The Rejection of the $14.6m Override and what it means for the December Special Election

On April 1, 2025, Stoneham voters rejected a $14.6 million override. Now, just eight months later, we're being asked to vote on a $12.5 million or $9.3 million override on December 9th. The natural question is: why are we trying again so soon? Didn't the voters already speak?

Last spring the town rejected a $14.6 million override, but the election and the discourse that followed over the summer has proven that our community is far more open to supporting town services than a simple "yes or no" tally suggests. What we learned in the months since April--through comprehensive surveys, detailed committee work, and honest community conversations--is that Stoneham residents want to find a solution. They just need the right approach, the right number, and the right information.

What's at Stake

The May 2025 Town Meeting passed a balanced budget, but as School Committee Chair Jaime Wallace bluntly stated, it was "the band-aid. This was the one-year fix." The budget only works because we borrowed $1.2 million from funds that should have gone into our stabilization account, essentially raiding our emergency savings to pay regular bills.

Without an override, Stoneham's public library risks losing state accreditation, which would cost us state funding and access to resource-sharing networks. The Council on Aging continues operating with reduced staff and services for seniors. Police and Fire departments remain understaffed, affecting response times. The Department of Public Works lacks sufficient crews to maintain our roads and infrastructure. The schools are facing unprecedented loss of staff because of our inability to pay competitive wages.

The $12.5 million override would restore many of these services and provide sustainable funding through fiscal year 2029. The $9.3 million override would allow us to maintain level services with some restorations. This is not about adding new programs or expanding government, it's about maintaining the basic level of service Stoneham residents expect and deserve.

The April Election Was Closer Than It Looked

The final April tally showed 3,432 no votes versus 2,909 yes votes--a margin of 523 votes, or 53.6% to 45.5%. This wasn't a landslide defeat, and considering how unpopular asking people to pay more taxes tends to be, the fact it was this close should be all you need to realize this is something the town truly has an appetite for.

The turnout data reveals another important dimension: only 6,398 voters participated out of 17,794 registered voters--just 36% turnout. That means 11,396 registered voters didn't weigh in at all.
What the Community Told Us

Within weeks of the April defeat, Stoneham launched a comprehensive survey to understand what residents actually wanted. An extraordinary 1,192 people responded, a number that dwarfs typical town participation and represents a genuine cross-section of the community based on age distribution and voting patterns.

The results painted a clear picture. When asked if they would be willing to pay higher taxes to support town services, 77.5% said yes or maybe. Only 19% gave a hard "never." When asked about timing for another override vote, 61% said "as soon as legally possible," with another 11.4% supporting a vote within six months to a year. When asked about acceptable tax increase levels, approximately 80% of respondents fell within the range that the $12.5 million proposal represents.

Perhaps most revealing: when survey respondents were asked how they voted on April 1st, 59.6% said they voted yes while 29.2% said they voted no. This suggests that even residents who rejected the $14.6m override weren't rejecting the idea of investing in Stoneham, they were rejecting the specific approach.

The Information Gap: What Changed Between April and December

On May 5th we passed a miserable, but balanced, budget for the town that resulted in many painful cuts and irresponsibly borrowing $1.2 million from our own future to make it happen. The community had cooperated in passing a painful budget with the understanding that the override conversation would continue, not end.

But something critical emerged in the weeks after the April vote: many residents who voted no simply didn't understand what was at stake. The April election was crowded with contested races for Select Board, School Committee, and Town Clerk. Override messaging competed for attention with candidate campaigns, and crucial details about service impacts got lost in the noise.

Local resident Abby Shaw discovered this firsthand when she spent her lunch breaks at the senior center in May talking with residents about the override. Many seniors who voted no on April 1st didn't realize the senior center was at risk. They thought the override primarily impacted schools. When they learned about Council on Aging cuts--the programs and services that form the lifeblood of their daily community--they expressed genuine regret. As Shaw put it, "I had many people this week tell me that they will be in the grave without the senior center."

This wasn't an isolated experience. Across town, residents reported similar conversations: library users who didn't know accreditation was threatened, parents who didn't realize how severe the school staffing crisis had become, homeowners who didn't understand that understaffed DPW crews meant delayed road repairs and snow removal issues.

The Override Study Committee was formed specifically to address this information gap. For three months over summer 2025, the committee met weekly at Town Hall, hearing presentations from every department head. Police Chief explained staffing shortfalls and response time concerns. Fire Chief detailed the impact of vacant positions on shift coverage. The Library Director walked through what losing state accreditation actually means: it's not just a bureaucratic designation, but ensures state funding and access to resource-sharing networks that allow our small library to offer vital services to our community.

