Sign up to receive Ward and political newsletters by email here.
This newsletter covers Indigenous Peoples Day on Monday, info on how/when/where to vote in the November municipal election, my endorsements for City Council this year, and my latest public memo on the use of one-time funds in Newton.
Indigenous Peoples Day
The 3rd Annual Indigenous Peoples Day Ceremonial Celebration in Newton will be held this Monday, October 9, 2023 from 11 AM–5 PM ET at Albemarle Field, Newton MA: “Each year, we celebrate & amplify Indigenous peoples & voices on Indigenous Peoples Day in Newton, MA. All are welcome to this free, family-friendly, Indigenous-led, volunteer-run event to enjoy great music, check out cultural dances & presentations, meet local Indigenous vendors & non-profits, & eat delicious food.”
It has been a huge hit with a big attendance the past two years and is rapidly cementing itself as one of the fixtures of community life each fall in Newton.
November Election Voting Information
Mail-in voting begins this coming week for the Tuesday, November 7th, 2023 municipal elections to the Newton City Council (and for the entirely uncontested School Committee).
Election Day Hours at your normal polling location are 7:00am-8:00pm. If you plan to vote by mail (including using the dropboxes outside City Hall), your ballot must be received by 8 PM closing time on November 7th. There will also be Early Voting Hours at City Hall, 1000 Commonwealth Ave:
Saturday October 28th, 2023: 11:00am-5:00pm
Sunday October 29th, 2023: 11:00am-5:00pm
Monday October 30th, 2023: 9:00am-8:00pm
Tuesday October 31st, 2023: 8:30am-5:00pm
Wednesday November 1st, 2023: 8:30am-5:00pm
Other important dates for the November 7, 2023 Election:
Saturday, October 28 at 5:00 pm - Deadline to register to vote.
Tuesday, October 31st at 5:00 pm - Deadline to apply for a vote by mail ballot.
Endorsements for the City Council Elections
In addition to asking for your vote for a third term on the Newton City Council, I am endorsing several other City Councilors. These endorsements don’t mean we all agree on every issue, but they do reflect my assessment that I would have an easier time collaborating on Council business with these candidates than with the alternatives running in the same races.
Anyone registered in Newton can vote for City Councilors running at-large, and you can vote for up to two at-large candidates in each ward. I’m supporting:
Councilors Deb Crossley and Andreae Downs for Ward 5-at-Large, re-election
Councilors Alicia Bowman* and Vicki Danberg* for Ward 6-at-Large, re-election
There are no other races for Ward 5 voters to vote in this year, but if you happen to be reading this and live in another ward, I’m also supporting the following ward councilor candidates (you can only vote for one in each ward and only in the ward you live in):
Dan Gaynor for the Ward 2 Open Seat
Doris Ann Sweet* for the Ward 4 Open Seat
Martha Bixby for the Ward 6 Open Seat
Councilor Holly Ryan* for re-election to the Ward 8 Seat
* Full disclosure: These four candidates I have also been providing contracted campaign consulting, training, or management services to this year, and I am doing that because I support them and want them to be elected or re-elected with me this coming term. Campaign consulting is one of my new side activities based on my 15 years of experience in the world of political campaigns and my own successful City Council elections. I have also been providing more informal free training and advice to all the candidates listed above.
I also wanted to note briefly that I’ve heard some voters weren’t really sure what role City Council plays on the quality and stability of Newton Public Schools, and I thought I should mention that briefly. The short answer is that we typically have very little authority to vote on anything related to the schools. The Mayor has 100% control over the amount of money allocated to the Newton Public Schools beyond a state-mandated bare minimum and decides how much or how little to send in that direction. The Superintendent and School Committee decide all the specific spending there and the policy decisions and curriculum matters. That never comes before the City Council. We do vote on some School Buildings and construction issues or on school fields infrastructure, but that’s about it. There are some other points I address in the next section of this newsletter, but that’s quite atypical, and mostly the Council debate on that has been about how to fund the schools better, rather than whether or not to do so. I know many folks are frustrated with the direction of the school system right now, but that’s more of a School Committee issue than a City Council matter, and it happens that for whatever reason this year there are no contested races for School Committee.
My memo to my fellow Finance Committee members regarding proposed operations booster stabilization fund
Following up on my prior public statement on the topic back in August, in the latest Friday Packet of the Newton City Council I have included the following memo, prepared in conjunction with Councilors Bowman, Noel, and Ryan (and after consulting people with experience in municipal finance) regarding my latest assessment of Mayor Fuller’s proposed use of one-time funds, which the Finance Committee has previously rejected, and my suggested alternative spending plan and explanation. This alternative concept has already been rejected by Mayor Fuller, who told me she does not plan to negotiate with us on additional funding to the Newton Public Schools, but I am providing it here so that my constituents and other interested parties can see that there are various options at our disposal to increase funding to the Newton Public Schools between now and the full pre-funding of pension obligations – and that Councilors are willing to find a compromise. If the Mayor’s 8 year plan is voted down in the full City Council, which is expected because it requires a two-thirds majority to pass, the one-time money will remain invested where it is now, earning the same interest or better, until a new use is adopted instead.
Analysis: The proposed operations booster stabilization fund over 8 years is not only extremely fiscally conservative in its assumptions, but it is also too pessimistic and is likely to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. If services continue to crumble from insufficient investment surges and if the NPS funding gap continues to widen, the chances of growing our city revenues permanently, from future override referenda or new growth, diminish. Any proposal ought to be aimed at rapidly restoring public confidence that the city is heading in the right direction and at visibly improving things that are falling apart. Some of this has been addressed with ARPA funding allocations this calendar year, but it has not gone far enough or quickly enough.
