NOW and COMING SOON - $85,000,000 in UNNECESSARY SUDBURY PROJECTS

Sudbury is committed to raising taxes at a shocking 6%+ annual clip. For the past few years, annual Sudbury taxes have increased at more than double the Prop 2 1/2 rate because of overrides and millions in annual capital surcharges on top of the budget – THIS IS OUT OF CONTROL. Sudbury's taxes are the highest in the state (only a couple of towns higher) and exceed taxes in most MA towns with similar schools, commercial base, ambiance, etc. by 25+%. Seniors and others in Sudbury cannot afford this. The town must stop building new palaces over simply what is needed.

SHOCKINGLY, PRIOR TO COVID, SUDBURY HOME PRICES HAVE BARELY RISEN FOR OVER A DECADE. Entry prices have risen somewhat, but homes valued at $1 Million+ HAVE ESSENTIALLY FLATLINED FOR OVER A DECADE. Over the past few years, taxes for homes in this price range have increased approx. $1,000+ per year on average. Buyers avoid Sudbury because they get similar schools, homes, ambiance - and pay far less in taxes - almost anywhere else in Massachusetts. BUYERS KNOW THAT SUDBURY’S TAXES ARE OUT OF CONTROL and will increase dramatically given Sudbury’s inability to control its spending. In fact, Sudbury and Newton have had the most overrides and capital costs in Massachusetts over the last few years. Sudbury taxpayers are far worse off because Newton’s population is 4.5 times larger than Sudbury’s, so these overrides/costs are spread over a much smaller Sudbury taxpayer base.
If this isn’t bad enough, $85 Million in massive, unnecessary capital projects are underway and proposed. This $85,000,000 adds to millions in other upcoming and unnecessary
overrides and annual capital surcharges, which are proposed by the dozen each year like clockwork. THIS FREE-FOR-ALL SPENDING/LACK OF FISCAL DISCIPLINE AND OVERSIGHT OF SCHOOL AND TOWN BUDGETS MUST END. Apart from these expenses, state income and local real estate tax deductions are now capped at $10,000 for fed tax purposes, so real estate tax deductions are effectively gone.

The town must STOP building expensive new buildings when minor rehabs of existing buildings will suffice. We are tired of biased town consultants, with plenty to gain in fees, who
constantly push for unnecessary, wish-list, new palace buildings and dismiss reasonable, far less expensive rehabs. Town officials and others in town must stop deferring to these fee-driven individuals.

Here is just a small sample of recent and future capital projects, overrides, and capital articles:

1. Sewatoro $11,300,000 plus millions in new buildings on the site

The town is PAID FAR MORE than it should. Developers would offer far less than the $11.3 Million offered by the town, and any developer "offer" is loaded with closing conditions-so these developer "offers" are not realistic. A purchaser that would continue use the property as a camp would pay half. There was no transparency in this transaction. No one knows whether the town will produce any net profits from the property. But it is guaranteed that Sudbury will demand TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS from taxpayers to build an array of unnecessary and wasteful new buildings and capital projects on the site. The town will also pay millions in compliance and annual ongoing costs. And, like clockwork, the town will hire dozens of fee-driven architects, consultants, advisors, etc. who will, as they have done with endless new project proposals over the years in Sudbury, recommend tens of millions in Sewatoro building projects and equipment at taxpayer expense. Of course, nothing but new palace buildings will suffice and, of course, they will collect millions in new fees at taxpayer expense to make these "recommendations." Wash, rinse, repeat.

The town can't purchase every property that becomes available- this is ridiculous. “Once-in-a-lifetime” purchases always exist, but the town doesn't have to buy them. This has to stop. To justify this purchase, the property's revenues and profits from any camp ops or any other sources should be LOCK BOXED. All profits must be dedicated to first paying off acquisition debt service for the property.

2. $11,000,000 Town Hall
The town has appropriated $600,000 for plans and will soon request $11 Million for town hall renovation. This tactic, i.e. appropriating funding for plans in advance, MUST STOP. In this case, $600,000 was wasted on a project that is TOTALLY UNNECESSARY. Of course, consultants, architects, and others will always recommend a fully renovated new town hall, a new community center, and other palaces because these projects involve massive fees for these and other service firms at taxpayer expense. Of course they will concoct plenty of arguments why these palaces
are critical to the town. And they are wrong. In the case of town hall, abundant meeting space exists all over town and no other use for the building justifies this expenditure. A minor refit is all that is required. This is yet another example of an unnecessary wish-list project. The selectmen should stop backing each other's pet palace projects at taxpayer expense and instead argue
for reasonable cost-effective solutions.

