[Ed note: My Southborough accepts signed letters to the editor submitted by Southborough residents. Letters may be emailed to mysouthborough@gmail.com.
The following letter is from Al Hamilton.]
To the Editor:
On Saturday the 11th we will be asked to approve the largest single borrowing, if approved, in the town’s history. The $25 million borrowing is for roads and sidewalks. The borrowing which is planned in phases, will occur over 5 years. Roads and sidewalks are not cheap and the impact on the taxpayers will be substantial. The ultimate impact, after 5 years, on the median valued home ($898,100) will be about $500 per year or about $55 for every $100,000 of assessed value. There may be a very modest offset to this number in the DPW operating budgets.
How did we get here?
The reality is that we have been underinvesting in our roads for decades. The town is responsible for over 70 miles of roads and over 22 miles of sidewalks. Roads, in the past have had a life span of about 25 years and then require either a major or minor rehabilitation. A major rehab costs about $1,000,000 per mile and a minor rehab is on the order of $300,000 per mile. This means we should be rebuilding about 3 miles of road per year. At a blended cost of $500,000 per mile that means we should be spending about $1,500,000 per year on road rehabilitation. In the past we have received about $450,000 from the state via Chapter 90, and we have been appropriating a similar amount from the general fund for a total of about $900,000. Not all of this money is available for road rehabilitation. For example, the State requires us to pay for a substantial portion of the design on state funded road programs in town such as Cordaville Road and Marlborough Road. The result is that for decades we have not we have not been allocating enough money to maintain our roads in a steady condition, they are slowly decaying. This is borne out by our consultants’ reports that have gone over and classified every inch of our pavement.
The Plan:
The plan put forward by the DPW and Capital Budget committee envisions a 5 year program. Over the 5 years about 10 miles of road would receive major renovations and 20 miles would receive minor renovations. A program of more aggressive maintenance would also be started to extend the expected life of the new roads.
Two things need to be noted. First, this 5 year plan will not address all of our paving needs. It is likely that we will need a second similar program with more debt and taxes after this first 5 year program is finished. The timing of a second program is to be determined.
Secondly, there are risks and they should be faced:
Because future costs cannot be reliably estimated the sum that is authorized may not be sufficient to complete the full program. The estimates provided are based on pre Iran war costs. Asphalt costs track oil prices and of course the equipment required uses a lot of diesel fuel. These costs, at least for this year, are likely to be much higher than expected.
The tax calculations are based on borrowing for 20 years at 4.5%. There can be no assurance that we will be able to borrow on these terms in 5 years although we might be able to reap a benefit if we can borrow at better terms. A small portion (about $1,500,000) of the borrowing is for maintenance items with a much shorter life expectancy and if this portion of the borrowing was done on shorter terms it would require a modest, shorter term, increase in the tax impact. At least 2 members of the Select Board believe these maintenance items are more properly part of a DPW operating budget.
The 2026 program is reasonably certain but the further out in the program you go the greater the risk that some other road priority may supersede current plans.
Finally, this sum represents the costs of road replacement and sidewalk construction. It does not address drainage needs. We have miles of culverts and drainage systems much of which is reaching the end of its life or is failing. A separate source of funding will be required to address these problems. Or alternatively if the proceeds from this bonding is used it will result in fewer miles of roads being addressed.
How should I vote?
This bonding will require a 2/3 vote at Town Meeting and because the debt service needs to be outside the levy cap it will also require a majority at the ballot box.
The reality is that if you want better roads you need to pay for them, it cannot be done on the cheap. The taxes involved are not trivial and will impose hardships on some. If we continue our past practice, I am sure the DPW will try to do it’s best but there is no reason to believe that our roads will improve and will likely get worse.
I am personally in favor of placing the full 5 year program before Town Meeting for debate. Each member will have to make their own assessment of the benefits and costs.
Full disclosure – I live on the section of Pine Hill Road that is slated for year 1 major renovation.
