Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2021 The Somerville Times. All rights reserved.
By Jim Thomas
(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries and letters to the Editor of The Somerville Times belong solely to the authors and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville Times, its staff or publishers)
On November 8, Somerville residents will be asked to vote on Question 5, which would allow an override of Proposition 2½ to raise money for a new High School. As a parent of three recent graduates of Somerville High School, I agree that we need a new school. Unfortunately, Question 5 and the current building plan have many significant issues. Here are 5 things to consider on Question 5.
1. Could the city fund a new high school without Question 5?
While city officials clearly want the additional revenue and flexibility Question 5 would bring, we have the capacity to finance a high school project without it. Somerville can already raise taxes 2½% every year without an override, and that revenue is well in excess of the requirements for the project. In addition, new development should be adding to our tax base. Projections for Assembly Square alone were projected for an additional $17 million per year.
The city has published charts showing the tax impact for Question 5 for various types of properties. For example, for an average 2 family the city would levy an additional $4 in 2018; $296 in 2025; and $349 in 2027. What’s unstated is whether the city also plans to also increase taxes to the 2½ cap. If they do, then the total tax increase will be much higher. For 2027, instead of a $349 increase for a 2 family, the total would be $1,826. Figure 1 illustrates this in more detail.
So why would we need Question 5? At its currently planned cost, the project would put a strain on city finances after 2024, when debt payments are scheduled to rise. It could also affect our debt rating.
However, those aren’t the only factors. The city has an ambitious set of city capital spending projects it is planning. While passing Question 5 does make it easier to finance the school, it also frees up capacity to help fund those other projects. So what you are really voting on isn’t just a school – it’s an entire capital spending plan. Shouldn’t we be debating the priority and need for those other projects before voting on this measure? And if any of those other projects are truly critical, the city always has the option of putting them in front of the voters.
(Click to enlarge)
2. Question 5 is regressive
The property tax is regressive – it hits lower and middle income people the hardest. Unlike wealthier communities, Somerville has a very large number of these households. 37% of Somerville households earn a total of $49,000 or less per year. 25% have incomes less than $25,000 per year.
For the affluent, $300 or $400 dollars more per year may not be a big problem. For those living on the edge, it can be a significant portion of their disposable income.
To understand the impact, you also need to consider the large increases in taxes and fees in recent years. Property taxes on condos and single family houses have gone up 43% in the last decade. The tax bill for an average 2 family in Somerville is now about 15% higher than one in Cambridge. That makes it increasingly harder for less affluent families to stay in the city.
3. Question 5 puts pressure on affordable housing
Over time, these tax increases can have a big impact on affordable housing. Much of what’s affordable today is owned by small landlords, often people who bought a two or three family house years ago when prices were much lower. The immediate response to tax increases is to raise rents – that’s not good for tenants. Long term, it increases the pressure for cash-poor residents to move out and sell, reducing the available housing stock. It does us no good if we build a handful of subsidized units if at the same time we lose hundreds of units to condo conversions.
4. The project cost is significantly higher than comparable projects
At a cost of $256 million, the new Somerville High project will be by far be the most expensive high school project in Massachusetts. No project to date has exceeded $200 million. Compared to recently planned high school projects, such as those in Winchester or Billerica, the projected cost for Somerville High is over $100 higher per square foot.
City officials argue that costs have increased significantly in recent years and that the site is difficult and expensive to build on. It seems reasonable that the project may be more expensive, but $100 more per square foot? If we truly believe we can’t do better than this, we should ask our state representatives to start investigating pricing and bidding practices for public construction projects.
5. A defeat of Question 5 does NOT put Somerville High at risk
Some proponents have suggested that if Question 5 is defeated the High School is in imminent danger of losing accreditation, and we won’t be able to get state funding. Neither of these are accurate. Our accreditation is not up for renewal until 2020. If you are at risk, there is a formal warning, and a probation period to rectify any issues. While there were references to the building issues in our last accreditation review, there was no formal warning issued. And Somerville High has shown improving results in recent years. It’s not the kind of poor performing school that is a target for de-accreditation.
Finally, other communities have changed and delayed their school building plans and have still received funding.
If Question 5 is defeated, Somerville could reprioritize other projects and go ahead with the project as is. Or we can delay and come up with a plan whose cost is more in line with other communities.
We should build a new Somerville High, but let’s do it at a reasonable cost, with the needs of all Somerville residents in mind. Yes to a new Somerville High. No to Question 5.
Jim Thomas is a long-time Somerville resident and a former candidate for School Committee.
If you found this article of interest, please consider sharing it.
Thank you for such a thoughtful analysis. Im curious id the tax bil increase assumes a change in the value through assessments or if it holds the values static.
Not a problem for me, it’s a big no to question 5 anyway. City has way too many bloated programs and employees as it is. All this new revenue we are supposed to be generating that was bragged to us we should not have to even discuss this. But my .03% raise this year will not cover it anyway. So no it is.
Excellent opinion piece with facts to substantiate the opinion.
Hi Matt C: The analysis assumes no change in property values. So yes, it was a static value. If the city revalues property it could rise further than this.
All I did was calculate a 2.5% increase every year. Compounding drives the amount up over the years.
Jim Thomas
Does anyone really believe that we need a high school to house 1600 kids? The enrollment is dropping every year. Just look at the graph above and you’ll see that the ‘projected’ costs in Somerville are much higher than the other towns listed. There is absolutely no need to build a 257 million dollar school to educate our kids. Buildings don’t educate kids, people do. Why over the years have we consistently sent kids to MIT, Harvard, Syracuse, BU, etc.?
Vote NO on question 5! Very well said, Jim Thomas. Are there rumors
you’ll be running for mayor next?
