MANY POLITICIANS MANAGE to motivate voters to head to the polls with promises of cutting taxes or reserving hikes for the ultra-rich, easing the burden on the average citizen. Yesterday, in a suburb seven miles north of Boston, thousands of voters managed to do the opposite: They mobilized in an off-cycle election year to tax themselves.

On Tuesday, the voters of Melrose voted 54 percent to 46 percent to increase municipal property taxes to raise an additional $13.5 million in revenue, restoring many of the cuts that have been made to the city’s budget in recent years, through a Proposition 2½ override.  

Enacted in 1980 through a ballot measure, Prop 2½ puts a strict limit on the amount municipalities can raise their total property tax levy year-over-year to 2.5 percent, plus new growth. Melrose has only passed two overrides since 1990, the most recent of which was in 2019. Just last year, Melrose voters rejected an override proposal that would raise $7.7 million in revenue.

The vote comes as Melrose officials were having an increasingly difficult time looking for new budget line items to cut. As a suburban city with many commuters working in Boston, Melrose does not have a strong industrial base, meaning the vast majority of its revenue comes from property taxes. The 2.5 percent rate of increase is not keeping pace with costs, and the city’s requirement for the council to pass a balanced budget has led to spending cuts to the city’s senior center, police, and libraries. The effects on Melrose’s public schools were an especially motivating factor for many voters.

“Some of our amazing educators, and especially a lot of our best educators who really give it their all, they are being strained beyond reason,” said Mary Caddle, chair of the “Yes for Melrose” campaign advocating for the override. She and her co-chair, Thomas Karthus, are both parents of children currently in Melrose public schools.

In the past two years, Melrose has cut over forty teaching and administrative positions in its schools. Melrose already ranks in the bottom eight percent of Massachusetts school districts in spending per pupil, spending $18,600 per child in fiscal year 2024. (The state average in 2023, the most recent data available, was $21,300.) Melrose’s MCAS scores have remained competitive compared to the rest of the state, but parents are worried about the future impact of further straining school resources today.

“The MCAS scores that you’re seeing now are as much a reflection of the education that many of the students have gotten over the last several years … but there’s a question of, where does this go from here?” said Karthus. “We’re going to continue losing teachers if we don’t pass an override, and at some point, probably a decade down the line, we’re going to start to see those scores drop.”

On Tuesday’s election day, a large group of “Yes” campaign supporters gathered in front of the Melrose Veterans Memorial Middle School, the only in-person polling place for this year’s off-cycle election. One of the supporters, Stephanie Turner, spoke about how teacher cuts have affected her children’s classrooms.

“We’ve seen larger classrooms in the elementary schools. I think one of our classrooms is now up to 26. When we started in the elementary school they were closer to 18,” Turner said. “But we’ve also seen turnover, too, and I think that’s representative of teacher salaries. Our teacher salaries are not competitive. The teachers that stay in Melrose are certainly not staying in Melrose for the compensation. I think they like the school, or they like the community.”

The cuts Melrose has had to make do not end at educational spending. Caddle noted that Melrose used to have a social worker at City Hall to help any resident but now there’s only part time social worker at the senior center.

The ballot measure had a tiered structure. Responding to resident feedback after the 2024 override failure that people wanted more options, voters could vote in favor of three different amounts to raise revenue by: $9.3 million, $11.9 million, and $13.5 million. Voters could vote in favor of all three – the highest amount that received a majority of “yes” votes is the one the city would enact.

In 2024, about 4,300 Melrose voters voted in favor of a $7.7 million override, with about 5,200 against. This year, the number of “no” votes stayed about the same, but the number of “yes” votes went up to 6,000, increasing overall turnout by about 1,600 voters.

The increases per tax bill won’t be cheap. The average single-family home in Melrose is worth $817,630; According to the “Yes” campaign’s override impact calculator, the property tax burden on the average homeowner will increase by $1,380 per year. The measure will also compound as the $13.5 million gets added to the city’s base levy rate, which will be raised by at least 2.5 percent each year going forward.

One of the few “No” supporters outside the polling place on the afternoon of the election balked at the price tag, saying there were other ways the city can make do with what it has.

“There’s so many more people coming into the city. There’s plenty of money to work with,” saidresident Jim Doherty. “It’s almost like [“No” supporters] are being painted like we’re hating to have to give more money to the kids. That’s not the point. … Right now it’s just a tough, tough time with the economy to keep out looking for more.”

The revenue raised by the override will go to the city’s general fund and then be appropriated to the categories of spending the city says the money will be used for, including restoring 17 school and seven other municipal positions. But technically, the city is not legally required to follow through on its promises. This was a motivating factor for some “No” campaigners.

“I was holding out a sign the other day in front of City Hall,” said Doherty. “Somebody pulled up in their car and said, ‘Why don’t you move? ‘I said to the guy nicely, ‘It’s all about accountability.’”

Karthus trusts that Melrose residents will maintain the pressure to make sure that funding is restored in line with the city’s proposed plan.

“It’s not a blank check for the mayor to go fund what she wants to fund,” he said. “Everything that’s spent has to go through the school committee and the city council in public hearings. There will be eyes on this.”

Jane Petersen is a freelance writer in Cambridge.