Last night the School Committee voted to approve the proposed four-classrooms-per-grade educational program for a new Zervas, which will bring capacity up 50% to 490 students on the current site.
To deal with expected traffic issues, the architects are considering the use of some space for a loop driveway, similar to Bowen’s, to take some of the Blue Zone pickup/dropoff traffic off the street.
In the discussion before the vote, Diana Fisher Gomberg noted her work with the Zervas Building Committee and her confidence that outstanding issues will be resolved successfully with community input.
Ruth Goldman, who attended Bowen in 1972 when it had 200 students, noted that it now has 504 students, that the tide has turned in Newton away from smaller schools, and it is now time for Zervas, particularly with its central location, to turn and join the fleet.
Ellen Gibson echoed those comments, and Margie Ross Decter also spoke in favor of the proposal.
Margaret Albright said it was too early to vote on this proposal because more time was needed to gather community input and get the community more comfortable with this change.
Steve Siegel noted that, as the School Committee representative from the Zervas area, a former Zervas parent, a current tutor at Zervas, and a neighbor impacted by the expected traffic issues, he had a lot to consider. He cited the knowledge he gained in his close work on the Angier and Zervas Building Committees, which has led him to support the four-classroom-per-grade educational model as the best for Newton.
All present voted for the proposal except for Margaret Albright, who voted against. The Mayor was absent.
I think both Steve Siegel and Margaret Albright showed particular courage in their votes, each in his/her own way.
In related news: This morning Bowen held a forum for parents to meet with city and school officials to discuss safety and frustration around their school’s Blue Zone.
Well said, Bruce. However, note that Bowen abandoned its driveway for parent drop-off several years ago because it brought chaos so close to the school. The driveway design must have been wonderful in the 60’s when there was only the occasional car. With today’s demand, Bowen’s pick-up and drop-off are a disaster, and with some notable exceptions, Bowen is one of the most walkable districts you could ask for. For many parents, driving isn’t enough. They must find a way to get as close as possible to the front door, make eye-contact with the front door, and wait for their students to enter.
The design committee would be well-advised to think about ways to make driving to school less attractive and walking/busing more attractive. The architects the city is hiring should be asked to solve this problem. Letting cars accumulate only feet from the front door, with a clear view for students to walk in from a blue zone, is the wrong design. The city should fire architects who propose this, even in early conceptual plans!
Cabot, Angier and Zervas — one of these things is not like the other, apparently. Does anyone have the energy to describe what was different about Zervas where MSBA rules did not require it to be on a separate ballot question? If that was already answered recently, can you tell me which thread to review.
I think of it as doubling the original capacity of the school from 250 to almost 500.
The school committee and administration have acted with hubris and deception in planning for schools that destroy the neighborhood character of this city. Hubris because they claim to have the only sensible answer to handling increasing enrollment and refuse to listen to differing points of view and the needs and desires of all the residents of this city. Deception because they purposefully played down their plans in the wording and packaging of the operational override ballot question, as well as their phony spreadsheet considering and ruling out alternative sites, notably the DPW yard. You can absolutely build a school at the DPW site, they all know it, they looked the public in the eye and said “not feasible, we tried.” No you didn’t.
We used to have around 9,000 kids in 23 elementary schools evenly distributed throughout the city. Now we have under 6,000 in 15 schools with three adjoining villages that have NO school. We need to increase capacity. OK, kids how would you solve this problem? (My 5 yr old goes to RSM so she could do this.) Look at the map. Hmmm. Big gap over here in Upper Falls. Let’s put a school there.
Wrong! The correct answer is to build a 2 or 3-story building next to wetlands twice the size of the original and bus 200 more kids from other parts of Newton.
Shameful, self-serving and tone deaf.
Well, this is why we elected Steve Siegel to the SC. He understands the building process, he knows the area and certainly knows the issues regarding Zervas. It’s SteveTime.
As for Bruce. Everyone knows where Bruce stands on this. But I would ask that anyone who weighs in on these blog threads to look at how he evenly he conveys the information from last night’s meeting. It should serve as an exemplar for everyone in public discourse. Nicely done, Bruce.