3. $30,000,000 Community Center/Health Club.
This extraordinarily expensive and unnecessary new community center/health club adds thousands per year to an already highest in state taxpayer burden. In addition to $30,000,000 in construction costs, annual operating losses alone will exceed $1,000,000 shortly after opening, and accelerate thereafter, for a facility that only a fraction of the town regularly uses (other than voting, swim, or periodic events). These are just the proponents' optimistic projections. It gets worse. Revenue projections are far overstated, costs are underestimated, and the town has never operated anything like this. Also, interest costs will add up to $10,000,000 over 30 years!

Residents are also required to pay hundreds, perhaps thousands, of dollars in annual user fees on top of additional real estate taxes. Plenty of more desirable athletic facilities are available in the area for the same or lower fees. The existing Fairbanks gym is rarely used, the LS fitness center is rarely used when open to public, and the town has plenty of gym and meeting space elsewhere. The combination of building costs and annual operating losses will add thousands to resident tax bills.

4. $5 Million Rt 20 Fire Station and $5 Million Rt 117 Fire Station, plus MILLIONS in equipment and personnel to fill new buildings

Why is it necessary to build a new Rt 20 station rather than rehab the existing station? The existing station is perfectly fine with minor improvements, and the people have to stop being duped by the “safety” and “absolute necessity of new palaces” propaganda that fee consultants, local officials, and others foist on the town. Most towns would be thrilled to have Sudbury’s response times and fire facilities. Also, why did the town FAIL TO REQUIRE the Meadow Walk area project developers (who are building a small city there) to pay the cost of any fire station project? The fire station is located on-site and other towns would ROUTINELY require developers to pay the cost of a new or renovated station as mitigation for such a major building project. INSTEAD, THE TOWN DEMANDS THAT TAXPAYERS PAY THIS COST! Many would say this is abject incompetence.

In addition, the Town is planning a new Route 117 fire station to replace one that has been closed for years. Why does the town fail to demand that developers of Route 117 projects pay for this? Instead, they foist the cost on taxpayers. Also, like clockwork, the town will demand millions more in new fire trucks, firemen, and special equipment to fill these buildings. Like the police station, these costly buildings house only a few people each. Sudbury taxpayers are tired of, and should stop being duped by, the "public safety" argument. Most towns would be THRILLED with current Sudbury fire and police response times and facilities.

5. Rt 20 Sewer – another $15-25 Million. Route 20 is beginning to look like a small-scale version of Route 9 in Framingham. The litany of other problems with this project would take too long to explain.

6. SPS's budget overrides
It is TRULY shocking that SPS has ANY budget problems - SPS has approximately 500 fewer students compared with a the student total from few years ago. These are DRAMATIC drops in enrollment. With a drop of 500+ students (20% of total SPS students) and health care costs savings from the original move to GIC-like plans, annual SPS budgets SHOULD BE MILLIONS lower. This is a conservative estimate of the budget level reduction, even with the impact of all-day kindergarten (which should have been subject to Town Meeting vote), mandates, and special ed costs. In fact, one of the grade schools may become unnecessary if these steep enrollment drops continue. YET, THE SPS BUDGET HAS INCREASED EVERY YEAR, AND INCREDIBLY, SPS CONTINUES TO DEMAND MORE MONEY!

