The Override – Critical Town Vote Coming

Last year only 10.957% of registered Brookline voters participated in our May 2014 local elections.

On the one hand, I’ll never cease to be impressed by the amount of time some residents volunteer to make our Town government work. It’s no less than staggering. But I can’t reconcile that with voter turnouts of 11% and less for local elections. It doesn’t compute how a few can be so involved when others can’t find the few minutes it takes to vote. This May 5th, not only are two Selectmen seats, three School Committee seats, and various Town Meeting seats up for grabs—but there is also an important vote affecting the education of our young people. If we’re going to get local government right, we all have to be more present.

I suspect part of the problem is that most Brookline residents don’t fully understand the issues at stake. That’s one of the reasons I wanted to report on this year’s elections, in particular the all-important override question—a critical town vote that can’t be fully explained in a few brief sentences. To improve my understanding of the issues at hand, I turned to Vote No proponents Linda Olson Pehlke and Dick Benka and Vote Yes supporters Neil Wishinsky and Rebecca Stone—all four who are on the frontlines of the override question—to give me their educated opinions.

With a little time investment (perhaps as long as it takes to catch up on your latest Facebook updates) you can learn the arguments at the heart of the Vote Yes and Vote No campaigns so you can make a confident and informed decision on Election Day.

The Override

When you go to the Polls, you are going to see two override questions.

Question 1

Shall the Town of Brookline be allowed to assess an additional $7,665,000 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of funding the costs of additional enrollment in the Brookline Public Schools ($6,983,000) and funding the costs of expenditures in municipal departments ($682,000) for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2015?

Question 2

Shall the Town of Brookline be allowed to exempt from the provisions of proposition two and one-half, so called, the amounts required to pay for the bond issued in order to replace and expand the Edward Devotion School?

Why We Need an Override

An override of some form is absolutely critical. Since 2006, the elementary school enrollment in Brookline has increased a staggering 38%.

While there has been no official investigation into why this happened, many attribute the growth to a trend back to urban living, making Brookline an ideal place to live. There is also our school system’s well-earned reputation for academic excellence.

The growth has been mostly constant and continual, the effects of which will hit high school enrollment within just a few years. All sources we spoke to have confirmed the Town needs a new elementary school and a new high school—and time is wasting.

In the last five years, the Town has adopted an “expand in place” strategy to create more elementary school classrooms. There has been a total renovation of the Runkle School, expansion of the Heath School, an addition to the back of the Lawrence School, and next year portable classrooms will be added to the Baker School. In all, 50 classrooms have been added.  While classrooms and hardware have been added, people and programs have not. That is what we’ll be voting on in Question 1. But before we get to Question 1, let’s talk about Question 2.

What to Consider When Voting for Question 2

We’re starting with Question 2 because the Vote Yes and the Vote No Committees for Question 1 both agree voters should vote Yes on Question 2.

Question 2 is a debt exclusion of between $44 million and $49 million to expand the 121-year-old Devotion School to accommodate approximately 1,022 students when it is done. It is important to note that Brookline does not have to pay full freight when building a new school. If the school is built to the Massachusetts School Building Association standards, which all plans submitted for approval do, the MSBA will reimburse Brookline for 23% of the costs. This is factored into the debt exclusion.

What is Debt Exclusion?

According to the Department of Revenue, debt exclusion is “an action taken by a community through a referendum vote to raise the funds necessary to pay debt service costs for a particular project from the property tax levy, but outside the limits under Proposition 2 ½.”

By approving debt exclusion, a community calculates its annual levy limit under Proposition 2½, and then adds the excluded debt service cost. The amount is added to the levy limit for the life of the debt only and may increase the levy above the levy ceiling.

Basically, this means that by voting for debt exclusion we are allowing the Town to tax more than the 2.5% annual tax limit to pay for a particular project, in this case to replace and expand the Devotion School. In general terms, Proposition 2 ½ is state legislation passed in 1980 which forbid municipalities from increasing property taxes by more than 2.5% of the fair cash value of the real estate and personal property within each municipality.

While there is little opposition to the debt exclusion, there are those that question how the Schools are going about things, including Linda Olson Pehlke.

What to Consider When Voting on Question 1

Question 1 is where the battle lines are drawn. This has turned into the biggest Town debate in years, and for good reason. How we vote on Question 1 may affect how the future overrides we’ll be voting on in the next five to seven years will be handled. It’s important to note we are at the tip of the override iceberg. Between new school buildings, expansions, new technology, additional hires, and all the other infrastructure necessary to accommodate the explosion in school enrollment we could be looking at upwards of $400 million in new spending in the next 5-7 years.

If you vote yes you will be approving an override of $7.665 million dollars. Proponents of Vote No support an override of about $2 million to $2.5 million less, and would like a new vote on this lesser override amount.

To help us to better understand what is at stake on Question 1, I talked with:

• Vote No proponents, Linda Olson Pehlke and Dick Benka. Benka is the Co-Chair of Brookline for a Better Override, Co-Chair of the Override Study Committee and a former Selectman. Olson Pehlke is a member of the Brookline Climate Action Committee, Zoning By-Law Committee and Town Meeting Member and honorary non-voting member of the Override Demographics Study Sub-Committee
• Vote Yes proponents, Neil Wishinsky and Rebecca Stone. Wishinsky is a Selectmen and Co-Chair of the Yes for Brookline campaign and Stone is the other Co-Chair of the Yes for Brookline Campaign and School Committee Member. Stone is also a Town Meeting Member from Precinct 3.

See what the Vote No and Vote Yes proponents had to say in, Both Sides of Question 1.

Our Take:

First off, let’s take the straw man arguments out of it. If you vote no it doesn’t mean you don’t care about our kids’ education. If you vote yes it doesn’t mean you aren’t fiscally responsible. Straw man arguments only serve to dissuade conversation and thoughtful debate. Let’s work on the premise that if you care enough to go to the polls to vote on this override, you care about fiscal responsibility and the education of our young people.

This is a tough issue, but BrooklineHub.com leans on the side of Vote Yes with some serious caveats.

We need to tackle the tough decisions in our Town of how we are going to deal with the skyrocketing cost of housing in our community and what are we going to do to make it easier for people on fixed incomes and the middle class to stay in our community.

The fastest growing demographic in Brookline are households that earn over $200K annually. Overrides have a minimal effect on those households and in many cases this demographics’ motivation (perfectly understandable) is to protect their property values and insure their children have the best education money can buy. But we must also consider that in a healthy community made up of seniors and other long-time residents, an override may make it impossible for many of them to stay here much longer. For a community that prides itself in its dedication to diversity and inclusion—including opening up our schools and community to our less affluent neighbors—it’s unseemly to price residents out of our community without first taking a hard look at how we can tackle this problem.

I see no evidence that our School Committee is irresponsible but communication has to improve between the public schools and the rest of the community. The public schools control approximately 57% of the Town’s operating budget so more transparency is necessary. But it is not up to the schools alone to make this happen. Anyone who deals with the schools will tell you, school staff and committee members work around the clock. So an honest discussion must take place, one in which everyone appreciates and respects the dedication of the other and how a few overworked individuals in Town and School governments are carrying the load for our community.

It would certainly help the cause if more residents and business leaders step up and lend a hand.

—R. Harvey Bravman, Publisher