Cofsky and the Neponset lands

I would ask you to consider the future wellbeing of our community, and to vote in favor of the purchase of these Neponset Street lands.

Joe Greeley

Norwood Trails Advisory Committee District 6 Town Meeting member

When is a $9 million solution not a solution?

To the Editor:

In response to the Letter to the Editor (“A $9 Million Solution, October 23, 2025), I am writing to add context to the proposed “solutions” rendered in that letter. In the letter, the writer proposes that Norwood would gain an additional $9 million in property tax revenue (“new, recurring revenue every year”) by simply shifting the tax classification of large apartment complexes from residential to commercial tax rates. There are a number of problems with this proposal.

First, for Norwood to generate an additional $9 million in property tax revenue, a Proposition 2 and ½ override would likely be needed. This is because the annual property tax cannot result in more than a 2.5% increase in the tax levy. Given that Norwood’s 2.5% levy results in annual property tax revenue of approximately $3.5 million, an override would be needed to raise the additional $5.5 million suggested by the writer. No new revenue would be generated without an override. While I appreciate the writer’s recognition that more revenue is needed for Norwood to maintain services provided by the town, this proposal does not do that.

So instead of raising additional revenue, this proposal would shift the tax burden to certain residential complexes. Sounds good, right? Let’s have the owners of those large complexes pay the additional tax. Well, not so fast!!

Property taxes are a large part of the operating expenses of such complexes. Norwood’s commercial rate is more than twice that of the residential property rate. This proposal would result in substantial increase in costs to apartment complex owners. Owners could opt to reduce investment in property maintenance and capital improvements to absorb the increase. But the most likely strategy they would employ is to increase rents they charge to Norwood residents who live in these complexes. As a result, a significant number of Norwood residents who are already cost-burdened with housing would be charged more, a lot more, in rent. The proposal would worsen the affordability crisis the state and region are experiencing.

Currently, Norwood’s rental prices are some of the highest in the region, averaging around $2300 per month for one-bedroom apartments to $3500 for three-bedroom apartments. In Boston, a similar proposal under consideration is estimated to produce upwards of 20% increases in rents. If Norwood experienced a similar scenario, average rent would jump to as high as $4,200 per month for a three-bedroom apartment. Should this occur, people are likely to end their leases and move out resulting in the loss of value and a decrease in tax revenue. This could potentially result in other residents picking up the tab for the lost revenue.

A home rule petition would be needed as suggested in the letter. That is true as state law prohibits classifying such properties as commercial when they are clearly residential. People clearly do reside in these complexes. While the Boston City Council has a similar proposal recently filed, it is unclear whether any other municipality has successfully put forward a home rule petition to reclassify apartment complex property to the commercial tax rate.

Shifting taxes to non-owner-occupied properties through a Residential Exemption is something allowed under law. However, this exemption does not raise new revenue. It simply shifts the tax burden among homeowners. It is important that if Norwood consider such an option, an analysis would be needed to see what impact it would have on homes that would see their taxes increase. This would include potential increases in rents at such properties as well as the potential negative impact on families who have a residence held in a trust.

Advertisement

Proposed “solutions” need to consider the impact to all residents in Norwood. It seems there are some who do not want to consider the impact of their “solutions” on a significant number of Norwood residents - people who rent. Residents who rent are members of our community. They contribute to our community, they live in our community, they are part of our local economy. We should not treat them as second class citizens and ignore the economic impact of our local tax policy.

Bob Donnelly

Town Meeting Member, District 5

Member, Board of Selectmen

Off-Budget Spending AGAIN!

To the Editor:

At the upcoming November Special Town Meeting, members are being asked to approve several significant financial articles - moving millions of dollars into various funds and accounts - months before the annual operating budget is presented in the spring. While each article may have merit, the timing raises a long-standing concern that has frustrated taxpayers: off-budget spending.

During my recent campaign, I spoke about the need to stop off-budget spending. At that time, I struggled to provide a current example. With this warrant, the example is here.

When Town Meeting approves substantial financial transfers in November, those costs are removed from the next budget discussion. By committing Free Cash now, the Town reduces what would otherwise appear as increases in the spring budget. In short, expenses are being expenses are being moved outside the budget process so next year’s budget looks smaller- not because spending is reduced, but because part of it occurred outside the normal budget process. This may not break any rule, but it works against transparency. Town Meeting Members should review major spending decisions together, with the full context of next year’s needs, priorities, and tax impact - not in disconnected pieces months apart.

Approving these items in November means they won’t appear as part of the budget increase in April because the money has already moved. This front-loads spending and makes the spring budget appear leaner. It may make it easier for the Board of Selectmen or the Finance Commission to secure support for the budget, but it deprives Town Meeting Members of the full information needed to evaluate spending, priorities, tax impact, and whether an override may be necessary.

If Norwood values transparency, then financial decisions should be made when the complete picture is available - not after key money has already been shifted “off-budget” in November.

To be fair, some items do have legitimate reasons to be acted on now.

Article 1 - strengthens the Workers’ Compensation Fund to manage unexpected costs that could affect future budgets. Article 2 - This OPEB contribution follows the Town’s Financial Policy to transfer the remaining unexpended health insurance balance into the OPEB Trust Fund. Article 3 - is required by the Department of Revenue to clear a deficit in the Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund. Article 4 - is necessary to keep the Town in compliance with MWRA grant requirements, and delaying it could jeopardize future funding.

These are understandable. Articles 1 through 3 are appropriate for fall TM and for the Consent Agenda. However, several other articles are discretionary and should be part of the annual budget discussion so Town Meeting can weigh tradeoffs and set priorities.

Article 5 - $581K increase to the Special Education Reserve Fund. Article 6 - $2 million deposit to the Capital Stabilization Fund. Article 9 - $5 million Capital Improvement Projects.

These all affect the Town’s financial position heading into spring. Yet they are being brought forward now, separated from the full operating and capital budget picture.

Norwood should adopt a commonsense standard: major financial appropriations should not be brought to a Special Town Meeting unless legally required or truly time-sensitive. This doesn’t prevent action when necessary - it ensures that discretionary spending decisions are made with transparency and context.

If we want residents to trust the Town’s financial decisions, then those decisions should be made within the full budget process, not moved quietly “off-budget” in November.

Steve Konetchy

TMM, District 4