To your point # 5, SCATV’s Joe Lynch made it clear at the Ward 5
ResiStat meeting that there is NO accreditation woe. Somerville need
only show SOME progress by 2020. We don’t need this vast expense. Many of us remember the original price for the Big Dig in Boston, so
with all the other Somerville projects from City Hall, is this going to be
Somerville’s Big Dig?
If City Hall wanted $0, there is still the gentrification problem. Property
values are still increasing by at least 10% per year, and that’s a
conservative estimate. With property tax assessments every 3 to 5
years, there’s potential for property values to increase by 50%
between assessments. Property taxes and rents go up, rents especially
so. And with developers beating down everyone’s door trying to get
them to sell up, the resulting condo conversions push prices even
higher. And did we forget the additional $50 million that Somerville
owes for the GLX project? So property taxes and rents are going to
be how high even without a new high school?
But Somerville did get $10 million for the Powderhouse School which
will take 150 to 250 kids from grades 8 through 12, both full and part
time, and this will take pressure off the High School. This begins in
September, 2018.
Vote NO on Question 5.
Well said Jim. What people also don’t seem to realize is how vague the language is for Question 5.
“Shall the City of Somerville be allowed to exempt from the provisions of proposition two and one-half, so-called, the amounts required to pay for the bond(s) issued in order to design, engineer, construct, and equip the new Somerville High School?”
It appears, if this passes, the city can borrow more than the $150 million they are saying it is going to cost. Who on this Board will object to shelling out more money 5/10 years from now? Newton North HS, the most expensive in the state, cost almost twice as much as initially projected. Does anyone think 257 million will be the final cost? It’s going to cost a whole hell of a lot more than $257 mil, I can guarantee it! No municipal contract of this magnitude has ever stayed on budget, or god forbid, under budget!
What about the $240 a year I’m now paying for water service? Where is the $50 million for the GLX coming from? That’s great that we have a brand new $500 million office complex at Assembly Row, right? The problem is the people who own it don’t have to pay real estate taxes! Partners Healthcare is a “Non-Profit”, just like Tufts, we get $1.1 million a year when they should be paying $10 million. I say NO MORE!
On Tues. Nov 8th I will be RUNNING to my polling center to vote NO on this one.
Mr. Thomas has very interesting points to make about city revenue and
expenditures, but his charts assume that the only thing the City of
Somerville is paying for in the next 30 years is Somerville High
School. But while Somerville High School is the largest single item
that Somerville might ever fund, it certainly isn’t the only one.
There are pensions to fund, healthcare costs associated with retiring
municipal workers, unexpected winter storms like February ’14, and
other capital needs like our libraries. Somerville’s budget can handle
all of these challenges, and keep the city’s current bond rating, but
only if Question 5 is passed. Without Question 5, Somerville can’t pay
$136M for a new high school, and meet its other obligations, which
will lead to potential cuts in core services such as education,
police, or fire.
Our campaign has been very clear- the numbers being used for the cost
of the new high school are using are a ceiling, not a floor, and as
the project proceeds the impact on taxpayers can be mitigated through
the use of other funding sources. The city isn’t required to use the
full debt exclusion amount in any given year if the Mayor and the
Board of Alderman decide to use extra revenue to pay down the high
school bonds instead of using property tax revenue. Making sure that
happens is something that Somerville voters will have a chance to do
in the meetings and elections in years to come, but without Question
5, that won’t happen.
We need to pass Question 5 because the risk to our city’s finances,
and our city’s public education system, is too great not to do it.
Thomas is right and is remarkably conservative in his financial projections. The cost of living in a Somerville with a Pierantozzi high school will be more – and be more than the money itself.
Question 5 was framed before the water bill, before the Powderhouse Studios success, before the $50,000,000 extortion by Charlie Baker, and before the recent round of evictions and displacement, empty stores held by crooked speculators, and the city’s conquest by quick greed over responsible growth. It ignores the need to build a new police and fire station, and lead pipe infrastructure to save the next generation. Question 5 is for a high school that will be out of date by the time it’s built, and hold back generations of Somerville kids much like the current school has done. Schools like the one proposed just shroud tradition while it should inspire the future. It will ignore the value of its location, adjacent to a new transit system costing over $2billion, and equidistant from the largest employers in the region, MIT and Tufts. It will ignore the remarkable growth of incubators for new companies and industries. In ignoring Tufts, MIT, the MBTA and the incubators, it ignores the innovation economy that our children face, and cheats both kids and local industry from partnering with innovators, Question 5 is already an antique.
And the Committee for Somerville’s Future ought to have some names associated. Hiding names in this kind of dialog is like hiding email at the FBI. Authority requires responsibility, and shell game dialog only hides the fools behind their faulty message. If they believed what they were saying they would have signed their response.
Hi Campaign for Somerville’s Future
It appears the city can raise several times the revenue it needs to fund the school just from regular 2 ½% increases – the analysis does not assume the high school is the only expense we have.
I hope that you are not saying that future annual 2 ½% tax increases are all already spent. We’ve known about the high school project for years. Shouldn’t we have included it in our planning rather than assuming it’s an “extra?”
We won’t have a cash flow problem till 2024 – 8 years from now. What are the new revenue projections from Assembly Square and other developments for that period? We were told that project was going to generate $17 million per year. It’s not there yet, but where will it be in 8 years?
On the idea that we might spend less than what is currently planned, our recent record on school projects is poor. The East Somerville Community School was delayed for years. The cost of the new Argenziano school went up 50% after we had approved it.
Outside of the fairness issue to low and middle income people, the big issue here is why the cost of this building is so far out of line. Billerica is building a school for a slightly larger number of students for $175 million. Our is $256 million.
Our site may be more difficult, but that’s an $80 million dollar difference. We need better answers than “it’s on a hill so it’s going to be more expensive” – its’ just not credible.
You have to wonder if it’s the site that’s really driving cost or if having a separate pile of money via the override caused us to be less disciplined in the design choices that we made.