Al Hamilton
35 Pine Hill Road
“Ruined Roads or Road to Ruin” ?? BOTH. Surprise, surprise! Hello, taxpayers: your taxes are going up again with yet another off-budget Special Town Meeting ridiculous squeeze.
· Taxpayers, you are URGED TO VOTE FOR MR.BARRON’S Citizen Warrant Petition calling for a new “Finance” (Citizen Audit) Committee – to bridge the information gap between the important work that Advisory does (budget work) – and ACTUAL SPENDING. Please stay to the end of Town Meeting and vote for the one measure that will put some control back in the taxpayers hands. Extremely important.
Fiascos like St. Mark’s Park would likely not have happened if spending accountability, management accountability, and audit checks and balances were in place. Was the then Select Board the last to know? Who authorized paying engineering fees to the town’s contract engineer, VHB, for their parking lot design for a private land owner, St. Mark’s, many months BEFORE the so-called St. Mark’s park was introduced to the Select Board as a project? With no appreciable work product (actual design plans—just a red crayon drawing). Who authorized payment? Who checked to see that the contract made (and who made it??), actually aligned with some actual appreciable work product?
Who authorized the payment of the razing of trees on land the town didn’t own? What about the drainage and infrastructure, paid for by taxpayers ? Remember the entire road budget for that year was spent on St. Mark’s Park? How did that happen – how did that entire fiasco happen and then taxpayers are handed the bill ?? Every million counts.
· Taxes are too high already, ruining the tax base, and the budget is unsustainable. You can’t develop your way out of it, even with multiple Costco’s. This town government and town departments must live within their means and STOP OVERSPENDING and tighten the budget, like any business—or insolvency looms, like any business.
· Sooner or later, even with these OFF-BUDGET surprise increases, even with a looming threat of override, even with surprise borrowing, THE BUDGET HAS TO BE BALANCED eventually, regardless.
· The problem is OVERSPENDING and LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY. Without reducing spending and getting better deals on behalf of taxpayers (i.e. following procurement LAW—and actual accountability by matching contracts with actual work product and procured items), the whole situation will crash. It doesn’t matter how many Costco deals are done – because spending is outpacing the Costco deal by multiples.
Even with this side borrowing (BTW, which is only ONE category of capital expense, what about buildings—and DPW has a long list of so-called deferred items, like the $35m catch basins—now there’s a real priority), taxpayers are being ridiculously overtaxed. Are taxpayers being misled by being told that the annual increase is ONLY x% (say 7.6% this past fiscal year) when in fact, it is effectively much higher WITH EACH SPECIAL TOWN MEETING pickpocket event? Where ironically the taxpayers are blamed if they don’t vote through the next crazy high-priced item?
But that said, none of this should be considered and voted through without absolute accountability for every single dollar, and starting with management and oversight of DPW and a full big picture transparent presentation to the bill payer / taxpayers of ALL CAPITAL NEEDS first. To those on Advisory who claim that the cost is the cost, that isn’t good management. You can’t roll your full cart up to the Costco cashier and tell the cashier you don’t have the money to pay for it – but just wait and you’ll run out to the car to get more money from mommy and daddy. Wishing isn’t managing.
BTW, $70m should be adequate (and must be) to run a government, for goodness sake. LOWER THE TAXES. Maybe start with some of the very overpriced line items like salaries, some of which are higher than the Governor of Massachusetts. All of these overpriced salaries should be brought to market and marked to market – and tough luck if someone doesn’t like it – they can run for Governor and recover their salary that way.
Thank you for being the only SB member who has the courage to speak out publicly and attempt to try to shed light and transparency on these appalling issues. To the taxpayers, please consider voting for Mr.Barron’s Citizen Warrant Petition (look for it at the end, of course), because it is an extremely important tool putting control, transparency, and accountability back in the bill payer / taxpayer hands.
Thank you for your consideration.
