrown into Chinese 2.
Why do I know this? My chicle was doing poorly in Spanish, crying over his homework, etc., and the problem seemed to center on vocabulary. We thought moving him to a character based language would be good for him – and it is! – but we have spent thousands on tutoring and classes over the summer and during term to cover the gap and to bring him up to speed.
And Chinese 2? They started at lesson 1, and the entire first semester – longer than they would have normally spent – was devoted to lessons 1-4. We’re currently starting 6, and I don’t think (at this rate) we’re going to make it to lesson 8 (where I understand Chinese 2 was supposed to end. This seems really unfair to the kids that were ready for Chinese 2.
This is one small example, but my point is we, the Monday-Mornig Quarterbacks of the internet don’t get to determine how the government is going to deal with having less money. Mainly, elected officials – such as the Mayor and the School Committee will. And they have told us where and when the cuts are coming. We can disagree, but they are the ones who were elected to deal with this, and this is how they say it’s going to happen.
If you want different priorities at the school, elect different school committee members, but lest’s not pretend that by not passing this override that the cuts to the schools are going to be anything different than what they’ve said the cuts to the school will be.
/as always, I am speaking only for myself and this is a personal opinion.
@Bruce – like yourself, I will be voting for both debt exclusion overrides, but a hard no on the operational.
My issue with the Mayor is less about, “purposely stashing away money that could be used” than time and time again, her priorities – from development and rezoning to Webster Woods and NewCal – are not aligned with a large swath of Newton voters – I’m just the only one dumb enough to say it out loud. I guess we’ll see in March 15th if I’m right or wrong.
@Mike – I’ll take that $100 bet. Still better to pay you $100 once, than pay the City $100+2.5%…for the rest of eternity. Sending check from the beyond could be a huge pain in the a$$.
1. Bruce C thanks for your comments. For many seniors, that moment that Newton taxes are too burdensome is now thanks to rising costs for everything, drawing off savings rather than adding to, and plunging retirement accounts.
2. Our tax assessment revenues have never been higher. A single year at the current 2.5% rate will net an additional $12 million. And that is not including taxes from the unprecedented building boom we are going through, nor is it including the $10 million in just permit fees.
When Councilor Lenny Gentile, who has been on the City Council for 27 years and is currently on the Finance Committee gives a truthful account of the financial state of the city, you know it’s time to listen. As others have said, we have the money, but we do not have a city willing to distinguish between “nice to haves” and needs.
There are nine–yes, nine–tax assistance programs in Newton. Low income seniors, veterans, other people experiencing hardship. Here’s the information: https://www.newtonma.gov/government/assessing/tax-assistance-programs
There is relief for people who need it. The rest of us who are doing OK, or better than OK, can make this investment in our hometown.
Don’t let the scaremongers get to you. Look it up for yourself.
The tax calculator is here: https://www.newtonma.gov/government/mayor-fuller/override/override-calculator
Those tax assistance programs are woeful. Either you get a couple hundred – $1,500 or the City puts a lien against your estate with interest. Essentially the only option for those on a tight fixed income budget is to sell/move to a less regressive or lower tax city / state.
Fred, the “lien with interest” is tax deferral with an interest rate based on the Fed Discount Rate. It is currently 1.75%. Maybe it isn’t for everyone, but you can’t do better on the loan. The cost of actually selling a home can be a lot more than that.
Fred is right. The tax assistance programs are a joke when compared to other communities. If you qualify for them it means you will have absolutely no ability to afford any end of life home care. It’s an insult that yes proponents say that they care at all about seniors staying in Newton. Mike just tell the truth that you don’t care if they can’t afford to stay because when they move, their homes can be razed and replaced with McMansions that will bring in more tax dollars.
Jackson Joe:
If we are talking seniors, wouldn’t there have been significant home appreciation? No one under 45 on this forum will see anything close to that level of appreciation, to the tune of 2,000% or more. My neighbors bought their homes in the 1970s for $35,000. It was a much smaller share of their income. They didn’t need two salaries to purchase a home in Newton. And they managed to save far more than I’ll be able to save for retirement, as two of the larger costs (college and housing) were far less expensive back then as a portion of income.
I appreciate that the city needs to help those who can’t afford to pay property taxes, but the full picture of someone’s finances should be taken into consideration too. And even localities with a residential exemption, seniors pay a significant portion of taxes too.
I could make a case that a young family with multiple kids is in a much more difficult financial position than a senior couple with a home with no mortgage, considering the incredible appreciation in home values in Newton over the past 4 decades.
