To Ruthanne's points regarding student population growth [both what's already occurred and what's projected], it is difficult enough to balance a municipal budget when expense growth is limited to 2 1/2% per year. And that is under the conditions of a stable student population. Over time, it's next to impossible to make that work under student growth conditions. This alone explains some of the need for the operating override request.
And though override opponents choose to ignore the significance of the mayor's restructuring all union contracts to limit their growth to 2 1/2%, it was a game changer in terms of moving us strongly toward a sustainable financial picture here in Newton. We're not quite there, because we had so neglected our infrastructure under past administrations, which is why the mayor is taking the difficult but necessary step of seeking added funds to help complete the revamping process.
Even these two steps would not completely cure the problem but in combination they'll place us in a solid position to finish the job.

"We're not quite there,"
So why are you shilling for a tax increase Mr. Fahey the Flip Flopper?

"because we had so neglected our infrastructure under past administrations"
Yet we somehow found the money to lavish generous salary growth and benefit packages.

"To Ruthanne's points regarding student population growth" Can you explain how 538 non-resident students don't represent much cost yet hundreds of new Newton students require three extravagantly expensive property tax overrides?

I'm not a flip-flopper as you so sarcastically put it. On the contrary it is the circumstances on the ground that have flipped since the '08 override. The changed circumstances that I argued in '08 must occur before i could see myself voting for what I knew in my gut would be an override need in the future.
Had this administration not done the many positive adjustments to our financial structure in the interim, I'd be a leading opponent again regarding an override. For me, and for a number of my compatriots from back in '08 who were not opposing that override just on principle, subsequent actions have warranted a different conclusion this time around. If that's flip-flopping [it is not], then guilty as charged.

According to the school budget for 2013, page 7, the student population has increased by 847 students or 7.3%, but the school budget has increased by $51 million of 35%. In other words, the costs are increasing at 5 times the rate of student growth!!! Clearly this is unsustainable!! How did the aldermen let this happen??

Salaries and compensation are crowding out all other expentures. Because salaries and benefits are 75% of the budget and if the total budget can only grow 2.5%, the 75 cents of every new dollar goes to salary and benefits leaving on 25 cents for all other expenses including pensions and debt service.

Until salaries and benefits are kept below a 2.5% growth, there will be a constant refrain for overrides to pay for ongoing expenses. Indeed $8.5 million of the $11.4 million of override is to cover on going operating expenses.

Do you really think that we need an override to get our streets repaired? Well $1 millon of the override will go to street repairs because there was no room for that amount in a $313 million total budget. Does that sound like sound financial managment to anyone?

No. No. No.

@Norman,
First of all, you are looking at a ten year time frame, and we know that Setti has only been in office for the FY11, 12 and 13 budgets. The budget increase from FY10 to FY 11 was 1.5%, the budget increase from FY11 to FY12 was 2.9% and the budget increase from from FY12 to FY 13 was 4.1%. The enrollment increased during this period from 11,607 students to 12,184 students. These are the real and relevant numbers.
I don't contest there was mismanagement of our budgets in the past: that's part of the reason i got involved in '08. But punishing current management, and ultimately our citizens, is a fools game. We have real problems in terms of service delivery right now, and Setti wouldn't be doing what he was hired for by ignoring them because the solution was politically risky.
Using made up or irrelevant numbers does not help your case.

If the student population were not increasing, Norman Wirtz's math would have the school budget increasing at an infinite rate compared to the rate of student growth.

No doubt he would say that was unsustainable no matter what the school budget increase was.

This is just comparing apples and oranges.

Over 10 years at a 2.5% growth, which would align with Prop 2 1/2, one would expect the school budget to grow about 25%, even with no increase in student count.

If you take account of the 7% student head count increase, you'd expect about a 32% increase which is not far from where it is.

Also, Wirtz has entirely missed the fact that the crowning achievement of the current administration is to constraint employee compensation to a 2.5% growth rate.

Most of the override money is going to solve building problems and the 800 student increase we project over the next 4-5 years. It is not disappearing into some mythical operating expense black hole.

Geoff, WRT "Also, Wirtz has entirely missed the fact that the crowning achievement of the current administration is to constraint employee compensation to a 2.5% growth rate."
Actually, when we include the impact of 8% growth in pensions and OPEB, that results in compensation expenses growing at ~3.3% annually.

"Also, Wirtz has entirely missed the fact that the crowning achievement of the current administration is to constraint employee compensation to a 2.5% growth rate."
Why should the teachers get any increase? Newton teachers were the 7th highest paid in the state in 2011.
Considering that towns like Harvard and Hingham have test scores that are comparable to Newton's while spending 18%-30% less per student, we don't believe that Newton teachers really deserve any pay raises.

"Most of the override money is going to solve building problems" We already paid taxes for buildings and other infrastructure but the money was spent elsewhere (on lavish pay and benefit packages for unionized government workers as well as Newton North).

Dear Fahey the Flip-Flopper, WRT "On the contrary it is the circumstances on the ground that have flipped since the '08 override." We disagree.

All that has happened was that they reduced the rate of spending growth. Only in government talk can a reduced rate of spending growth be considered a cut.

