SHREWSBURY, Massachusetts – Every year or two, the question of a Proposition 2.5 override looms in the background, as a potential way of funding the many different areas of our municipal system that are, by the definitions of almost all concerned, seriously underfunded.

The “anti-override” position, is that taxes are too high, that we all need to live within our means, and that we still have not done all that we can to reduce waste in public government. They view the prospect of an structural override as a short-term fix that won’t address the longer term issues.

The “pro-override” position, is that Shrewsbury is woefully undertaxed and that’s why it is underfunded.  In all of the surrounding towns, residential rates are up to 50% higher than they are in Shrewsbury, and while they still have their issues, they aren’t quite as dire each budget season.  They feel that we, as a community, need to step up and properly fund our fire, police, library, and schools so that all in the community will benefit.

The question will no doubt come up again in the near future.  At last weeks tri-board meeting, Selectman Ben Tartaglia spoke about the desire to alleviate the pressure on Shrewsbury parents, posed by the school bus fees, by “spreading the cost out among all of the residents of Shrewsbury.”  He was not endorsing an override, per se, and has always espoused a no-verride position, but in essence the concept of using taxation to fully fund programming, as opposed to a pay as you use system, is one that will require the tax dollars to do it.

As the election 2010 season ramps up, I posed the question to the four candidates for the two open slots on the Board of Selectman, as to where they stood on the issue of a potential override now or in the upcoming years.  The exact context of the question discussed the $4 Million in additional taxation, needed to fund the town departments and schools at the minimum levels that were requested, complete the deferred municipal projects, re-fund the four firefighter and three police positions, as well as eliminate the school bus and activity fees in the schools.   The question was whether they would support a structural override that might distribute an average tax bill differential of about $200-300 per household, to accomplish the task at hand.

I greatly appreciate the time that these fine men took to respond so quickly and efficiently. Some of the responses were long, and others were brief and to the point,  and I wanted to pass along their thoughts on the matter.

Candidate George Smith

“I’m glad somebody had the courage to ask the tough questions rather than lobbing us a bunch of softballs. First of all, let me just state that I have a son that came up through the Shrewsbury school system and is currently in the high school. We, like most parents in our position, pay bus and activity fees.  I’ve also had a chance to witness firsthand the outstanding professionalism of our public safety personnel on both the police and fire sides of the house.

It upsets me to see the situation we are in. Nobody wants to see an understaffed police/fire departments, teachers put out on the street and extra fees paid by people just trying to make ends meet. It also pains me to think about a parent that has to tell their child they can’t join an activity or participate in sports because they cannot afford the fees involved.

All that being said, I do not think an override is practical at this time.  There are no quick fixes to the financial woes of Shrewsbury. Resolving these financial problems will take time and hard work. My biggest concern is that we have not begun an energetic, creative and passionate process to resolve our financial issues.

If elected Selectmen, my top priority will be to begin the process of working to increase revenue into Shrewsbury. We all know that trying to tax our way out of this financial hole is not the answer. Let’s put a proposition 2 1/2 scenario on the table. Let’s just say that town of Shrewsbury says that we need a prop two and half override to fix our financial woes outlined earlier. What happens next year, or the year after, or the year after that when we decide that we don’t have enough money to pay for all of the unfunded mandates and unplanned circumstances that happen. Do we now go back to the police, the fire, and the schools and say; “By the way we were only kidding….. you know the financial relief you got last year….. that money has to be reallocated for other priorities. As a result, we now have to lay off police/fire personnel, lay teachers off and by the way….. we’re putting all those fees that you hate so much back in force.”  The result is that we’re back where we started with the exception of having a higher tax levy.”

Current Selectmen Moe DePalo

“I will not support an override question. (Please note that there is no override being discussed at this time.)    I think it provides only a short term fix and does nothing to reduce the structural deficit.  Second, with the economy and job market as it is, i think this is clearly the wrong time to ask for an override.”

Selectmen Candidate Henry Fitzgerald

“This is not the year to try to get an override approved. I believe it would fail miserably. In subsequent years I do not see any choice but to consider an override. Whatever fat was in the system is gone. The issue is not the expansion of Town government but rather items somewhat out of the Town’s control. Health insurance, unfunded state mandates, underfunded pension programs, etc. are the big ticket items that drain our budget. I spent two Saturdays listening to all Dan Morgado’s key leaders explain their budgets. Almost to a person they are operating with less personnel and have greater reach and responsibility (with less money) to get their work accomplished. The levels of staffing levels I saw reflect levels closer to 2008 than what is needed in 2012.

Steve, my first choice would be to try to manage within the budget we have without an override. I personally don’t see how we can avoid that scenario. In subsequent years, assuming the same parameters, I would support an override. There is always another approach but I am not sure if the community would accept it. We have to consider the elimination of services our community has become use to. My impression is that most people are reasonably pleased with the level of service the community provides but the catch appears to be that they are always seeking more and in a lot of cases not willing to pay for it.  Sorry for the long winded answer.”

Current Selectman Ben Tartaglia

Ben was not available to comment specifically on this article. He has, in the past, always been an outspoken anti-override voice, and the following excerpt was from his campaign announcement supplied to the Lantern last week.    “I am running for reelection because I want to continue to work for fiscally conservative policies. The Town’s tax and fee increases, along with an anemic economy, unemployment, and inflation in fuel and food prices are particularly hurtful to young families, senior citizens and those of modest means.”

Stay tuned Lantern readers.  We’ll keep asking the questions that you want the answers to, and keep you posted on any and all developments in this exciting election season.

Always remember, something that I told my fellow candidates when I ran for office.  Each year, in this town of 30,000 individuals, a handful of people step up and say that they are willing to serve.  They are willing to put their personal time and resources on the line, just because they feel that it’s the right thing to do for their community.  Regardless of who you support, you have to respect the courage and strength of conviction that each and every candidate brings to the table.