Just saying it is more complicated than your complaints.
Mike,
The 1.75 % fed rate was for July’22
By July’23 fed rate / city interest on new and existing tax liens will be around 5.25%
Fred, true, the rate may go up. Being pegged to the fed rate is still the best deal you’re going to get.
Some people compared this program to reverse mortgages, but the interest rate isn’t on the value of your home, it’s on the taxes. So on a million dollar home (either owned free and clear or with reasonable equity), you or your estate would pay $534 a year in deferred interest on top of your $10K-ish a year deferred tax bill (with compounding).
At the same time, your house value likely keeps appreciating, and you continue to have the benefit of living in it, and also get city services. We now know you’ll still have to pay CPA tax on top of standard house expenses, but the bulk of your tax burden is lifted and pushed off, generally to the point where the property can be transferred or liquidated.
I fail to see why this is a bad deal. I’d take it.
Mike and Fig,
It sounds like you are saying that most seniors has lived in their house for 40-50 years and have no mortgage or debts. Yes there are some that fit that scenario but I will guess that they are a small percentage, maybe 10% of senior homeowners among those that I know. Mike I have seen rollbacks in property values in the late 1980’s and late 2000’s. Nothing is guaranteed to always increase in value outside of your savings account. Fred is right, the taxpayer assistance programs are a PR farce.
I agree with Bruce on the debt exclusions that they are concrete. Many of our schools are in disrepair but these two are clearly in dire need. The process of updating the schools should have started sooner but there was no appetite for that after the NN overspend. It’s too bad that the other schools have suffered. The City has likely spent good money after bad in maintaining the old buildings that have significant problems. Countryside would get MSBA funding and in order to do so it must be voted on as a separate item. For both the debt exclusion items the funds must go towards the specific purpose and the additional taxes only last the length of the project. If the Countryside question fails then the State funding is very likely lost as the funding must be voter approved. I understand that some people particularly older voters are hesitant or unable to afford any tax increase but for others consider the loss of the state funds and also money currently spent maintaining school related infrastructure that is well past its useful life.
In regards to the Operating Override I have mixed feelings. I feel some of this process is disingenuous. Budgeting is all about priorities. In the process of making a case of why an override is necessary and why you need additional funds you are of course going to link it to areas of emotional connection such as education. Much of it is a pr show. It relies on confidence of decision makers. I don’t feel that I have that. There is increased student need due to COVID which the District handled poorly. To hear that even with the override there is still considered to be a short fall of at least $2M. If you have what you feel is a truly solid budget that has been picked apart and there is little to no waste then why is the override not asking for the full amount? One of the objectives is academic excellence but I’m not sure I agree with Newton’s vision of how to achieve that particularly at the HS level.
As far as the pension funding though the Retirement Board determines the schedule, I cannot believe that the Mayor could not influence this board if she so chose. She paints a mixed picture. Our financial picture is good yet we need an override. This particular stat is helping our bond rating which she uses to signify our financial health.
On a side note for those that reference Webster Woods, the funds used to obtain that area are CPC funds that can only be used for specific purposes…community housing, historic spaces, open space and or recreation land so they are not open for use for other purposes.
NHM:
I fully appreciate your perspective. Heck, in many ways, we agree. I support the debt exclusions for similar reasons, and because I feel like I’m paying it forward for the city fixing Cabot Elementary in a similar way. And I know how much the learning environment impacted my kids, both good and bad.
On the override, I certainly am not eager to pay more taxes. And I don’t agree with every decision the city has made. The new senior center isn’t my pet issue, although I’ve come to terms with it being built after talking to many seniors who feel very strongly about it.
It has been a tough few years for many of us. Tough financially, tough emotionally, tough health-wise. Tough on our kids and our seniors both. Tough on many of our local businesses.
I feel in the end the override is a balancing act. What does the city need in terms of additional resources to help as many people as possible live full lives in Newton? Balanced out by the fact that taking those additional resources will put financial strain on some residents.
We all tend to get emotionally invested in these votes. Lord knows I’m more guilty of that than anyone.
It is my personal viewpoint, after reviewing all of the financial facts, looking at the city budget, talking to folks in the city I’ve grown to trust, that the need is there for an override. I really don’t want to pay additional taxes, but I do want the city to fulfill its obligations to our kids, seniors, city employees, and environment. I get the frustration with feeling like the city is manipulating us to emphasize the need. That’s a real frustration as the city is both providing the EVIDENCE for the need for the override, and also acting as the entity trying to CONVINCE us of that need. There is a conflict there. I can’t do anything about that. That comes down to trust, as others have pointed out.