Hoss, Zervas is not getting MSBA funding, so the MSBA rules regarding debt exclusions vs. operating overrides do not apply.
I’m too melancholy and disappointed to write anything.
Thank you Ald. Hess-Mahan
For future overrides, if there is a such thing a a “safe harbor” route where we make a rule ourselves to un-bundle large and dissimilar spending, that would be ideal. If we did a town mtg gov’t, we wouldn’t bundle a salt-shed proposal and a proposal to add more music teachers; we’d ask for votes separately. This case has me wondering if in an odd example. one or both of the Cabot/Angier questions failed, would we have lost a chance make an MSBA application w respect to Zervas? In any event, seems like a learning point, as others have suggested.
I know how you feel Karen. When they decided to demolish N.North a perfectly good school and spend $200.00 million for a new structure I couldn’t believe the senselessness of it.
A perfectly good school? Get real. That sort of hyperbole doesn’t help the discussion.
Hoss, the MSBA refused to fund Zervas because the building is not in that bad condition. The building committee is saying they are using the MSBA guidelines for best practice anyway on the Zervas project (except where it becomes inconvenient. )
Hoss, I may be wrong, but I don’t believe that Zervas was ever in the running for MSBA funding because it does not meet the criteria.
Hoss – Several years ago, MSBA did a study/inventory of all of the public schools in the state and prioritized the facilities according to their condition. The facilities in greatest need of renovation and/or rebuilding are at the top of the list to receive state funding. As a result, a city or town – anywhere in the state – can no longer choose which school it wants to renovate first AND receive state funding. Angier was at the top of Newton’s list and Cabot was second. Both were in the top 2% of facilities in the entire state that the MSBA identified as being in need of rebuilding. Zervas is not the third school on the list in terms of the condition of the building, so Newton has to do that renovation/building on its own dime.
However, overcrowding in our elementary schools is as serious an educational problem as their poor condition. The choice to rebuild/renovate Zervas was based on serious overcrowding at a number of elementary schools in the middle section of the city. In addition, it made sense to choose Zervas because it doesn’t have adequate common spaces (for example, it doesn’t have a cafeteria or auditorium).
The families keep moving to Newton, so overcrowding is having a serious impact on the learning environment in a number of schools. Teaching and learning in an overcrowded school is like trying to run a race in sneakers that are 2 sizes too small. No matter how hard you try, you just can’t do your best. We need to have schools that suit the number of enrolled students in every respect. Modulars have been an adequate short term fix, but don’t address the need for an increase in square footage in the common spaces, such as cafeterias, auditoriums, libraries, and spaces for small group instruction.
@Jane the fact that Zervas’ condition doesn’t rise to a critical need for replacement, and that the site is small, and that we’re not putting an Avalon into Waban, and that we have a brand new school going in right down the street, make it not a good choice for a complete rebuild.
The city is choosing to destroy 320 seats and then add 490 for a net gain of 170 while spending $40+ million to accomplish that. Using Everyday Math, if you have 1 school and you remove it, then add a school, how many schools do you have now?
Seems to me, the sensible thing to do would have been to renovate and expand Zervas by adding the common/assembly space, maybe a couple of classrooms and stop there. We did something like that at Day middle school and spent $8 million. We would have ended up with a fixed up, comfortable school. With plenty of money left over to build a whole new school in Upper Falls where we should be adding capacity.
Thanks for the background on MSBA, that is really helpful.
Without respect to any value questions, specifically about Zervas — we seems to have followed the MSBA rule w the overrides only because the State required us to do that. If you read the rule, the reasoning makes good practice, generally, not just MSBA situations. It makes little sense in any financial aspect to bundle a $40MM one-time building cost, with unrelated operating increases such as cops and roads. (Any banker or CPA would ask for a breakout) I might even go so far as to say the Ted, Jane and Steven, responding here, are a 2% oddity in terms of those that would have any idea in voting as to why Cabot and Angier were “special” questions whereas Zervas was a package deal. Most to the 98% like me would assume that the Zervas spend was less money. Just thinking of best practices w this override concept.
