Results mixed on tax votes
Prop. 2 1/2 leader sees no clear pattern
In Ipswich, voters approved a property tax increase to provide more money for the schools by a solid margin. In Beverly, a similar request drew a decisive thumbs down from residents.
Across the region, proposed property tax hikes drew a mixed reception at the ballot box this spring. Eighteen ballot proposals were considered in 10 communities, with 10 passing and eight failing. The successful votes included five overrides and five debt exclusions. Rejected were three overrides and five debt exclusions.
A state law, Proposition 2 1/2 caps the annual increase in a community's property taxes at 2.5 percent plus revenue from new growth. An override permanently raises the tax cap; a debt exclusion raises the cap temporarily to repay debt; a capital exclusion raises the cap for one year to pay for capital projects.
Why some tax hikes prevail while others fail is a subject that generates much speculation among those on both sides of local tax debates.
"Not that I've ever been able to find out," said Barbara Anderson, a Marblehead resident and leader of the 1980 campaign that passed the law, when asked if there were any pattern explaining the varied outcomes of votes.
"It certainly does make a difference if there is organized opposition, but it doesn't always make the difference and win it for the opponent," Anderson said, noting there were groups opposed to the Beverly override, but other groups were opposed to re gional school overrides that passed in Hamilton and Wenham. She said the latter effort might explain why the Hamilton override won by just 35 votes.
Joan K. Arsenault, Ipswich School Committee chairwoman, pointed to the efforts of a pro-override ballot group as well as its and the School Committee's commitment to "answer every single question" asked, as reasons the override prevailed in her town.
She said residents recognized that further cuts would "totally change the culture of our schools."
The votes in this region reflect the mixed results for local tax increases statewide. According to the Massachusetts Municipal Association, 41 cities and towns had ballot votes on one or more overrides this year. Of those, at least one override passed in 21 of the communities.
John Robertson, the association's deputy legislation director, said ballot votes overall are down this year. Last year, 109 cities and towns held votes. To date this year, 73 communities have either held, scheduled, or are considering holding votes.
"Given what is going on with the economy and higher gas prices, I think cities and towns are reluctant to go out to the ballot to ask voters to increase taxes," Robertson said.
This year's override success rate is roughly where it has been the last few years, Robertson said. The Massachusetts Municipal Association considers it a success when at least one override passes in a community with one or more of them on the ballot. This year, the success rate is 51 percent to date. Last year, it was 47 percent.
"I think what it reflects is that cities and towns only go to the ballot when they really need it," Robertson said. "They have a compelling case to make and voters respond positively to that even in tough times."
Three of the successful local overrides this year provide funds for the schools: $1.5 million in Ipswich, $1.3 million in Hamilton, and $601,267 in Wenham.
There was also a $177,444 override in Hamilton to fund operating costs, and a $91,000 override in Georgetown to fund personnel costs related to the town's transition to a combination career and call fire department.
The two Marblehead debt exclusions - both adopted last Tuesday - are for $21.8 million to overhaul the Village School, and $395,000 to study options for addressing the building needs of the Glover School, including the district's proposal to build a new school replacing the Glover and Eveleth schools.
The town is eligible for state funding for at least 40 percent of the Village School repair costs and 40 percent for the Glover study.
Also succeeding were debt exclusions for $450,000 in Rowley to purchase a fire truck; $2.7 million in Rockport to fund various capital needs; and $153,000 in Wenham for equipment purchases.
In addition to the $2.5 million measure in Beverly, the defeated overrides were for $1.55 million in Winthrop for operating costs, including nearly $1 million for schools, and $172,340 in Groveland for road improvements.
In Georgetown, five debt exclusions totaling $323,000 to fund various capital needs were voted down.
Town Administrator Michael Racicot attributed the successful outcome of the debt exclusion vote in Rockport to the simple and clear message delivered.
"We were able to explain to voters that because of all of the debt from past projects that was being retired, this new debt would not add to the tax rate. That resonated," he said.
Marblehead School Committee member Patricia Blackmer observed that voters may be more willing to consider a debt exclusion, because it is a temporary, targeted tax increase, rather than an override, which is a permanent increase.
She said the outcome in Marblehead reflects that "in recent years, we've had a very good grass-roots organization, where we really try to get out the vote."
Elliott Margolis, leader of the ballot committee that opposed the Beverly override, said, "I would like to think that the organization that we had basically convinced people that the city was not responsible with the way it was spending money."
Joan Sullivan, a leader of the ballot committee that worked for passage of the Beverly school override, attributed the loss partly to the fact that no previous override or exclusion had appeared on the ballot in the city.
"We started from scratch," she said. "We were disappointed we didn't win. . . . But we also think we've created a movement here in Beverly that will continue on."