What could we do with $80 million? The Argenziano school cost $35 million to build. The funding for the Green Line is $50 million.
Last month Waltham decided to delay and rethink its High School building project. City officials were quoted: “we want to get it right.”
That’s what we should do here – reject Question 5, rethink project assumptions and come up with a better plan that gives build the students a new school, and is more respectful to the financial situation of low and middle income residents.
Tapped Out,
I agree about the vague wording of this question. But that’s because it’s intentionally vague. All it mentions is the High School and nothing else.
Too often we are given misinformation or not enough information when it comes to what the city wants to do, simply because they are trying to get as much money from us as possible, any way they can.
Like a child that wants something he knows he won’t likely get, the question is asked in such a way that it doesn’t tell the whole story in order to encourage us to agree to it.
If the Mayor had put us first by committing to the High School over the GLX, we wouldn’t need to have this question raised at all; and if Question 5 instead said the exemption was for the GLX, I wonder how many of us would be that quick to vote yes.
I won’t do the city’s work…NO from me, too. Let them come up with a solution that doesn’t suck even more out of us.
I hope that most residents aren’t sucked in by this question and are directed to read this article. We need more people like Mr. Thomas, presenting all their facts in a clear and precise way so that we can make informed decisions.
I did not write the reply above, but am fine with having my name associated with the Campaign for Somerville’s Future.
This is a good discussion – there have been several good points raised, but none of them would be a reason to vote ‘No’ on 5. A ‘Yes’ vote authorizes an override of Prop 2.5 to fund the high school (only). An override will be needed in just about any conceivable scenario. But the Board of Aldermen still need to approve the actual financing plan. When the BOA takes this up I would hope there will be a robust debate about how the high school is being funded, and critically, how it fits into a long term capital spending plan for the city.
I would advocate for voting ‘Yes on 5’ , and also continuing to look closely at the details of the financing plan while also advocating for a long term capital spending plan.
There is no doubt the cost is enormous, but this is the most important investment that can be made in the future of the city. There is general agreement that the current high school is in awful shape. Renovation is estimated at $100M+, with no state reimbursement available. Building a new school is estimated at $256M, but the state reimburses half of that, making the cost to taxpayers comparable. We could debate whether renovation really would cost $100M, but that has already been debated for years and that ship has already sailed. The 256M cost reflects the difficulty of phased construction and building a new school on a hill, on top of the current one, while keeping the school open and functioning. Jim Thomas questions whether these construction challenges would add millions to the cost compared to construction on an empty field – the answer is absolutely it would. If this was a suburban greenfield there is no doubt it would cost much less. But it is not, and the built up city we have is what we have to work with.
The estimate is in future dollars, reflecting an estimate of actual construction cost, and was established by a reconciliation of three independent cost estimates. A ‘Yes’ vote does not obligate the city to spend this much – if savings can be found, or if we go into a recession and construction gets cheaper, then it will cost less. Of course, there is also some risk that it will cost more. The way to mitigate this risk is not to vote ‘No’, but to vote ‘Yes’ and then for voters to hold the city accountable to making it happen as promised.
A ‘yes’ vote would allow design to continue on the current scheme and construction to take place as planned. A ‘no’ vote would send planners back to the drawing board – even if a somewhat cheaper scheme was somehow found (many other options have already been evaluated and rejected), the cost of construction escalation as a result of a delay would likely mean that the total project cost would still be in this range. And a delay would mean a few more years worth of kids have to go to school in an outdated and inadequate building.
Somerville High students and teachers continue to do great things in spite of facilities that are less than good. Imagine what they will do with modern, well designed facilities that reflect the value we as a community place (or should place) on education.
I find it a little disturbing to find out this morning that
the mayor’s proposal for the payment of the $50 million
GLX money will be presented to the BOA on Thursday,
Nov 10th [ AFTER the election day votes, and Question 5
in particular ], and that the public meeting for this will be
Thursday, Nov 17th, at 7 pm, in the Aldermen’s Chambers
at City Hall. Shouldn’t we have been informed about the
monies for the High School and the GLX at the same time,
and both BEFORE election day?
So that’s a solid vote ‘NO’ on Question 5 until we find out
what this $50 million GLX business is about. Is this why the
mayor and the aldermen all voted themselves big pay
increases this year, so they could earn more and say less?
Whatever City Hall will say about this, the GLX presentation
should have been before election day. Vote NO on Question 5.
Campaign for Somerville’s Future – the figures shown above are based on the current tax base and assessments and does not include net new growth, increases in property value assessment or special redevelopment area taxes.
Just as a reminder from 2015-2016:
– residential values increased at 6% year on year
– commercial at 5% year on year
This combined with a prop 2.5 override is the cause of such consternation.
(http://www.somervillema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fy2016-property-tax-update.pdf)
Tim,
Thanks for the thoughtful discussion.
You were questioning whether the cost comparison is fair between Somerville and a suburban greenfield. The comparable projects I reference aren’t greenfields – Billerica is building on their existing site and is demolishing their existing school. There are references in the MSBA project summary to asbestos and contaminated soils. Winchester, another (and much lower cost) project is doing a gut job of their existing structures down to concrete slabs and columns. These projects have many of the same kinds of expenses for demolition, temporary classroom arrangements etc. as we will.
I accept we will have additional costs, but I have a hard time believing a $100/square foot difference is just due to site constraints.
On the three estimates – now I’m curious on the methodology. It sounds like you may have some expertise in this area. I’ve heard repeatedly that the estimates were within 5% of one another. The implication is the estimates are therefore good. Possible. Another possibility is that the estimates are based on similar methodology and same data sources – if so, then are we just getting the same thing three times over?
