Better Information. Better Decisions.

An anti-override campaign asks residents to trust a set of claims that do not withstand scrutiny.

Their case relies on selective math, omitted context, inflated tax figures, and a fundamental misunderstanding (or active misrepresentation) of how the override works.

The result is a picture of Marblehead's finances that is misleading at best and inaccurate at worst.

Residents deserve better.

The override before us is not the product of panic, politics, or a single difficult budget year.

→ It is the result of months of public meetings, open budget reviews, collaboration between town and school leadership, and extensive discussion by elected officials and residents. It passed overwhelmingly at Town Meeting because the underlying problem is real.

The choices in front of voters now are not between an override and some undiscovered alternative.

→ They are between investing in the services our community relies on or accepting significant reductions to them.

The opposition's argument depends heavily on a tax impact number that is inflated in multiple ways, a tax increase claim that dramatically overstates what residents would actually pay, and several assertions that ignore how the override is structured.

Below, we examine those claims one by one. ↓

Because better information leads to better decisions.

Claim:

"$7,500+ Per Home Every Three Years"

Reality: This figure is misleading in almost every dimension.

→ First, it ignores the phase-in. The override proposals are implemented gradually over three years; the full amount isn't collected until FY29. Residents do not pay the full increase immediately. Because the opposition's calculation pretends the full override takes effect on day one, it overstates the actual tax impact on the average home by roughly $1,400 in Year 1 and $500 in Year 2.

→ Second, it uses the average home value rather than the median. Marblehead has a number of high-value properties that pull the average upward. The majority of Marblehead homeowners own homes assessed below that average, which means the majority of homeowners would pay less than the advertised figure. Using the average home value to represent a "typical" homeowner overstates the impact for most of us.

→ Third, the three-year window they chose funds from 2029 to 2031: the first three years the override is fully phased in. This is not the near-term impact residents will actually experience.

→ Fourth, no one receives a tax bill covering three years at once. Presenting a rolling three-year total, rather than an annual figure, is a framing device designed to make the number look as large as possible. It is not how anyone actually pays or thinks about property taxes.

Claim:

John DiPiano: "Town Administrator Thatcher Kezer said 'Better Way's cumulative calculations are not incorrect as a mathematical exercise.'"


Reality: DiPiano chose to present only half of Kezer’s quote, which fundamentally altered its meaning.

→ In the June 2 Daily Item, Kezer was quoted as saying: "The cumulative calculations are not incorrect as a mathematical exercise,” but argued that annual tax impacts tied to the financial plan before voters provide a more useful measure for residents evaluating the proposal.

He went on to explain: "The Town believes the most meaningful information for voters is the estimated annual tax impact associated with the financial plan currently before them. Any homeowner can add together multiple years of tax payments and arrive at a cumulative total. However, cumulative projections necessarily rely on assumptions about future budgets, future Town Meeting appropriations, and future tax decisions that have not yet been made."

→ In plain English:

  • Kezer was pointing out that while the math itself is technically correct, it isn't the most useful or fair way for voters to evaluate the proposal.

  • The override phases in over three years. Tax impacts begin on the lower end in FY27 and gradually increase until the full amount is reached in FY29.

  • Better Way's "$7,500+" figure is not an annual tax increase. It's the sum of three years of tax payments added together across FY29, FY30, and FY31 for a $1.3M home. A home value well above the median. Three years well into the future.

  • Anyone can add together several years of future tax payments and produce a much larger number. But doing so ignores all kinds of things that could be true of future budgets, future Town Meeting decisions, and future tax rates that have not yet been determined.


Before it was truncated, Kezer's point was straightforward: the annual tax impact of the override as currently proposed is the most meaningful number for voters to consider. That missing context adds important nuance… to the point of fundamentally changing the meaning of the quote.

Use the tax calculator to see the actual annual impact of each override phase for your specific property.

