Table of Contents
By Carl Goodman
Many of you may recall my 25 years as an elected official serving as a Board of Health member and Select Board member. Throughout that time and in other volunteer work for the town, I tried to enhance services while always being mindful of the taxpayers. I have supported some tax increases and opposed others based upon careful analysis.
The proposed three-year override sought by the Select Board was not caused by a revenue shortfall. It was caused by a spending problem.
Over the past 12 years, Marblehead taxpayers have provided substantial new revenue, well beyond inflation. Total real estate tax revenue grew from $56.6 million in FY 2014 to $84.9 million in FY 2026, a 50 percent increase. During that same period, the CPI for Greater Boston rose only 37.6 percent.
More recently, real estate tax bills have increased dramatically. From 2020 to 2026, the median single-family tax bill rose by about 46 percent, significantly outpacing cumulative inflation. These are not small increases; many homeowners are paying thousands of dollars more annually. And if these overrides pass, homeowners will be shocked when they see their tax bills increase sharply over the next three years.
In the past year, the town has added new positions, even as population growth has been modest — roughly 500 residents since 2012 — and public school enrollment has declined sharply from 3,170 students in 2012 to 2,389 today, a nearly 25 percent drop. Notably, the School Department is not seeking tax override funds in the first year, but is seeking an override for future years based on projections despite the declining enrollment and a $1.5 million surplus this fiscal year.
A three-year override would lock in major spending increases and create a permanently higher tax base. Under Proposition 2½, this new base would then automatically grow by 2.5 percent each year without further voter approval. While the Select Board and Finance Committee have offered a nonbinding commitment not to seek another override during this period, I believe they have been silent about future years.
A multiyear override also removes the incentive for difficult but necessary spending decisions. A one-year override would have allowed voters to assess results and hold officials accountable.
Questions 1, 2 and 3 should be answered no.
Question 4 is different. It seeks nearly $2.3 million for trash and solid waste services, even though the only real increased need is approximately $800,000 for the new trash disposal contract. If approved, the excess $1.5 million could be used in the future to restore services facing cuts. In the meantime, we can repurpose untapped funds and other budget amendments, just like the Select Board did following the 2003 override that included funds for trash expenses in order to restore many critical services, such as the Council on Aging, library, Recreation and Parks, Public Works and public safety, among others. We can redirect these funds at the Special Town Meeting that is already being called, rather than letting the cuts be used as leverage to pressure voters into approving the proposed historic overrides.
Vote no on Questions 1, 2 and 3. And vote yes on Question 4.
Signs around town say “Love Our Town.” Our town is its people — many on fixed incomes, retirees and working families who cannot easily absorb large tax increases. We can support essential services while showing fiscal responsibility.