A few years back I looked into the cost overruns at the Argenziano school. I was shocked at how estimates were generated . (Note: the cost for this school went up over 50%.) Without getting into the minutia, it sounded like there was a lot of estimating based on ratios and indexes and surprisingly little based on actual details. I hope it’s improved since then. Based on prior experience it’s hard not to be skeptical.
On going back to the drawing board, it’s by no means unheard of. Waltham is in fact doing that now. They just delayed their high school project a year in the interest of “getting it right.” Maybe we should do the same.
I know facilities are an emotional issue for people. Facilities do count, but they aren’t what makes a good education – the staff, curriculum and the culture of the school do. (I had three kids go through the high school not too long ago so I am speaking from personal experience here.)
The important thing here is to get it right – both from the standpoint of what we build, and also what’s fair to the low and middle income people in the city. I agree we need a new building – I just don’t agree that we’ve gotten it right yet.
I realize property price increases are a contentious subject, but don’t underestimate the increase that a new high school will have on your property values. It will by far exceed the tax hit.
#noon5, enrollment in Somerville elementary schools is increasing rapidly, we were listed as a top 10 district in the state for enrollment growth by the Globe last year. As a parent here I can tell you that far fewer families leave the schools for the suburbs compared to 5 years.
Let’s walk though your points one by one:
1. No, the city could not fund a new high school without a debt exclusion. Doing so would imperil the services the city currently provides to its residents.
You are correct that the city will continue to increase the total property tax collected by the maximum 2.5 percent annually. The idea that the yearly increase in tax revenue could be dedicated to building a new high school ignores the basic inflationary pressures on the city budget. Since inflation runs at a historic average of 3.25 percent a year, the city loses fiscal ground even with the 2.5 percent increase in property taxes. Increases in employee healthcare, pension and other fixed costs are largely responsible for budget growth. Funding a new high school out of the city’s current revenue stream would require escalating cuts to police and fire, to elder and veteran services, and, ironically, to the schools to name a few. You dismiss this as a “strain on city finances” that “could also affect our debt rating”. Additionally, aid from the Commonwealth makes up over twenty percent of the city’s operating budget leaving the city vulnerable to state politics and budget woes. With a budget stretched funding a new high school, any cuts to local aid would be catastrophic for Somerville.
You ask, “So why would we need Question 5?”. With a guaranteed state reimbursement, Question 5 will allow Somerville to build a far better school than if the city tried to go it alone. Question 5 also separates the debt for the new school from the city budget giving future administrations the flexibility to reduce taxes. Your graph fails to show what happens with the Question 5 tax after 2027. It stays the same for the next twenty years before tailing down to zero. Over those twenty years, it becomes a diminishing proportion of the total property tax burden.
Finally, you assert that passage of Question 5 will unleash a wave of capital investment by the city. I hope so! Decades of no investment have left Somerville’s public buildings in an embarrassing state of disrepair. Our public safety building and fire houses are in serious need of renovation or replacement. Our libraries need to be modernized and expanded to meet the needs of the community. For a more efficient government, city hall needs to be renovated and all the various city offices and programs, currently scattered across the city, consolidated on Central Hill.
2. Property taxes are consumption taxes and by definition regressive. They differ from taxes on most consumables like fuel in that property taxes are based on an appreciating asset, the consumption of which can’t be easily reduced. The federal, state and city governments provide several ways (federal property tax deduction, senior circuit breaker tax credit, residential exemption, Clause 41A Tax Deferral, Clause 18/18A Hardship Tax Deferral) to reduce the impact of rising property taxes on middle and lower income home owners.
You are right that Somerville is no Duxbury or Weston. We are not a rich community but Somerville’s demographics are not that much different from Cambridge’s. Cambridge home owners pay less tax while enjoying greater services for the simple reason that their city has, by any measure, an exceptionally large commercial tax base. How Somerville has failed to capitalize on the economic activity being generated by its neighbor is a rant for another time!
You cite a lot of statistics. One that you fail to mention is that of the fifteen percent of Somervillians living in poverty, one in five lack a high school diploma. Almost another two fifths have little or no education or training beyond high school. One of the key indicators of whether someone will be trapped in poverty is their level of educational attainment. The new high school will house the Next Wave/Full Circle programs currently located at the Edgerly, a building as dilapidated as the current high school but without the charm. These alternative programs are aimed at keeping at-risk kids in school. Being located in the new high school means these students can take better advantage of an expanded vocational training program and finally feel like full members of their community. The new high school will also house a CHA teen health center and other programs to support kids living on the edge and allow them to graduate high school with marketable skills.
For the diverse group of students, many from limited means, Somerville High sends to top tier colleges every year, a new high school would mean modern science labs, classrooms that aren’t cramped and uncomfortable, and 21st century technology. While it’s true building don’t educate kids, it is wrong to continually ask these kids to achieve in spite of the building they’re in.
But really, the underlying theme of your second point is that Question 5 is being pushed by the “affluent” for whom a few hundred dollars is mere pocket change. If that were so, these folks would be sorely disappointed to find there are no plans to add courses on French cheese appreciation or the finer points of croquet to the high school catalog.
3. As I pointed out above, Question 5 would be a diminishing contributor to the growth of property taxes. Rising assessments driven by demand have been and will continue to put pressure on housing affordability. A zoning code with a preference for small condos over family appropriate housing exacerbates this problem. No decent person would suggest that one way to keep Somerville affordable would be to make it more dangerous by neglecting our police and fire departments. Most people would find such an idea morally reprehensible. People should feel the same about neglecting our schools.
4. You are right that at $256 million, the new Somerville High School would be the most expensive Massachusetts school project to date. However, your comparisons are less than fair. Billerica is building an entirely new structure on a flat, easily accessible site. Winchester is reusing large portions of the existing 1970s era building which is in an easily accessible location.