There has been discussion of the possibility of a "fiscal cliff" if too much one-time funding is used over too short of a period of time, but we are only trying to bridge a gap of eight fiscal years until the pensions pre-funding has been completed. Not only do we have extraordinary levels of one-time funding now (fairly likely to continue for at least one more fiscal year), but we should also want to get the city politically to a point where voters are willing to approve an operational funding override in between now and 2032. A proposal that makes this less likely, and assumes one will never pass, is making a worst-case scenario more likely, not less likely.
Additionally, Newton has options to ease a potential crunch between now and 2032, if we are willing to stop thinking inside one particular box. Many communities slow down their contributions and extend the self-imposed deadline closer to the state deadline as they approach full funding. This would buy additional general fund resources back in a particularly challenging year towards the end of the eight years. "Guidelines" around the use of the Rainy Day Stabilization Fund can also be relaxed temporarily as a "break glass in case of emergency" situation before the completion of pension pre-funding, if it is actually necessary to avert a fiscal cliff for a couple of fiscal years, rather than tying up tens of millions of dollars in a fund that is anticipated to "never" be used under any circumstance. There is little point in using the Rainy Day account to buy a higher bond rating if we've let the city fall apart in the meantime. Those funds can be replenished later.
One time funds and short-term revenues can be deployed in a fiscally responsible manner in short bursts of funding surges and operational coverage over the coming 8 years, whether or not there is significant new growth from development. This is especially true in view of recent repeated underestimates of revenues by a significant margin.
It is not necessary to lock in fiscal choices inflexibly over multiple Mayoral terms. Whoever holds the Mayor's office in the next two terms should have choices on how to manage the final six year crunch period.
Proposal: Below is an alternative proposal for the one-time funds of $26 million from Eversource and unanticipated interest income, with a roughly 67% or 70% split in favor of NPS...
Funding Surge: FY24-26 (i.e. immediate, not starting next fiscal year) short-term funding surges, to complete the rest of this Mayoral term and get caught up on deferred maintenance:
- NPS Charter Maintenance rises to $5 million per year for 3 fiscal years ($800,000 more per year for $2.4 million total new money) -- but the School Committee must level-fund their baseline charter maintenance for the fiscal years to qualify for this extra money, or some similar mechanism. This will improve working and learning conditions and boost community morale and confidence.
- Public Buildings Sub-75K Projects budget grows to $3 million per year for 3 fiscal years ($1.14 million more per year, which is $3.42 million total new money) -- this will visibly improve quality of life in little ways around the entire city.
- Triple the DPW traffic calming/road safety projects budget to $1.05 million per year for 3 fiscal years (for $2.1 million total new money) -- we get these public requests constantly and can't keep just doing one project per year, and we need to do more than just a few random bumpouts. This will shift public opinion to the city moving in the right direction on key safety priorities. These projects also tackle citywide congestion by smoothing out traffic flows better at complex intersections and other locations. (As a reminder, ARPA funds are being currently deployed toward paving projects more generally, so this is a specifically different proposal.)
- Surge the Parks & Rec Fields Maintenance budget to $1 million per year for 3 fiscal years ($700,000 more per year for a total of $2.1 million in total new money) This would help get more grass fields back to good condition and faster. This will save resources longer-term.
- Fully fund NewMo at the prior highest service levels for 3 years to continue developing the service and buy us time to develop a permanent financing plan. (I think without grant funding this is around $1 million new money altogether for 3 years, but I am not sure precisely. The line item said something like $350,000 to $275,000 in various years and I don't know if that included grants or not.)
Projects & maintenance catch-up is an especially good use of interest income because the inflation and rate changes that created that money have also eaten away at the purchasing power of dollars going to maintenance and projects.
NPS Operations: FY25-27 operational funding:
- 100% of remainder of the $26 million to supplement NPS allocations over 3 fiscal years, potentially could be supplemented with additional funding from other free cash reserves. (If there's an argument for longer than 3 years that is fine, but 8 years is too long, even if it's based on getting to the 2032 pensions cutoff.)
- This amount should entirely close the NPS budget gap for 3 fiscal years, and then (if there still has not been an override passed or significant new growth) the Mayor and Superintendent and School Committee in the next Mayoral term can make appropriate decisions on whether to make cutbacks or continue strategically deploying one-time funds (or tap into other funds) in the remaining years of pressure during pension pre-funding. The goal is to get to 2032 if that year doesn't get pushed out further. But making pre-emptive cutbacks now, especially to critical intervention and catch-up programs to address learning effects from the recent pandemic does not make sense.
- Just as we have obligations to our retirees (which we are in no danger of failing to meet), we also have obligations to our students and to our educators now.
- Any interest earned on the funding earmarked for the surges can also be applied to the longer-term operational plan.
- Other one-time funding sources coming in this year and probably next year can potentially be used to top this off for even longer, but let's start with this amount for this duration.
Final observations: Any proposal needs to be completely disentangled from the pensions and [NPS contributions] not based in any way on pension contribution figures. [Newsletter clarification for those who didn’t watch the Finance Meeting: The Mayor’s plan includes an automatic reduction to NPS if pension contributions get reduced.] That's a dealbreaker. It should be re-docketed since the original docket item mentions pensions.
There are multiple pathways to fiscal responsibility with City of Newton and NPS resources and obligations. Politics cannot be separated from the long-term health of city finances, and they shouldn't be. NPS deserves enough funding and the current proposal on the table is not enough. As a City Councilor, I am also keenly aware that we need to avoid cannibalizing funding to city-side services as a means to provide sufficient funding to NPS for operations and maintenance, but we are in a fiscal position where that is not the problem currently facing us.