"not done the many positive adjustments to our financial structure in the interim"
Would you like us to refute that? Because we will.

Bill,

Employees account for 80% of the budget and have a for a long time.

The settling of the contract for 2.5% increases is the most remarkable achievement I have seen on the fiscal domain since I came to Newton in 1990. It righted out fiscal boat.

To call the increases outrageous is a vast disservice to everyone involved.

If it were not for the building issues and the student population increase, we would be completely sustainable.

That is why, if these 3 questions pass, we'll be in excellent shape for 5 years.

We'll only have to revisit the budget issues if the student population keeps on increasing 5 years from now.

We have huge opportunity to get ourselves in really sound shape with this override.

I for one will be very happy to have the basic school logistics taken care of so we can focus on student achievement, which is what we need to do if we want the US to keep its competitive edge.

We talk education, but we keep on getting bogged down on logistics.

Let's fix that and move on!!!!!!!!!!!!

MNF,

Remember that HIngham is vastly different from Newton:

Low Income SPED ELL
Hingham 4% 13% 0.1%
Newton 11% 20% 6.5%

so their expenses are expected to be much lower.

METCO kids are not a SPED factor as they are only 3% of the student body.

The METCO program costs us around $500K due to our ability to place them where we wish and the reimbursement money.

Plus the SPED id rate on METCO kids is much less than 35%. It would be more like the norm - plus we don't pay for any out of district placements and transportation.

If METCO disappeared today, we'd still need an $11M override.

Let me consider your contention that the 400 kids in METCO cost Newton $7.5M per year. If that was the case, then each 400 kids we add would cost $7.5M per year.

Thus the 800 kids we know are coming in the next 4 years would cost us, in your estimation, $15M.

But notice that the cost estimate in the override calculation is $4M or less, annually, for those kids.

So your math is off by a factor of 4 or $11M.

If you were organizing the YES campaign, you would have asked for an operating override of $22.4M!!!!!

So the math at your end patently does not add up.

And I stand by my estimate that if METCO disappeared tomorrow, our savings would be $500K, not 15 times that.

DETAILS OF MY METCO ESTIMATE:

With the NO guys claiming METCO costs us $7M annually, I thought it useful to PROVIDE my latest estimate of METCO costs, with the caveat that this is rough and we really should do a review, which is what the CAG we recommended we do in 2013.

Here’s my latest arithmetic.

From the FY13 budget book on p. 14 the costs are shown for adding 192 students to NPS.

One can take the detailed numbers and remove:

- The elementary teachers and support staff, as the METCO kids never force additional teachers or staff, in elementary (that’s part of the calculus NPS is employing right now)
- Out of district SPED costs: tuition + transportation
- Modular costs

But leave in all support for SPED, and ELL and teachers for middle and high school.

Then the cost per student added is $5,600. So 400 METCO students cost us $2,240,000.

Then we get about $2.1M from METCO, of which $700K is transportation and about $100K for admin staff. That gives NPS $1.3M.
The we get $1K per student from the state through Chapter 70, which gets us a further $400K.

So offsetting that $1.7M against our cost reduces our cost to $540K. TheN we actually get IDEA money for SPED support plus Title 1 money for METCO kids who qualify in our Title 1 schools such as Lincoln Eliot.

So my estimate of $500K is pretty solid. And is accompanied by the precise model used.

Geoff, actually your group is seeking $9.2M in new spending for the Newton Public Schools, for new buildings and teachers and a laundry list of new spending projects.

Your group is trying to say that 538 non-resident school represent a cost of $500K annually while hundreds of new Newton kids require $9.2M/year in new education spending beyond the limitations of Prop 2.5.

Boston saves at least $7.5M annually from sending 404 Boston resident children to Newton. How exactly can Boston save $7.5M annually from sending 404 Boston resident children to Newton yet only cost $500K to Newton?

1.Yes - we are seeking problem solving funds
2. The new education spending is pegged at $4.5M/year, not $9.2M and includes added staff and modular expansions. Those numbers are calculated from exactly the same source as I calculated the METCO costs. It's consistent. It's transparent. And you should try to poke holes in my specifics to be helpful here.
3. What matters is our cost. What matters is our budget. Also, when calculating the Boston savings, you need to use the incremental costs, not the overall average costs. That makes a huge difference. And we get substantial reimbursements. That accounts for all of the differences.

Take a look at my calculation in my prior post and let's work through that. That's the one the proves METCO costs us $500K/year.

Geoff, WRT your responses, you need to start smelling what you've been shoveling.
1. So are we. We believe that there are opportunities to raise funds from sources other than the taxpayers and voting for these three overrides will make it so you remaining unwilling to consider our proposals.
2. Actually, you are seeking $9.2M/year. Between the school buildings and the other programs, that totals up to $9.2M/year. Stop trying to word-smith and lawyer-ball.
3. What matters is that we incur over $7M/year in costs to educate 538 non-resident school children in Newton Public Schools.

If Newton didn't have 538 non-resident kids in the Newton Public Schools, it would offset the vaunted enrollment growth your group has been bleating.