A more apt comparison would be the new Stoughton High School, which, at a little over half the size of the new Somerville High, still has a project cost of $570 per square foot. North Middlesex Regional High School, which is on accreditation probation because of the condition of its failing fifty year old building, is constructing a new school for only 870 students at a cost of $530 per square foot. In Lexington, Minuteman Regional Vocational Technical School recently received approval for a new building to replace their current forty year old one. The school for 680 students would cost about $600 per square foot. Finally, Newton North High School, the construction of which caused a complete revamp of the Commonwealth’s school building process, would, if built today, cost at least $540 per square foot. The new Newton North replaced a school built in 1973. With most of the building nearly or over a century old, I think Somerville has more than gotten its money’s worth.
5. The overwhelming majority of schools seeking funds from the state are not under accreditation warning or probation. At Somerville High School’s last review, the accreditors indicated that the school’s accreditation would be at stake unless concrete plans were in place to address the building’s serious deficiencies. City officials should be applauded for being proactive on this issue. It’s just commonsense that it is cheaper and the end result better to deal with problems before they become a crisis.
By Massachusetts School Building Authority policy, a failed vote to secure funds for a proposed project will most likely result in the school district being required to restart the whole multi-year process. Districts early on in the process, like Waltham, may change or delay their plans. Waltham is actually taking time to study a more expensive high school option.
Last year, nearly one hundred proposals were submitted to the MSBA. Fewer that thirty were approved for funding. If Question 5 fails, Somerville would go back to the end of the line.
Finally, if Question 5 is defeated, what projects could Somerville reprioritize to build a new high school? New public safety building? Renovated West Branch Library? Renovated parks and playing fields? Storm water management? Unlike the volumes of design documents and cost analysis for the new high school, all publicly available, your plan is lacking for details and is full of assumptions.
Hi SomervilleSwift
Good discussion, thanks. Here are responses to your points.
1) Can’t fund without an exclusion: a) the big need for funds starts in 2024. We have a large development plan in Assembly Square and elsewhere. What are the expected revenues from these? This was supposed to generate revenue so we did not have to burden homeowners, so what’s the projection? b) We have a school that is $80 million more than a comparable project – have we really tried to keep the cost down, or did the assumption of a separate source of funding cause the planners to be less disciplined. You can do a lot with that kind of money.
2) I appreciate your discussion of the differing economic circumstances in Somerville vs. wealthier communities.
I disagree with your assessment of what drives education. Buildings and facilities do matter but it’s staff, curriculum and the culture of the school that are most important. I had three of my children graduate from the high school in recent years. Sure, better facilities would have benefited them. But as you note, we do send kids to some good schools. On the affluent aspect, that’s purely referring to the ability of someone to pay more, versus someone who is lower income and already financially stretched. It’s not a slam on affluent people. T real the point is that we are building a school for an unnecessarily large sum that is going to burden people – some of whom are already very stretched.
3) Comparables: After a conversation with MSBA staff, I was advised to look at high schools with similar sizes that were programmed recently. The schools you cite don’t really fit the bill. When I asked what schools to look at, none of those were mentioned. Billerica, Waltham and Winchester did come up. Waltham is rethinking and has delayed its project so there are no numbers available that I am aware of.
On Billerica, they are demolishing their existing structure. The MSBA (state agency) notes there are asbestos and soil contamination issues, so it’s not a cake walk. That said, I’m sure it’s still an easier and cheaper site to build on. The question is Somerville’s site so difficult that it will cost us $80 million more? That’s a 45% difference.
The Argenziano school cost $35 million. Our Green line costs will be $50 million. That’ss a lot of money we are talking about. What are the specific costs that we are talking about and has anyone actually costed them out in detail?
Winchester – they are taking the structure down to concrete slabs and columns, yes an existing site, but they still have costs to house students during construction, demolition costs etc. Again, not a real greenfield.
Stoughton: the numbers on the MSBA (state agency) website say $453 per square foot, not sure how you get $570, unless $570 is an old estimate that predates a cost reduction effort. Also, their total project cost is $123 million. At an enrollment of 1,065 that’s a cost per student of $116k. Yes pricey when you compare it to Billerica and Winchester – but an absolute bargain versus our Somerville total cost per student of $161k.
Newton North: I’ve been told repeatedly that we need to compare our project to more recent ones, not older ones like Newton. The documented cost of Newton North was $197 million. What it would cost today is a matter of debate, and what Newton would have done if it was presented with the kind of budget you suggest is also unknown. Side note: the “what would it cost today” estimate you cite is probably based on the same type of indices that were used to justify a surprise 50% increase in the Argenziano school a few years back. That experience did not instill confidence, and is one of the things that has made me question the High School plan. There’s an interesting story there, happy to discuss offline if you are interested.
On getting one’s money’s worth: I think this is about whether you are paying a fair price for what you are getting. On a cost per student or cost per square foot basis our project doesn’t look good.
5) Accreditation: I think you have incorrect information. There’s a lot of hearsay going on about this. Have you actually seen the relevant sections of the last accreditation report from the NEASC? I have. The report does mention the age of the building and issues to maintain it, but they actually commend Somerville for doing a good job maintaining the school. I’m sure the NEASC wants Somerville to build a new building. However, whether we do this specific plan, or do a different plan 6 months or a year from now won’t make a difference on our accreditation. As you note, they want to see is progress and plans – it’s not a binary “do it by x date.” There is a lengthy process for removing accreditation – it includes a warning and probation period. We have not received a warning. Here’s a link to the NEASC that explains the warning and probation process. https://cpss.neasc.org/about-accreditation/faq-about-accreditation#warning
6) I’m interested in building a new school at a reasonable cost. When something looks out of line, we should ask for more accountability. We could debate any number of options to slow or change a capital plan or to look at other expenses. We’ve known for years about the high school project – this ought to have been part of our capital plan and not something we throw on the pile as an “extra.” It’s very disappointing to see this come out at this kind of cost, and as something we decided to fund exclusively through additional tax levies.
