I’ve been asked about how I’m thinking about a Proposition 2 1/2 override and whether I’d support one.

My short answer: I would be in favor of an override/debt exclusion to tackle the immediate needs of our city to bring us up to par with basic standards met in surrounding communities and expected of a government. I’m in agreement with most folks about the need to tackle our backlog of street and sidewalk repairs (which is falling $2-8m behind in funding per year according to independent analyses), to fund our schools to an adequate level, to retain and expand the (already limited and thinly stretched) staffing we have, and for major infrastructure needs (like a new High School/Fire HQ). At the end of the day, I believe this is a choice best left to democracy. My job as a city councilor is, and would be, to move the question to the ballot. And whether voters agree or disagree with my views, we should have a chance to vote on it.

My longer answer: Do I want an override? No, I don’t. But the real question is do we need one? And the numbers are clear about the need to raise more revenue. I hear a lot from residents about potholes, a high school that’s falling apart, a lack of civil code enforcement, rodent infestations, poor school funding, etc. From our budget sessions and regular meetings throughout the year, we see that not only do we not have enough money to go around, we don’t have enough to begin with, period. We ask our department heads to tackle a litany of issues, but it’s hard when we don’t have the money to hire the staff or buy the materials we actually need to deal with a lot of these key problems. We also see how hard it is to hire staff, especially when other municipalities are paying more and offering more resources. We all want to live in a city we can be proud of, and such a city must fulfill the basics of good government. For all the progress we’ve made in the last few years, we’re still playing catch-up, and we need a boost. 

The question is how are we going to get that boost, and I suspect this is where there might be more debate. When I first ran, I told folks that I would see what ways we could patch up our needs deficit without needing an override, but the last two years of inquiry and investigation in office have led me to the conclusion that we’re too late to avert an override request. 

It’s not for want of trying. Here’s what the City Council has done to reduce the burden on you:

• Passing a first round of zoning reform that is bringing in new construction/“new growth” (one of the only ways we can truly raise revenue substantially without an override)
• Passing an RFP (request for proposals) to kickstart a second round of zoning to bring in more housing and commercial growth and align our city with our Comprehensive Master Plan, Housing Production Plan, and other city plans
• Increasing the property tax exemption and the income limit for qualified seniors to the maximum allowed by the state
• Starting public discussions of and inquiries into owner-occupied exemptions
• Working with the Department of Public Works to bring more operations in-house, which will eventually lower total costs
• Working with the Department of Planning, Development, and Sustainability to develop vacant, city-owned parcels to kickstart the revitalization of Medford Square
• Working on better community benefits agreements with large institutions like Tufts University that don’t pay property taxes
• Negotiating with the Mayor’s office to create a Financial Task Force that will transparently identify spending needs and how we can fund those needs in the next few years while reducing the burden on residents. This group will look deep into our finances, possible options and exemptions, and future projections to create a proposal, if need be, to voters that is concrete, clear, and specific. What this group finds will continue to shape my thinking.

Every suggestion I’ve heard to avoid the inevitable has been done, wouldn’t be enough, or would take too long (and would thus not avert a fiscal cliff). We could not possibly cut enough staff to fund projects others may deem more important (and we would cripple critical operations this way). We’ve tried this tactic time and time again, and it hasn’t worked. All the proposals I’ve heard would amount to pennies in comparison to the cliff we face. We do audit our books every year. I’m totally supportive of new growth as a long-term plan for securing revenue, but because of how much time construction takes, we would still face major staffing cuts to our schools and city hall staff in the short term. And on top of that, to take that path, we’d have to bring on our economic development team into the budget using our general funds (and not federal aid money) — an act which would require a short-term revenue solution.

Ultimately, I believe that, agree with me on the financial picture or not, this is a question of democracy. Especially with the immediate challenges we face in the short term, choosing not the move the question to the voters is still a choice (that I believe would have negative impacts on basic and how to spot a fake rolex datejust local operations of our City). Pending the Financial Task Force’s work, voters should have the opportunity to agree or disagree. And City Council plays an important role in giving voters that voice.

Yours sincerely,

Justin Tseng, Medford City Councilor

September 12, 2023