But in my experience, in budget cuts, many of the things I care about most get cut first. Reading specialists for my kids who need them. Tree planting and care. Road repairs get delayed. Fields get in worse shape. Building maintenance gets delayed. Because most of the fixed expenses are set and can’t be cut. But it is these extra things that I tend to care about most. And in a rising cost environment, I think the city will need additional resources to help preserve these things.
So I’m voting yes on all three.
I believe Councilor Gentile and the Chamber of Commerce make very compelling arguments to vote against the Operational Override. Let’s not forget the impact on local business that will be forced out with higher rents or a less diverse community unable to pay exorbitant housing rents. Plain and simple, voting NO on Question 1 is a vote for fiscal responsibility.
I was initially in the “vote no” camp, at least on the operational over-ride, but I recently voted early and voted yes x 3. My biggest gripe with NPS was the diluted focus on academic excellence and the poor response to COVID, both of which are essentially two sides of the same coin. Maybe I am being naïve, but I am seeing some signs of progress. For example:
– During the Superintendent interviews, the first question asked was about academic excellence. And not just excellence for the lowest performing students in a class, but also excellence for the highest performers i.e., how do we keep these students engaged in their academics.
– I generally found Dr. Nolan to be a no-nonsense, data-driven person who will likely prioritize facts over ideology in making decisions. See for instance her response to the question re: mixed-level classes (which I think is a bad idea).
– In the mayor’s emails, excellence and high achievement rank high (or highest) in the reasons why NPS should continue to be funded.
I get that many of you will be skeptical and argue this is just window dressing, but I think a significant contingent of parents have been pushing for a renewed and increased focus on academic excellence. This has been happening in private emails to SC members, during focus groups for the superintendent process, in chats with the mayor, etc. And I think the message is being received and the tone of the conversation is gradually changing.
Finally, the bottom line is this – inflation is running at 7%+. Every company has significantly raised prices to maintain margins (that’s definitionally the cause of widespread inflation). To expect NPS to accomplish a better mission with a lower budget in inflation-adjusted terms… is fanciful thinking.
I empathize with seniors on fixed incomes who are seeing property taxes rising. However, as another poster has mentioned, most of these folks have seen massive appreciation in their homes over the past 40 years. Moreover, the value of these homes is heavily contingent on the continued perception that Newton has great schools. If the over-ride fails and NPS loses more of its luster, expect property values to take a hit. Penny wise, pound foolish, in my humble opinion.
@Tim – totally agree
@Tim – all reasonable points, but will debate you on this one…
Seniors will not recongize their “appreciation windfall” until they sell their homes… and in many (most?) cases, that appreication is passed down to their families. That doesn’t help with rising tax bills in the remaining time in their homes (and due to appreciate, most will not qualify for these assistance programs)
For that and many other reasons, I’m still voting no on #1.
Matt, I’ve made this case every time you have raised the “the city should push developers should be building condos, not apartments”.
There are certainly advantages to owning a home, mostly because our tax system is distorted to favor it.
But tying up the bulk of your assets in an illiquid investment that also provides you with shelter has its downsides too, particularly for people on the edge of affordability. It’s true for older residents and other fixed-income people, but it is also true for anyone who might be at risk for losing their income (and that’s a lot of people!). The loss of a home is traumatizing, and the sale of a home is expensive and time-consuming.
That isn’t to say that own bad / rent good, nor is it a consolation for the homeowners facing the problem right now. It’s to point out that even investments that might have theoretical or long-term advantages for some might not be the best for everyone in every circumstance.
Tax deferral really seems to me to be one of the best short-term answers to the problem, and it’s available now. It is *definitely* not like a reverse mortgage (it’s involves taxes, not principal). I’d love to know what downsides exist.
I just got a robocall from Councilor Gentile urging me to vote no on all three override questions.
Councilor Gentile is voting against fixing fixing Franklin, a school that families in his own ward attend, and not engaging the Franklin community about it.
Councilor, where is the $100M to fix our schools going to come from? That’s not one-time money. How long do all the families in older elementary schools have to wait? You’re the only Councilor actively coming out against the debt exclusion override items, so what’s your plan?
There are a lot of families all over Newton that deserve an answer.