MNF,

I can count - and we don't incur $7M/year to educate 538 non-resident school children.

That is completely and utterly incorrect. I have provided you the precise calculation, so you can check it in detail, but you won't engage.

The bottom line is that we have to rigorously estimate costs and plan based on that.

The city has done so. The schools have done so. And we have a solid base from which we can proceed.

When you pluck numbers out of the air you remind me of the past city administrations which got us into this trouble by mishandling facility planning and budgets.

We have moved on from that and the facts that I am shoveling smell like roses to me.

It's been a real relief since my election in 2007, opposed by almost every elected official in the city, to see the dramatic turn around in this city.

That is what encourages me. That is what we should appreciate.

And when those turnaround folks call on us to invest in our city to solve some real problems, I am happy to answer the call.

I have yet to make a better investment of my $360 than for this override investment in Newton.

My son is heading to college this Fall, but this city means a great deal to me and it remains my highest priority to ensure that its education system continues to be strong and vibrant so our kids can excel and build a great future.

"and we don't incur $7M/year to educate 538 non-resident school children."
And yet you want us to spend $9.2M/year on new buildings, teachers and other programs because we're projecting a few hundred more Newton kids.

"When you pluck numbers out of the air" Actually, we got the bulk of our model's data from your boss Claire Sokoloff. If we didn't get the aid figures your group touts, we'd be pushing for over $10M/year.

"the facts that I am shoveling smell like roses to me." We think that those "roses" have wilted

"I have yet to make a better investment of my $360 than for this override investment in Newton." If these three extravagantly expensive overrides fail, there is nothing stopping you from contributing that $360/year to the Newton Schools Foundation. The problem with tax-grabbers like yourself is that you want to force us to pay more taxes to absolve the city of its past record of fiscal flab. Why hasn't BNF pursued the idea of money from naming rights or reimbursements from Boston and other towns with as much vigor? We think it is because they want to take the path of least resistance and force thousands of unwilling taxpayers to pay more simply because they were able to convince 50% +1 people to support this act of legalized theft.

Let's vote.

MNF - It's become abundantly clear that you have no real, in-depth understanding of the complexity of these issues. All you have is a bunch of numbers and spreadsheets and conclusions based on false premises - and lots of catch phrases from the FOX News/Howie Carr playbook.

Really? Would the experience of the non-resident children suffer in any way if the City of Boston sent us a $7.5M/year check each year for educating their children in our school system?

Getting the City of Boston to send us a $7.5M check is not a practical strategy.

At best, they'd do the math and might be persuaded to send us $500K.

In the end, we have to have a plan that will work.

The YES campaign articulates a plan that works.

The NO campaign seems to have no plan for fixing our buildings or handling the incoming student population wave.

YES x 3 on March 12th propels us on a positive path where we'll see real progress.

The YES campaign seeks to reward sound planning & execution, fiscal prudence and transparency by investing in a great team who will do even more remarkable things in the next 4 years as they continue to solve tough problems with creative solutions.

What better place to invest than in your own city, for your own community and all of our kids?

We will see a remarkable return on investment if we vote YES x 3 on Tuesday, March 12th.

"The YES campaign seeks to reward sound planning & execution, fiscal prudence and transparency by investing in a great team who will do even more remarkable things in the next 4 years as they continue to solve tough problems with creative solutions."
The YES Campaign's message to voters is simple: B.O.H.I.C.A.

The NO Campaign tells Mayor Warren words mean things. You said that you have more to do, then do it, instead of pursuing higher office.

"What better place to invest than in your own city, for your own community and all of our kids?" We paid taxes to preserve the quality of our city, community and schoolchildren but the many was spent on lavish pay and benefits for government workers.

"We will see a remarkable return on investment if we vote YES x 3 on Tuesday, March 12th." Is that why home sales and prices slipped in January?

MNF

I think we have each argued our case as well as we can. How about we take a break?

If the YES side wins on Tuesday, I'll shout you a can of Fosters and a jar of Vegemite.

If the NO vote wins on Tuesday, I'll pledge my annual tax increase of $360 to the Newton Schools Foundation for their technology campaign until technology is properly funded in Newton.

Why aren't Sokolove, Hills, Yeo, Pitter, Ross-Decter, and Siegel speaking out on the Patch? I occasionally see comments from Fisher-Gomberg, but where are the rest of the School Committee and 23 Aldermen who are waving the YES signs in everyone's faces? Leaving it all up to Epstein to defend the BNF message on the Newton Patch? He must be getting pretty tired being the only one out here sticking up for the other 29 elected officials ENDORSING these overrides!

Geoff, you are indeed a man of honor and high moral standards, I as well will pledge my $360 to NSF should the overrides go down in defeat; pro-rata share for each question ($120. per question). I hear that there are already folks lined up for sc ward 1 seat.. I also suggested to Laredo that since he is so hopped up on the overrides and seeing that he, like so many other sc members before him have been seated on the BOA that perhaps his continuing campaign for education should role model his salary being donated to NSF as well. A dour facial expression ensued, having to put money where his mouth is was not something he expected..

Hi Harry,

That's great! You've always been good company. Thanks for the support.