Claim:

"Our Taxes Have Increased 46% Since 2020"

Reality: According to publicly available data from the Massachusetts Department of Revenue:

  • FY20 Total Tax Levy: $69.8 million

  • FY26 Total Tax Levy: $84.6 million

→ That represents an increase of 21.2%, not 46%.

The actual number is less than half of what was claimed. This is not a matter of interpretation or methodology.

The data is public and verifiable.

Claim:

"Question 4 Provides $1.5 Million To Restore Essential Town Services"

Reality: This is double counting, and it is false.

The revenue referenced in this claim is already accounted for in the budget that passed overwhelmingly at Town Meeting. It is not a surplus. It is not available for anything new. It is already doing a job.

Suggesting that this money can simultaneously fund the adopted budget and restore additional services requires the same dollar to be spent twice. That is not how municipal finance works.

The math here is straightforward: if the town wants to spend more money in one area without an override, it has to cut something else. There is no hidden pool of funds. There is no $1.5 million waiting to be unlocked. A vote against the override is a vote to make cuts that were approved by voters at Town Meeting.

Claim:

"The Schools Don't Receive Any Override Funding In FY27”

Reality: This is true. It is also the responsible approach… and opponents know it.

The School Committee has confirmed that no override funds will flow to the schools in FY26/27. School leaders made this choice deliberately. The phased plan is designed to minimize the immediate tax impact on residents while preparing for known, unavoidable cost increases in FY28 and beyond — including collective bargaining increases and other ongoing operating pressures that are already locked in.

→ This is what sound multi-year budgeting looks like. You plan for costs before they become emergencies. The override exists precisely because Marblehead's school and town leaders are trying to get ahead of tomorrow's problems rather than react to them.

Using responsible planning as an argument against the override gets it exactly backwards.

Claim:

"Once Voters Approve the Authority to Assess $15 Million, That Is Exactly What Can Be Assessed — All $15 Million, Starting Immediately"

Reality: An override raises the cap on how much the town is allowed to collect in property taxes. It does not determine how much the town actually collects. What determines actual collections is the annual budget — the one voters approve each year at Town Meeting. The override sets the ceiling. The budget sets the number.

Town Meeting already voted on a contingent budget this year that collects only a fraction of the total override amount in FY27 — not the full $15 million, not immediately. That vote happened before this vote.

Additionally, the Select Board, School Committee, and Finance Committee have agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding specifying that override funds will be phased in over three years, with clear reporting requirements. The suggestion that town leaders could or would immediately assess the full $15 million contradicts both the approved budget and a formal commitment among town leadership.

The override gives the town the authority to collect more.

→ Voters at Town Meeting retain control over how much is actually collected and how it is spent, every single year.

  • Make a plan to VOTE

    → Walk into Abbot Hall during early voting:

    • Wed, June 3: 10am-5pm

    • Thu, June 4: 10am-3pm

    → Vote in-person on Election Day: Tue June 9 . Check your polling location

    Confirm your voter status

  • Learn more about the choices

    → Question 1 $9MM VOTE YES! Keeps us from the deepest budget cuts but will still mean a reduction in town services.

    → Question 2 $12MM VOTE YES! Includes everything in Q1 plus some services. It helps avoid the cuts but doesn’t go far enough toward fixing our core structural issues.

    → Question 3 $15MM VOTE YES! Includes everything in Q1 & Q2. It also funds preventive maintenance to avoid more expensive repairs later and enables potential new revenue streams. Dive deeper into Q3 details.

    Want to know how much these would cost you? Use our tax calculator.

    Why YES on 1 & 2 & 3?

  • How will the ballot work?

    There will be 4 override questions.

    Question 1 ($9MM))

    Question 2 ($12MM)

    Question 3 ($15MM)

    Question 4 is separate and deals with town trash collection.

    Residents will vote for or against each override question independently.

    Each question requires a majority to pass. If more than one of questions 1-3 pass, the highest tier/question will prevail.

    Vote YES on Questions 1 & 2 & 3.