Newton survey shows high satisfaction with city services but highlights housing shortfall; RHID reviewed as a tool

Newton — The Newton City Commission on March 24 reviewed results from a 2025 scientific community survey done as part of the Newton Next comprehensive planning process and discussed a preliminary housing study that shows a significant shortfall in available and affordable housing.

Rebecca, assistant city manager of economic development, told the commission the survey was conducted by ETC Institute using a random sample. “We received 506 surveys completed, which exceeded the goal of 400,” she said, noting that the sampling method gives staff confidence that results can be extrapolated to the community.

The survey showed strong satisfaction with several city services: nearly 90% reported satisfaction with local fire protection, 86% with EMS services and 88% said city employees were courteous in customer-service interactions. Rebecca said parks, trails and certain maintenance services also scored well.

But responses were far lower on housing: 32% of respondents said they were satisfied with overall housing availability and about 24% with housing affordability. Rental-housing measures were weaker still — roughly 15% satisfaction for availability of rental housing and about 12% for affordable rental housing, Rebecca said.

Aaron, the communications director, summarized residents’ preferences for redevelopment: 54% favored retail, entertainment or shopping at 320 North Main and 51% favored event space or a farmers market. He also said roughly 73% of respondents were supportive or very supportive of the city investing public dollars in redeveloping the depot.

The survey is intended to provide benchmarking against other communities and to help staff prioritize improvements where importance and satisfaction diverge. Rebecca and Aaron said benchmarking is useful for setting realistic expectations about where Newton “should land” compared with national and regional peers.

Commissioners then heard a presentation of the city’s RHID policy and a preliminary housing study from Daniela, who described the reinvestment housing incentive district as a state-authorized tool that “works by capturing the incremental increase in property taxes generated by a new development and using that increment to reimburse developers for eligible projects for a period up to 25 years.” She said RHID funds are limited to public infrastructure necessary to support housing development and that developers typically must front infrastructure costs and are reimbursed from the tax increment.

Daniela presented preliminary housing-need ranges included in the draft study: 588–942 units needed through 2035 (with an approximate 65% owner-occupied and 35% renter mix) and an additional projected need of about 686–1,000 units between 2026 and 2045. The draft study also offered unit-level ranges for different price tiers and rental-cost bands; Daniela emphasized the numbers are preliminary and that staff expects a finalized draft later in the spring.

During Q&A, commissioners asked how RHID interacts with other housing incentives such as low-income housing tax credits and whether developer guarantees are required; staff responded that projects often combine multiple tools and that guarantees or affordability obligations depend on the specific funding program and development agreement. Staff noted RHID reimbursement is strictly limited to revenues generated by the project and that the city does not cover costs beyond documented reimbursements.

The commission did not take action on RHID or the housing study at the meeting; staff said the RHID policy review was informational and that final housing-study materials and further work sessions are planned this spring and summer.