Over the years, the lack of transparency, failure in oversight, and abandonment of fiscal discipline
concerning these budgets are surprising. After such a dramatic drop of 500+ SPS students, these excessive costs at SPS can only be explained by budgets that pile on line items and inflation factors for unnecessary services, hours, programs, consultants, advisors, staff, and contracts. FTE hours are padded. Few, if any, cost engineering, efficiencies, or restructuring processes exist. SPS simply adds any wish-list items and incurs any unnecessary costs it desires. Similar problems exist at LS. On top of all this, SPS and LS offer far more academic and extracurricular choices than most private schools offer. It is critical for the Finance Committee and the Selectmen to bring SPS costs under control, reduce budgets by the millions of dollars that would correspond to such dramatic decreases in enrollment, and demand transparency, efficiencies and accountability for each line item to live within Prop 2 1/2 limits. This will save millions per year and bring more resources to students on the front lines instead of funding expanding bureaucracies that are already out of control.
Further, it is hard to imagine the need to construct new SPS buildings as enrollment continues to drop so drastically. Two expanding school bureaucracies exist in Sudbury, with two full staffs, including duplicate superintendents, administrators, assistants, HR, dual administrative, dual finance, dual other departments, etc., etc. Sudbury is perhaps the ONLY dual town district in the state with two school bureaucracies. SPS and LS should be consolidated before any consideration of new/renovated offices to determine the ultimate direction for school office space. Again, consolidation to one district will save millions per year and bring more resources to students on the front lines instead of funding expanding bureaucracies. For decades, the schools have simply refused to address this issue. Rather than funding an extra, unnecessary bureaucracy, taxes can be reduced or redirected to student needs.
The Selectmen and Finance Committee must act on these problems and provide necessary oversight. The schools have plenty of funding. In addition to millions in SPS savings, between $5,000,000 and $10,000,000 in spending could be saved per year from consolidation alone. No SPS or LS budget overrides should be considered, and no buildings should be constructed, until budgets are in-line with a 500+ student enrollment decline, consolidation is completed, and other budget/problems discussed above are fixed.

7. Capital spending proposals outside of Prop 2 ½

Every single year, the town and schools, in a free-for-all manner, propose dozens of MOSTLY unnecessary wish list items that cost taxpayers millions of dollars. In 2018, $7 MILLION in cap spending beyond the operating budget was proposed. SEVEN MILLION! This annual tactic avoids vetting, prioritizing, and economizing WITHIN THE PROP 2 ½ LIMIT. This bad-faith exercise insults taxpayers and amounts to increases in taxes each year above all other annual tax increases. For many recent years, Sudbury taxes have increased by at least DOUBLE the Prop 2 1/2 rate because of overrides and millions in annual capital surcharges.
This constant stream of proposals should instead become part of a single, annual capital plan under the overall Prop 2 1/2 capped budget, subject to full vetting, prioritization, and other constraints of the Prop 2 1/2 budget process that screens for only truly necessary proposals. Years ago, the town and schools generally followed a single capital plan within the Prop 2 ½ budget.
Only truly necessary proposals survived the vetting process. Now, like clockwork every single year, town and school departments pile on dozens of proposals that cost millions, fail to follow a capital vetting process, and intentionally circumvent the scrutiny and limitations of the Prop 2 1/2.
Under a single capital plan, town departments/schools must wait their turns, find cost-effective measures, seek outside sources of funds, stop unending and wasteful "wish list" items, stop using "safety" as a justification for wasteful spending in many cases, and negotiate among themselves to establish priorities subject to the overall Prop 2 ½ limit. Taxpayers should vote only on necessary proposals that survive this capital budget vetting process and are subject to the Prop 2 1/2 limit. Instead, we vote on whatever is proposed. Also, proposals that survive this process should be funded with debt, for a duration equal to the greater of 10 years or the useful life of the proposal, so that current residents do not pay fully for these projects upfront. The town has this debt capacity and should use it to minimize upfront costs.
THIS IS OUT OF CONTROL, UNNECESSARY AND WASTED SPENDING. Even worse, the list keeps growing. Selectmen exert little oversight or control as they approve each other’s pet palace
and wish-list projects at taxpayer expense. In addition, we were told that October Town Meetings were for emergency measures, not for approving massive capital projects. Is this the start of an annual program that tries to burden taxpayers with costly and unnecessary capital projects and other expenses twice each year?
Sudbury cannot continue its wish-list of unnecessary palaces, refusal to seriously implement cost efficiencies and restructuring, refusal to consider cost-effective/economical alternatives, and
lack of vetting and oversight. Unnecessary operating and other cap costs must be wrung out of budgets to live within Prop 2 ½ limits. If Sudbury officials want new town projects, they should make developers pay for them as conditions to approval of large scale developments, find state/fed money, or seek private donations. Sudbury can restore fiscal discipline and sanity, and reduce taxes with these measures.