The last time Marblehead passed a general override of Proposition 2 1/2, gas was $2 a gallon, “The Office” and “Grey’s Anatomy” were new to TV, Carrie Underwood had just won “American Idol,” and Tom Brady had only three Super Bowl rings.
Someone born that year (2005) is now old enough to vote on June 9 — and likely old enough to buy a drink after.
In the two decades since, the town has managed — cutting positions, drawing down reserves, deferring maintenance and hoping the math would improve. It hasn’t.
June 9 is the day we stop managing decline and start reversing it.
In addition to Question 4 on trash collection, on the ballot are three override questions. We urge every Marbleheader to vote yes on all three — and particularly on Question 3.
Despite what detractors would tell you, the problem these questions address isn’t mismanagement. It’s math.
Marblehead faces a $7.7 million operating budget deficit. That number didn’t appear overnight, and it isn’t the result of reckless spending. It’s the consequence of a structural mismatch: State law caps property tax growth by 2.5% per year. The town’s unavoidable costs — benefits, pensions, contractual raises, special education obligations — answer to no such cap. The gap widens every year, whether we address it or not.
The Finance Committee has been raising this alarm for years. For a long time, one-time fixes were enough to buy another year. They aren’t anymore.
Town officials have done the difficult work. They’ve found efficiencies, cut positions, tapped revolving funds and right-sized the school district to reflect declining enrollment.
Those who now lobby for “no” votes on Questions 1, 2 and 3 and for an emergency special town meeting to figure out which leaks to patch disrespect the countless hours — many of them by volunteers — to reach difficult decisions. It is folly to think a better path forward will emerge under crisis conditions, once town employees have begun to be laid off and services start to be curtailed.
A $123 million budget approved at Town Meeting already includes painful reductions to public safety, the library, the Council on Aging and more. The schools alone lose 21.5 positions under the current budget — and that’s before municipal cuts are factored in.
Why Question 3, not just 1 or 2?
Questions 1 and 2 are necessary. Question 3 moves us forward.
If you’re leaning “yes” on Questions 1 and/or 2 but hesitating on Question 3, consider what the additional investment actually buys.
It’s not extravagance. It’s deferred capital projects — park maintenance, school bus repairs, public works equipment — finally getting attention. Deferred maintenance has a way of becoming emergency maintenance, and that just costs everyone more. Question 3 also restores a special education program for students ages 18-22 that was cut during COVID — one that serves students locally rather than paying out-of-district placement costs, and could eventually bring in tuition from neighboring towns.
It funds a grant writer whose entire job is to pursue state and federal money the town currently isn’t capturing. It brings our police department, already stretched thinner than comparable towns on the North Shore, from 31 officers to 33, and adds two firefighters — reducing the costly forced overtime that comes with running understaffed. These aren’t wish-list items. They’re the investments that keep a well-run town well-run. The cost is worth putting in context.
Among comparable communities, Marblehead ranks near the bottom in what residents pay in property taxes. Towns like Lynnfield, Milton, Duxbury, and Andover all pay more — right now, before any override. Even if Question 3 passes, we would still be paying less than Norwell, Hingham, Needham, Winchester, Belmont and Lexington. We are not being asked to become the highest-taxed town on this list. We’re being asked to stop being the town that invests the least in itself.
This space takes no position on Question 4, except to note that a “yes” vote would shift a bit more of the cost of trash collection to those with a greater ability to pay, given that an override that would track home value, while a user fee would be the same for all property owners.
The theory that the funds generated by Question 4’s “forever” override raises could at some point be repurposed is a reasonable concern, but history suggests that trash collection is unlikely to get cheaper as time goes by, and a user fee could prove easier for town officials to raise. Going to a fee-based system by rejecting Question 4 would preserve the option for residents to opt out of curbside collection by the town and explore alternative options, though we have our doubts as to whether most residents would find alternatives they prefer.
We also don’t take the financial burden of any of the proposed overrides lightly. For some residents — particularly those on fixed incomes — this is a genuine hardship, and tax relief programs exist for those who qualify.
But the alternative isn’t the status quo. The cuts are already written. An override is the only thing that erases them.
Skeptics of government spending will note, correctly, that passing an override doesn’t guarantee that the funds raised be managed well. That’s why this override comes with a signed commitment from the Select Board, the School Committee and the Finance Committee to seek no additional general override for three years, to conduct quarterly joint budget reviews and to rebuild the town’s rainy-day fund.
This is not a blank check. Annual Town Meeting approval is required before a single dollar is allocated. The people of Marblehead authorized this funding. The people of Marblehead will decide how it’s spent. That doesn’t change.
Town Meeting voted 1,227 to 159 to send this to the ballot — a margin of nearly eight to one. Now it goes to all of us.
Vote yes on Questions 1, 2, and 3 on June 9 — or during early voting available at Abbot Hall June 2 through 4.
Twenty-one years is long enough.