Councilor Gentile is NOT voting against fixing Franklin. He is voting against the override. The city prioritizes building repairs in a queue. Franklin’s priority will not change. If Mayor Fuller thinks fixing Franklin more quickly is important, she can make the call. She keeps telling us that the city’s finances are rock solid and that we are doing great.
Mike & Fig, This will be my last posting before the election. I will be voting yes on the debt exclusions and No on the operating override for the following reasons.
1) The property tax as implemented in Newton is a barrier against lower income home ownership in Newton. I believe that many people are happy that it helps prevent minorities from being able to afford a home here.
2) Senior on this site have been stereotyped as being wealthy with no debt and flush with cash that they are trying to steer to their heirs. This concept is false and dangerous.
3) The city hasn’t done a good job explaining why the excess cash that has been cited can’t be used or where it will be alternatively used
4) The school system in Newton needs an overhaul and not a band aid. Everyone agrees that students and teachers are leaving the system and test scores are declining. It’s time for leadership to recognize the problem and look at a wide range of possible solutions. This proposal sounds more like a Band aid.
I have never been inside of Franklin school but I have seen Countryside and that school was in need of a massive overhaul or replacement probably 25 years ago.
Jeffery, the Councilor has said nothing to the Franklin community and nothing to the public about supporting fixing Franklin that I know of. Does he support it? Got more information? Politicians are typically communicative with their local school communities about good news.
There is a big difference between a city being rock solid — follow fiscal principles such as those that Aldermen Gentile and Fuller helped author in 2011 that guide how we allocate and spend money today — and having a spare $6.3M a year for 25-30 years to pay the bonds on two schools.
Councilor Gentile says we have lots of one time money. Everyone else in office, including accountant Councilor Markiewicz who is taking no opinion on the OO, make no such claim.
But put that aside. Councilor Gentile’s own fiscal principle document says avoid using one time cash for ongoing expenses. Construction bonds are the definition of an ongoing expense.
So where is $6.3M a year for 25-30 years coming from? That’s an enormous part of the budget long term.
Or will Franklin and Countryside families, and the families at all the schools waiting behind them, will they all have to wait? We have all waited a long time. Not losing our place is irrelevant: we want a school that isn’t broken.
I may not have done a survey to see why people may choose private schools over public schools. But I can promise that standing water in a school basement, or a basement library with a giant industrial dehumidifier whirring to keep the books from molding, doesn’t strengthen the public school case. The visceral reaction I had when I first visited Franklin with my kindergarten aged daughter made me question our decision to move to Newton for the schools. Thank goodness for the outstanding Franklin teachers and staff.
Every child, every family in Newton should have access to an healthy, accessible school that meets state standards. The question should no longer be if. It should be how and how fast. We did overrides to start this process and we made some great schools. We need to keep going.
Councilor Gentile is 100 % CORRECT. Please Vote NO NO NO on all 3 questions. I know even Franklin School Parents who are voting NO because their Taxes will push them out of the City.
The people who support the tax hike question can afford to pay higher taxes, and are welcome to voluntarily do so .. They want to slam a tax increase on the elderly and others on fixed incomes, who are already struggling with record high inflation.. Many of the supporters of the tax increase are the same crowd that whine about Firefighter memorial flags, Columbus Day, and leaf blowers. I’m voting No on Tuesday.. people on fixed incomes have been burdened enough.
The following video landed in my inbox over the weekend.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loGqoRVd9ng
It was very interesting to hear how passionately many of our Councilors were last spring when they unanimously advocated for more funds for the schools. Their reasons for being opposed to the potential cuts then are remarkably similar to the concerns expressed by many of the parents and educators today.
This wild grouping of distinct issues makes no sense and is completely irrelevant. Here’s a fact that I just discovered: if all three override measures pass, my family will pay an additional $450 a year. That boils down to an extra $38 a month in taxes, hardly enough of an increase to drive retirees like my wife and me out of the city. For the record, I oppose changing the name of Columbus Day, have no objection to Firefighter memorial flags, and support limiting the use of leaf blowers when windows are open.
I respect the debate over the actual merits of the override but resent the phony “culture war” approach to any issue of complexity. Though I support all three override measures (apparently, I have more faith in the city’s ability to use the funds wisely than others on Village 14), I get it that others disagree. But let’s avoid the Trumpist tropes and stick to the issues.
Bob, You have to remember the override is in ADDITION to the regular annual TAX increase. Our prop tax went up +4.5% = $515 last year – Any overrides that pass would be piling on to the next increase.
I just got another robocall from Councilor Gentile