Hoss, I agree – and I think most people now agree – that the Zervas project should have been specified ahead of time and put into a separate debt exclusion override with a price tag ($40 million). It was very confusing because the Angier and Cabot numbers were total costs while the Zervas and fire dept numbers were a combined annual debt service amount. So anyone looking quickly might think we were planning a small renovation, but really there was a $40 million figure hidden somewhere. According to the legal dept, they couldn’t put that 440 million number on the ballot. Another reason it should have been a debt exclusion override.
The MSBA guidelines I was referring to are other project management practices (not clear on which ones we will do and which ones we will skip). For example, I think community input is required. Gotta go, just got the giggles.
Hoss – It’s really hard to hear you say that you didn’t understand why Cabot and Angier were different from Zervas, or that you think 98% of the people don’t understand it. Please don’t misinterpret my frustration as personal because it’s not. But after having hundreds of conversations with voters and attending many meetings on an issue during an override campaign, I really have to ask at what point is it the responsibility of the individual voter to become informed?
That being said, I know election turnout is always dismal, if not downright depressing, and that voters don’t take the opportunities available to them to become informed. The week before the override election, I was phone banking and talked to a man who was pleased to find out what all those red, white, and blue lawn signs were about. Yikes. What did he think? That Joe Lamacchia had gotten a new sign and business had picked up?
Steven F- You may make valid points but if that’s what you believe, I hope you voted No on Question 3. I voted Yes because this situation is about more than seats – it’s about having elementary schools that can deliver a 21st century education. I’ll vote Yes on any reasonable override that places more elementary students in updated buildings that can do just that. But that’s just me. I’m only encouraging voters to become better informed about the issues before election day.
Jane, I voted yes on Question 1 because I thought that we should “address the condition and capacity of Zervas elementary school.” I figured with $1 million/yr or so that could be done adequately. By the way, that money is enough to service about a $25 million project. I do not believe we voted on the additional 2.5% of yearly tax revenue that will be added into that to be able to (almost) afford a $40 million school. So even if people tried to calculate future value, they would have come up with an amount that sounds nothing like a brand new school.
Hoss, I certainly think that it’s best practice to use debt exclusions, rather than operating overrides, for capital projects. The MSBA has good reasons for requiring them, including enforcing clarity of project scope, sufficient community support, and guaranteed application of funds to the stated purpose. I’m guessing that the City did not follow that practice for Zervas simply for marketing reasons: $1.3M (yes, it for one year and continues) sounds so much less than $40M (total project cost). The new Zervas was, in effect, sold and bought on an installment plan.
If you think that few people understand why Cabot and Angier were debt exclusions while Zervas was in the operating override, I think there are way fewer people who understand how $1.3M of annual debt service for 30 years could pay for a $40M capital project at typical interest rates of 3.8% or 4%. Bond calculations make it look like that would cover only $25M, leaving $15M of the project unfunded. I could not explain it, and I had to search to find someone who could. Both Sandy Guryan and Ruthanne Fuller referred me to City CFO Maureen Lemieux, who explained it to me. Two key points give the City more funds than you might first think, and together they make up the difference:
1. The City started collecting the override taxes a couple of years before they will be needed for Zervas or the Fire Station projects. Those funds are accumulating in a Capital Stabilization Fund — the same sort of vehicle used for NNHS.
2. Unlike debt exclusion funds, the operating override amounts can increase by 2.5% per year (and the City will ensure that they do). These increases compound annually, and over about 27 years they total about $15M more than the sum of just $1.3M per year over that time. By that time, the $1.3M per year will be $2.5M per year.
Voila.
Bruce, they actually allocated $1.7 Million per year for Zervas, not $1.3 Million. Other than that, you make good points on this thread and others.
