In a special election June 11, Harvard residents will be asked to approve a $200,000 Proposition 2½ override to balance the fiscal year 2009 budget. This override is drastically reduced from the $786,000 rejected by the voters in April, and will result in budget cuts for both town and school departments. The fact that Harvard is looking at reductions to services even if the smaller override passes begs the question—how did Harvard get here?
The population of Harvard nearly doubled between 1970 and 1990, from slightly fewer than 3,000 to just over 5,000. Affordability, rural beauty, good schools, and the newly constructed Interstate 495 beltway attracted new residents. Increased demand for services for the growing population put pressure on town finances. According to Town Assessor Angela Marrama, 96 percent of the town’s tax revenue comes from residential property owners. As a result, the average single family tax bill in Harvard has slowly but steadily climbed from 42nd highest in the state in 1988 to its current ranking of 17th.
This growth and demand for services collided with the institution of Proposition 2½ in Massachusetts, which was effected in 1982. This initiative limits the amount any state municipality can increase property tax to 2½ percent annually plus an allowance for new construction. In most of the last 20 years, the rate of inflation alone has exceeded 2½ percent, creating a decrease in local spending ability. To this factor must be added cost-of-living and step increases for school and town employees, which generally combine to more than 2½ percent; increases to the cost of employee benefits of close to 200 percent in 10 years; a spike in the cost of energy; and less-than-adequate state aid in recent years. The result has been described by town officials as “Harvard’s systemic problem.”
Including the $786,000 that was rejected this year, Harvard voters have been asked to consider a total of $5,025,695 in override requests in 11 different years, starting in 1990. Of those, they have approved $3,425,895, not counting the $200,000 that will be voted on in June. (See chart below)
After a reluctant start in fiscal year 1990, the voters passed overrides of gradually increasing size until the fiscal 2006 budget cycle, when additional school spending requests above the base level $500,000 override were resoundingly defeated at the polls. Another indication that voters were reaching their limit was the $113,500 requested for additional school spending for fiscal 2008. It passed, but the vote was close. Public commentary heard at meetings, printed in letters to the newspapers, and shared in a recent Harvard Press survey indicates a combination of distrust of the numbers and the effects of an unstable economy as the major forces behind the failure of the most recent override.
Starting with the fiscal 2004 budget cycle, overrides have been requested every year except fiscal 2005. Finance Director Lorraine Leonard, reached at her office earlier in the week, said she had heard that during the fiscal 2001 planning cycle, some town officials and Finance Committee members looking ahead had recommended an override every other year to stay on top of what they saw coming.
“We should have had an override in fiscal 2003, but we got off cycle,” Leonard said, “It might have been smoother if we had built our base earlier.”