Somerville Swift – I can’t agree with you – Today, and for the foreseeable future assessments will be rising well above the rate of inflation (which for the last 10 years has averaged well below 2%)
When you consider the combination of an average increase of assessments in excess of 5% annually and an increase in taxes at 2.5% annually alone the city, for the forseeable future, should be able to more than fund itself without an override. When you include the growth in net new commercial tax revenue as Assembly and other brown fields are built out there should be no issue what so ever.
A cost $570 per square foot to rebuild on the existing site is a complete non starter. the total build cost of the 13 story Partners building in assembly sq with the 6 story garage that houses 4.5k workers cost $465M with a cost per sq. foot of $55/Sq Ft.
I am all for ensuring our students have excellence facilities here in Somerville, but at we need to invest reasonable. The cost at the current location is not reasonable. Accelerating the already rapidly increasing tax burden on the city is not reasonable.
Vote no on 5
LOOK AT THE FILINGS FROM THE YES ON 5 COMMITTEE AT THE CITY’S ELECTIONS DEPARTMENT, and then make your decision. It’s not just the money. Nor just the quality of education which is at stake. It’s also graft and corruption. Some of the players – particularly the contractors contributing $5,000 to 10,000 – have interests they’ve not shared with lists like this one.
Somerville Swift: “How Somerville has failed to capitalize on the economic activity being generated by its neighbor is a rant for another time! ”
I would like to hear that rant for my own info, but not sure where you could write about that.
Somerville Swift: VERY well stated. Case closed! We all vote YES 🙂
Campaign for Somerville’s Future[ CFSF ], you people have no
shame: you use lies, fear, and innuendo to bully the people of
Somerville into voting ‘yes’ on Question 5. But as you are bought
and paid for by City Hall, then where is the surprise? This glossy
flyer of yours is more of the same: you say that “Somerville is
coming together to support the new high school”; but this is a
blatant lie as there are two distinct groups who will vote ‘yes’ and
‘no’ on Question 5. You say you “know this is the best plan” for
the new High School, and this is again a lie, as it’s an assumption
of yours. You line up a list of politicians who endorse the mayor’s
plan in this propaganda of your making to suggest there is no other
answer than to vote ‘yes’. And while most of the aldermen – having
received a 60% pay hike from the mayor this year – endorse City
Hall’s plan, one did not, that being Ward 1 Alderman Matt McLaughlin.
And Representative Denise Provost did not endorse it either. So
while these two are not making a statement – one way or the other –
as to how they will vote on Question 5, they are showing some poise
and dignity by not allowing their names to be attached to this bullying
flyer of yours, and they are showing concern that the folks of
Somerville should be given the time and space to make up their own
minds about this key ballot question. So let’s remember ‘our’ Denise
on election day, and remember that she has shown care and good
judgement in this matter.
As for the mayor, where was his good judgement when affordable
housing was addressed at City Hall this year? Where was the good
judgement to employ – at taxpayer’s expense – a pro-developer
research company which said affordable housing could only be 15%
at the most? And a research company which the aldermen questioned
with their own ‘experts’, and the company’s report was seen to be
biased in favor of developers, those scoundrels who will stop at little
to increase their profit. So the aldermen were able to get to that 20%
affordable housing figure in some cases, but they had to fight City
Hall off to get there. Gentrification is bad enough in this city without
the mayor encouraging it further.
And where is the mayor’s good judgement in submitting his proposal
for the $50 million GLX money after the election on November 10th?
Whatever City Hall will say about this, it’s clear the mayor knows the
framework for this now, and it would have been helpful to all of us in
Somerville to see the ideas for the High School money and the GLX
money at the same time.[ The BOA meeting on the 10th, and the
public hearing on the 17th, are noted in ‘Newstalk’ in this week’s
Somerville Times.]
Thank you Matt and Denise. Thank you for not giving in to CFSF
bully tactics.
I have mixed feelings on this issue. I have read all the comments and thank all for their insight. After having looked at this issue and the comments, I feel compelled to vote NO!
As a commenter mentioned, “when taxes go up, many home owners pass the increase onto their tenants.” I believe this to be true for most homeowners. The issue is as Tim Thomas has explained. One cannot look at Question 5 singularly but in conjunction with other increases within the city and the affect that has on residents. The GLX, the increased water bills, the leasing of the water meters, now the high school, and the increase in taxes based upon higher property assessments! When does it stop? A small item is the parking permits! this year $40 per car, up from $30 per car, what will it be next year. Tickets are the highest around the region for illegal parking like street cleaning and accessed upon residents and become so commonplace it has become a budget item! Where is the relief coming from? As we pass the cost along to tenants, how many families will be forced to leave the city? Will this have an affect on the number of students attending Somerville High? Do we want to build a school for less students than in past years?
The mayor is trying to scare residents into believing we will lose accreditation and is stating that the sale of buildings being emptied will offset some of the costs. However, many of the past sales have not produced significant funds with many going to non profit organizations (like Tufts) so they do not produce any future taxes!
It is simple to say we need a new school so pony up, but let’s put the burden on our mayor and aldermen (who have recently given themselves a hefty raise) to come with a more well rounded bill that includes all increase and costs that homeowners face in the upcoming years. Let them commit to trimming these costs and keeping the costs in-line with what the residents can afford.
Hello Jim,
I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue. To clarify a few of my points:
1. I’m reluctant to think we will be seeing the touted large commercial tax revenues from Assembly, Union or elsewhere. Partner’s contribution will top-out $1.7 million a year. The city is projecting for 2017 new commercial revenues of $3.7 million. With no major for-profit tenants slated for Assembly and US2 pushing back against a greater proportion of commercial development in Union, I don’t see how the city will substantially increase the commercial tax based anytime soon.
