Amesbury may face 'underride' measure
Amesbury voters may decide the fate of a Proposition 2 1/2 ballot question this fall. But the decision would not be whether to increase property taxes, but whether to lower them.
Two municipal councilors want to place a $1.5 million "underride" on the ballot in Amesbury's Nov. 6 election. A seldom-used feature of the state's Proposition 2 1/2 law, the underride is the reverse of an override, and would set a permanent reduction in the amount the community could raise in property taxes.
The sponsors, Councilor at Large Donna M. McClure and District 1 Councilor Michelle M. Thone, say the tax cut, which would take effect in fiscal year 2009, is needed in light of Amesbury's relatively high tax burden.
According to a Globe North survey in December, Amesbury had the region's highest residential tax rate, at $13.16 per $1,000, for the fiscal year that ended June 30. A home with Amesbury's average assessment, $366,000, carried a tax bill of $4,817.
"I'm concerned for the people of this community who cannot afford these taxes," said Thone, who believes the underride could ease the problem by curtailing expenditures. "It's not going to stop spending, but it will slow spending," she said. "It's going to force accountability."
But the measure is opposed by Mayor Thatcher W. Kezer III, who is concerned about an underride's impact "on our school system, our public safety, our public works. All those functions would require very significant cuts.
"What we are trying to do in Amesbury is make very responsible long-term decisions for the financial health of the community, and this underride is trying to undermine that effort," Kezer said.
The council on July 10 referred the proposal to two committees for consideration, and scheduled a Sept. 11 public hearing on it, according to Town Clerk Bonnijo Kitchin. She said a council vote would be needed at the Sept. 11 meeting for there to be enough time to include the question on the November ballot.
This marks the second time Amesbury has considered an underride. In 2001, a $1.5 million underride proposal lost by 19 votes at the polls.
The state Department of Revenue has on record only 14 underrides -- 13 of them successful -- since the advent of Proposition 2 1/2 in 1981.
Agency spokesman Bob Bliss said the list, which does not include Amesbury's 2001 vote, could be incomplete since some unsuccessful underrides may not get reported to the agency.
The rare use of the underride "speaks to the fact that more frequently, communities find themselves stressed to the point of needing more revenues," Bliss observed.
That stress has been evident this year, as dozens of communities across the state have weighed overrides or other Proposition 2 1/2 tax increases.
But McClure said that in Amesbury, it is taxpayers who are feeling the real financial pinch. She noted that in addition to having the highest tax rate in the area, the city also has relatively low income levels, making tax bills particularly difficult for residents to afford. According to the 2000 Census, the median family income in the city was $62,875.
"The levy limit does not take into account a community's ability to pay," Thone said, referring to the maximum a community can raise in property taxes under Proposition 2 1/2. The income levels in Amesbury "have not met our tax burden."
McClure and Thone believe the city could readily absorb the proposed tax cut because Amesbury in fiscal 2009 should have about $1.5 million in its levy reserve, or unused taxing capacity from previous years. According to Bliss, Amesbury's current levy reserve is $1.3 million.
And McClure and Thone see room to cut spending.
"We haven't tightened our belts truly. Our budgets are still rising faster than we can afford to pay them," said McClure, a founder and, along with Thone, former board member of the Amesbury Taxpayers Association.
But Kezer said the best way to manage the finances of a community -- and to control taxes -- is to cut spending where it makes sense and then to draw upon the levy reserve as needed.
Kezer, who has often been at odds with a City Council majority that includes Thone and McClure, said the council has "abdicated" its role in seeking major spending cuts. He noted that the council this year cut just $445,225 from his $47 million budget proposal, most of it from a $400,000 reduction in the city's assessment to the Whittier Regional Vocational School District that Kezer said Amesbury will likely have to pay eventually.
"The end result is they would like to take credit for the tax cut but have no responsibility for the loss of services that results from it," said Kezer, who also believes the levy reserve will be less than $1.5 million next year.
Councilor at Large Roger S. Benson, who has also clashed with the council majority, called the underride a maneuver that is being proposed in lieu of "making tough choices in cutting the budget."
"There really is no appetite in this town for losing teachers and firemen and police. But that's what would happen if we passed this," Benson said.
Thone disagrees with his analysis, saying the underride "is going to lead to the government setting priorities. I don't believe it's going to result in cuts and layoffs."
McClure said a tax reduction would force the city and its unions to make the tough decisions needed to save jobs.
"The town and its 17,000 residents should be able to manage on a $47 million budget," she said. "I think we can do that." 