Neither a debt exclusion or operating override cap project costs. It simply gives the City the authority to override Prop. 2.5 by a stated amount for a given purpose. The main difference between the two is that a debt exclusion is funded through a separate, dedicated budget.
I’d say this is more of the anti-NNHS. There is no Gund design, no 5a/5b switch, the building is a tad more than 35 years old, it was tagged for rehabilitation as part of a 7-year-old capacity plan, there was an override vote for its stated purpose, and whether one agrees with the decision or not, it serves to improve capacity. And compared to the $10m/year for NNHS (out of the operating budget), the $1.7m or whatever for Zervas is less than 20% of the cost.
People talk about $40 million like it is monopoly money. Not only do we have several more schools that need to be renovated and rebuilt. We also have more teachers to pay salaries and benefits to over the next 30 years. Each year more city employees retire and require pension benefits. Healthcare costs increase as we all live longer and need high cost coverage.
We certainly haven’t saved enough for all these future costs. So I would think we should be very careful about spending now as the future holds many unknown surprises.
Jane – We’re fully one year later looking back. I was fascinated with the detailed spreadsheets behind the overrides and was encouraged by the depth of knowledge around those details by City Hall and specific Aldermen. It was hugely encouraging to me that City Hall had enough resources internally to provide such detail, and go many years out. We together are caring residents made an investment for others to enjoy (the kids on the next few decades) I just want Newton to set an appropriate standard for overrides such that caring people aren’t later confused.
I heard someone say last night: it’s cheaper to demolish Zervas and build a new school. I wonder what the facts are! Where can I find the study of how much it would cost to update the heating and add-on some classrooms (to replace the modular)?
For $40 millions, it should be possible to repair and add-on.
Add how do you calculate the cost of buying the two houses on Beacon st? the loss of mature trees on those two lots?
I would like to hear from the SC how the CATS Academy Boston was able to outmaneuver the City to gain control of the former Trinity Catholic facility? I looked on the CATS’ website and did not see any reference to them offering tax exempt land to the Catholic Church to locate facilities for seven parishes within the city’s boundaries. The front part of the building has been an active high school for more than 50 years. The two-story rear part originally was a 16 classroom addition for an elementary school. Each of those classrooms had space for 54 student desks, a teacher’s desk and a full size table. It seems like a building we could be using if we had better negotiators working for the city.
Similar is size, different in location. Zervas will impact traffic on Beacon, St. Bowen is on a side street.
Lucia, the similar driveway at Bowen is not used anymore for student drop-offs. It’s a #FAIL to design a school that way in 2014. But the fact that Bowen is on a side street doesn’t make the traffic much less of a disaster. Carmageddon. And it does feed into Newton Centre at peak hours.
Bruce Henderson — I think the CFO’s explanation fits. Notice that the funding doesn’t need to start until FY17 (partially) and FY18 (fully). Notice also that the $40MM includes costs of moving the program to a swing space along with demolition expense– costs that could not be bonded. So $1.3MM at a net cost of 1.3% (3.8% bond rate less 2.5% override inflator) gives them $33MM, The gap of $7MM is logically collecting override funds between FY13 and FY17/18 and using them for the move and demolition. (Also note this math stops at year 30, the bond retirement, but the school’s life and the override layer related to it might last 25 years more.) So at least by May 2013 they had the story right. Not sure about before that since I can’t find any similar detail.
@Bruce. Thanks for all you have done to raise public consciousness on so many critical issues pertaining to our schools. I hate dimwitted corporate terms and jargon, but you do “think outside the box” and you’re a good friend to me and many others in Newton. I concur in what you said about both Margaret Albright and Steve Siegel. I’d also add that they bring much needed sensitivity to the School Committee. Steve reached out to me not once but twice during the past week. He wasn’t dramatic or overbearing. He simply explained that he was voting for an expanded Zervas and why he was voting that way. He knows I’m pretty positive and don’t bitch and moan about many things here in Newton; so he accepted that there was something missing about how the Board came across to the people of Upper Falls that night in January. We are fortunate to have him representing Ward 5 on the School Board.