Funding with a debt exclusion locks the city administration into a price. Once the BOA approves the proposed bonding amount, the administration would need to go back to the BOA to ask for more money. Overruns could not be hidden in the capital budget like with the Argenziano. Because, I believe, the mayor would be reluctant to publically burn so much political capital, the projected cost is on the high side with large built-in contingencies (~$16 million). Heck, the actual built cost could be less. Anything’s possible – the Chicago Cubs just won the World Series!
2. You are right that what makes a school is the quality of the staff, the depth of the curriculum and the culture it imparts on its students. However, my concern is that the current building is so outdated that it makes it difficult to support a modern collaborative curriculum. I also worry that the state of the facility will make it hard to attract top-notch teachers. The separation of the vocational arts from the rest of the building is particularly antiquated. I attended a suburban high school where the vo-tech kids were bused off to a regional technical high school. These kids were essentially strangers at their own high school graduation. You can’t build an inclusive school culture if a group of students, by choice of study, are separated from their peers.
3. Even though, the MSBA process is very public, it can be challenging to find all the comparable statistics.
For the new Stoughton High School, the $570 per square foot number came from the $123.5 million total project cost divided by the 214,000 square feet of the new building. It appears the $453 per square foot figure you found on the MSBA website is the construction cost per square foot. A slide deck (http://www.stoughtonschools.org/sites/stoughtondistrict/files/pages/stoughton-town-mtg-shs-presentation050216.pdf) from a special town meeting breaks-out a construction cost of $101 million. Excluding the central office costs, which the MSBA will not cover, most likely gets you to the $453 per square foot number.
The Newton North value came from plugging the $197 million into an inflation rate calculator. Since this calculator used general consumer inflation and not construction inflation, the result is probably on the low side. Newton probably got a deal in that, despite having a marquee architect and other extravagances, the school was constructed shortly after the housing crash when material and labor were cheap.
5. I agree that Somerville High School would need to be failing on so many different fronts to lose accreditation. But, a deficient building is cause enough for the NEASC to issue a formal accreditation warning as Arlington and Billerica have found. A warning for a school with a long-time reputation as a “good” school may not be a big deal. A warning for Somerville High School could cause families to reconsider their options.
6. I often look with jealousy across the city line at Cambridge. Not because of Cambridge’s wealth (though that would be nice) but because of their city manager form of municipal government. Cambridge has long term capital plans that it clearly articulates to its residents and efficiently executes. It’s not a perfect place and I’m sure I will get an earful about how Cambridge is as mismanaged, corrupt and chaotic as prohibition Chicago. But the evidence is there in Cambridge’s systematic investment in its schools, libraries, public housing, sports facilities, parks and other infrastructure. For various reasons, Somerville’s capital planning is more ad hoc as opportunities present themselves or crises arise. You propose waiting until Somerville’s political culture changes before embarking on capital projects like a new high school. I don’t believe we should let this present opportunity to build a new high school become a future crisis requiring a new high school to be built.
Hello Matt C,
The city does a poor job of communicating to individual property owners how their properties are valued and why their assessments change year to year. The overall increase on the existing tax base can’t exceed 2.5% annually. It’s how this increase is distributed that causes so much consternation. My theory is the city goes where the money is and where there’s the most sales visibility. Due the limited supply, the selling prices of single family homes have gone up dramatically explaining the rising assessments on those properties. The greatest growth in supply has been condos. Condos also tend to churn more than other properties giving greater insight into their market value.
For the 850,000 square foot Partners building at Assembly, I got a project cost of $547 per square foot. Just for kicks, I looked at the Wynn casino project in Everett. According to the Wynn website, the $2 billion casino and hotel will have a total of 3 million square feet of space. That gives a project cost of $666 per square foot. Read into that number what you will.
Mr. Beckmann,
The filings for the ‘Campaign for Somerville’s Future’ are not yet in the election’s department online database. If you have found something you believe significant, please share it here. Since it is a matter of public record, as long as you represent it accurately, there should be no issue posting it in forums like this.
For the record, I am not associated with ‘Campaign for Somerville’s Future’ in any official capacity. I have children in the Somerville public schools who have so far gotten a terrific education both academically and socially. Given my children’s ages, it is doubtful they will attend the new high school. The kindergartener who lives across the street, the toddler my daughter babysits, the first grader my son walks to school, they are the ones who will benefit from a new Somerville High School.
Somerville Swift,
Although your name reminds me of a (no doubt progenitor) Jonathan, let me assure you that political decisions like new High School often call us away, at least for a while, from our keyboards. The Yes on 5 filing was on Halloween, on Monday, as required by the state. It was five brief pages, and was a breeze to buy for a quarter. Sometimes it helps to look at a source before ranting.
If you had, you would have found McHugh Contractors, which, if you had then checked out online, you would then discover their $12,000,000 agreement with the FBI to compensate for their exploitation of “disadvantaged businesses,” and, if you’d looked a little further, might have discovered the sentencing of the head of their “front” company earlier this year. The comments underscored a view, common in Chicago and similar cities, that “machine” politics was merely getting oiled.
While I definitely do not think our city government has much in common with Mayor Daley’s, it is almost pathetic that you should ignore such a political warning when so much money and so little space is being discussed.
The real financial issue about the new High School is not only cost, or cost-per-foot, but cost-per-student. Although the city has reason to project some modest growth, 22% growth is unrealistic, and a price of $161,000 is high, but a more likely price of $207,000 per student is astronomical, well over twice the cost of the most expensive school ever built in the long history of our Commonwealth. Combined with the scent of a contractor promoting that price disparity, there’s plenty of reason to VOTE NO ON 5.