The School Committee presented enrollment projections, special education cost growth (from $10 million to $15 million in recent years), and the competitive wage pressures that make it nearly impossible to recruit and retain quality teachers when surrounding communities pay significantly more. The DPW Director showed maps of deferred road maintenance, explained equipment that should have been replaced years ago, and described how short staffing forces difficult choices between filling potholes and clearing catch basins.

All of these presentations are now publicly available. The Override Study Committee's final report, completed September 30, 2025, synthesizes months of analysis into a comprehensive document that breaks down:

• Department-by-department budget needs and service level impacts
• Three-year financial projections (FY27-29) showing the sustainability window
• Analysis of every conceivable non-override revenue source (and why they're insufficient)
• Specific consequences if the override fails versus if it passes
• Clear allocation showing exactly where the $12.5 million goes

This level of detail and accessibility of information simply didn't exist for the April vote. It exists now because residents asked for it, and the Override Study Committee delivered. Voters on December 9th will have information April voters didn't: an accessible, vetted, publicly scrutinized plan backed by months of expert analysis and community input.

The December ballot also benefits from focus. There are no competing candidate races. The media coverage, the campaign messaging, and voter attention can concentrate entirely on one question: does Stoneham need this override? That clarity makes it far easier for residents to get accurate information and make informed decisions.

Other Massachusetts Communities Have Successfully Come Back

Stoneham isn't breaking new ground by proposing another override after an April defeat. Analysis of Massachusetts Department of Revenue data shows that 590 communities successfully passed an override within one year after an initial defeat. In fact, 100 communities did so within 60 days through special elections.

Some towns found success in decreasing their asks. Others actually raised theirs. What matters is whether the new proposal addresses voter concerns with clear justification. Among the 257 Massachusetts communities that reduced their override amount after an initial defeat, the strategy consistently resonated with voters who supported the concept but found the initial ask too large.

Consider Auburn in 2006. They failed a $500,000 override, came back just 33 days later with a $1.3 million ask (160% higher than the first attempt) and won decisively with 2,480 yes votes versus 2,079 no votes. The larger, more comprehensive approach convinced voters the town was serious about addressing all needs rather than seeking piecemeal solutions.

Reading took a similar approach in 2003. After failing a $250,000 override in February, they returned just 42 days later in April with a $4.5 million request (an 1,700% increase) and passed it with 4,249 yes votes versus 3,190 no votes. Voters responded to a complete solution that addressed the full scope of the problem.

The lesson from across Massachusetts is straightforward: communities with clear communication about what changed frequently succeed on second attempts, having engaged their towns better after the initial discourse and working with their communities to find a more comprehensive plan to address the town's needs.

This Isn't Disrespecting the April Vote

Some argue that holding another override vote so soon disrespects the voters' decision. This argument misunderstands what voters actually said on April 1st. The vote wasn't a blanket rejection of any override, it was a specific rejection of $14.6 million. The distinction matters enormously.

If April's vote represented absolute opposition to any override under any circumstances, the May survey wouldn't have shown 77.5% willing to pay higher taxes or 61% wanting to vote again as soon as legally possible. Those numbers reveal a community that supports investing in town services but needs the right proposal.

The Override Study Committee formed after April's vote and met weekly throughout summer 2025. They heard from every department head, reviewed three-year financial projections, analyzed non-override revenue sources, and documented specific service impacts. On August 26th, they voted 7-1 to recommend another override. On September 25th, they voted 6-2 to recommend specifically $12.5 million--a 14% reduction from April that reflects careful analysis of immediate needs while providing sustainable funding through fiscal year 2029. And the Select Board and Town Administrator even took it a step further and found an even more barebones option at $9.3 million that would at least allow us to maintain level services.

Democracy isn't about making one decision and never revisiting it. Democracy is giving voters opportunities to express their will as circumstances change and options become clearer. The months of committee work, community surveys, and fiscal analysis represent exactly the kind of due diligence residents asked for. The $12.5 million proposal and the $9.3 million proposal directly address the feedback that $14.6 million was too high. The community has told us they're ready, and denying them this opportunity is not democratic. It is not respecting the will of the people. We the people get to decide how we're going to solve this problem, and on December 9th we will.

Citations:

• Election Result Data: https://www.stoneham-ma.gov/25...
• Survey Findings and Citizen Comments: https://videoplayer.telvue.com...
• Override Study Committee Recommendations: https://www.stoneham-ma.gov/11...
• Massachusetts Override Data Analysis: https://dls-gw.dor.state.ma.us...

This article was originally posted to SaveOurStoneham.org.