That certainly does not mean a final vote on a new school, nor does it mean to question the value of a location adjacent to a new subway stop equidistant from MIT and Tufts, for our students to – finally – benefit from our largest regional industry: Higher Education. It just means we should harness those advantages to benefit the students, their families, the colleges, and our city’s newest and most aggressive growth of new businesses.
For that matter, it also does not mean that the opportunity for an appropriate override should be ignored. The projections from the city and from the Yes on 5 group are inadequate, since they do not include the substantial increase of higher taxes on new commercial and industrial development projected with the Green Line extension and increased commercial density at both Red and Orange lines stations. Except for Partners, almost all that growth is based on creating jobs and job space which pays a much higher tax rate, none of those projections include. By 2025 or 2030, Somerville might well be the second or third most commercially intense city in the state, which would/should/could allow for a more rapid pay-down of school bonds.
But, like mistakes like these, let us not ignore the short term high risks involved in relying on existing, tax burdened, moderate income residents. There is no more reason to extort them for a sloppily planned high school than for a Governor’s extortion of $50,000,000 while he subsidizes his Republican voters on the South Shore.
New Information:
Looks like more good discussion – SomervilleSwift, I’ll respond later.
Some new information: I did some additional research with the State authority that provides funding for school buildings. I learned we the state contributes funding only up to $312 per square foot.
Our project is $533 per square foot. That means there is about $64 million of this project that Somerville taxpayers are covering 100% of the cost for.
Don’t forget the 25 million for the orange line station that only 2% of Somerville use to put money into Fric and the 3million a yr we lost with Partners
Hello Jim,
The per square foot cap on reimbursable construction expenses was mentioned during one of the spring building committee meetings. In the way that car ads have the price disclaimer in small print, the MSBA makes little mention of the cap. The cap only applies to reimbursable construction costs not the whole project cost of $533 per square foot. I think of the cap as a reduction of the nominal percentage reimbursement (~75%) from the MSBA. It gets pretty wonky with some construction expenses capped at a percentage of total construction cost and others at per square foot. If you want to test your vision and accounting skills, the Form-3011 (http://www.somervillema.gov/highschool/resources/2016.06.07-SHS-Form-3011-Test-Fit-w-4B-Scenario-REVISED-373K-GSF.pdf) submitted to the MSBA details the various categories and costs. It was also mentioned at this spring meeting that the cap was being increased by $50 if I recall correctly.
Mr. Beckman,
I don’t believe I ranted at you. Rather, I simply asked you to share the findings you had alluded to in your post. Not everyone has the time to go to the elections department for a copy of the filing. And, not everyone may draw the same conclusions as you have from the information. Also, your alarmist tone and implication of hidden nefarious dealings asked for clarification. Often, when someone shouts about surreptitious plots, it is followed by a screed on how fluoridation is a conspiracy to impurify our precious bodily fluids.
Certainly the information about McHugh Construction is disturbing. But, I am more curious why a Chicago based construction firm with a portfolio of primarily Chicago area projects is contributing to the ‘Campaign for Somerville’s Future’. The new high school project has not even gotten to the bidding stage and there appears to be no connection between McHugh and SMMA or PMA. It could simply be that McHugh is contributing to every pro-school building group in greater Boston (or New England for that matter) in order to expand a market they would like to be in. For an almost billion dollar company, it’s short money.
Finally, it is flattering to be mentioned with one of the great satirists of English literature. However, I probably have more in common with Wonderland’s belated Swifty the rabbit in that I just try to stay ahead of the pack.
It passed!! Bring on the new school.
New assessments are in! I’m up 14% in 2017 🙂
Please remind me again why we had to pass an override .
http://gis.vgsi.com/somervillema/
Now to raise the rents big time to pay for it.
Yes, bring on the new school…and more tax burdens for residents…and more debt….thank you.
It’s just sad that, like with the presidential race, people chose to believe the hype rather than the facts because they thought it was going to be better for them.
In both cases, we’ll now just have to wait and see what really happens.
I think we’ll have to see how the Trump election shakes out before going forward with a new high school. There may be an economic shock coming our way, not to mention Trump may pull the plug on the Green Line extension, which will freeze development of all the jobs and tax revenue Somerville was counting on. As they say, elections have consequences.
Hello Jim,
I know this was not the outcome you wanted but I urge you to stay involved in the new high school project. As Jefferson said, “An informed citizenry is at the heart of a dynamic democracy.” I appreciate that we were able to have a civil, fact based conversation about this project. To assure that the project stays on track and the promise of a new Somerville High School fully realized, the city needs informed people like you to keep the process open and honest.
What a huge commitment, i’m proud of our city. Especially a city where the majority of households have no children, this was still approved by a wide margin in the polls. Thank you Somerville, the parents of our city are grateful.
Barbara: I was not a Trump supporter and do not believe everything he said, but one of his promises was to improve infrastructure. I have a feeling that he really meant that one.
I would not be concerned about the election having any interference on this. One thing from my many years of being here and seeing so many elections it is that what is said to win the job has very little to do with what they actually do once in. With each new president it is the end and nothing but doom, but here we are still here. I was opposed to this plan for the school but not the school being built or refurbished or both. I would like to see it done right and the right people being hired for a change.
Hi SomervilleSwift,
Thank you, I appreciate your thoughts and the discussion we’ve had here. I do feel we are paying an unnecessarily large amount for this building and I’m concerned about the cumulative impact of this and other tax increases on low and middle income people in the city, but the vote is done. Not sure about how best to help keep the project on track, would be interested in your thoughts on that.
On the cap, I got $312/square foot off the worksheet Somerville submits to the MSBA – it was in the PSR. To your point, I recall there was some limit to type of construction it applied to (new only?) and the number worked out to $64 million rather than a higher number I’d started with – would have to go back and review the calculations. Yes, it’s wonky and hard to follow!
I’ve started a page on Facebook called AffordableSomerville where I’m collecting issues related to cost of living in the city. I can be private messaged there.