Seems like elected leaders in Southborough have been mismanaging our towns finances for decades. From schools that are falling apart & could really use replacement to roads that have been neglected. Where have our tax dollars been going if the town wasn’t paying for upkeep on schools or roads?
I get frustrated at the suggestion that mismanagement is the problem. It’s not like the money went nowhere, there just wasn’t enough of it. The pushback on any kind of tax levy to fund stuff like this is immediate and intense (witness the 750-words of high-quality content from Karen). If people want an audit, go right ahead, or better yet step up yourself and try to do some of the work. What you’re going to find is a bunch of people in town offices and committees doing the best they can.
First and foremost, thank you to Mr. Barron for his time, diligence, and caring to improve performance of our Town.
While all bill payer / taxpayers recognize the important work of Advisory (budgeting), it is alarming to see the derogatory dismissiveness of the informational gaps, accounting gaps and spending. The Town is out of compliance with the law per the state. How is that good management? How is that good for the taxpayers?
ARTICLE 33 – please see the following link.
https://www.mysouthborough.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/soboarticle1292.pdf
The state has noted in its report (see link to Article 33 above, very important to read) to the Town that:
· the Town Accountant is legally obliged to maintain custody of all contracts and grants AND VERIFY that the terms of the contract are met.
Not complying with Massachusetts Law would be seen by most people as mismanagement.
This deficiency is the genesis of the proposal to create an audit committee (Article 33). To attempt to address “Best Practices” and compliance with the law. The report also suggests:
· better statutory compliance and improved internal controls by depositing money into a TOWN CONTROLLED account. Questions? Read the report.
These are business issues and are not personal. The disparaging personal remarks about “quality content” are not appreciated and not a professional response.
Let me summarize in a few bullet points, instead of the 750 words (important words, BTW) that you bothered to count instead of listening to and understanding on multi-layered complex issues – and if you can supply answers, that would be appreciated:
· The Town is not in compliance with Massachusetts Law;
· Stop overspending and balance the budget. The tax increases are outpacing sustainability. Even with a looming override, no matter what, the budget eventually will have to be balanced.
· Who approved the contract with the Town Contract Engineer (VHB) to design a parking lot on private land for a private owner, many months before the “project” was introduced to the Select Board – and paid by the taxpayers? And who approved and paid the invoices? (Also: razing of trees, drainage, infrastructure, etc.)
How’s that for quality content? Any better?
Jack Barron’s Article 33 – TAXPAYERS PLEASE VOTE YES – IT’S YOUR MONEY
Excerpt from Massachusett’s DLS – Division of Local Services, Report dated 8-30-24
Item #11: Give Copies of All Contracts and Grants to the Accountant
After speaking with the Town Accountant, it appears she does not have custody of all the contracts and grants she is legally obliged to maintain. Therefore, we recommend that the heads of all departments, boards, and commissions ensure that they submit copies of all grants and contract to the accountant’s office in compliance with MGL, c.41, S.57 and bylaw Article 3, S.3-2. When reviewing payment requests, the accountant must be able to verify that the terms of the contract are met, if a department submits a bill and the contract with the payment terms is not on file, she should not process the payment until she gets the contract.
The Town is lucky to have citizens who read, do the research, and care. Many thanks to Mr. Barron for his time and effort to help improve operations, transparency and accountability — and ultimately improved performance of our local government. That is what everyone wants and the goal of this Article 33.
Thank you.
Hi Folks, my wife and I have been residing in town for 43 years my wife her entire life over 70 years. Up until about 15 years ago town maintenance was handled with efficiency and budgeted accordingly. It has now gotten totally out of control with no justification. It’s about time we support Mr. Barron’s petition for an audit! Some folks won’t be happy but we need it now!
Mike
There was no “golden period” 15 years ago when all was well. The underfunding of capital maintenance has been going on for as long as I have been involved with town finance which is over 25 years. I suspect that it has been happening for much longer.
The structural problem is that we give priority to operating budgets over capital budgets. It is much easier to kick the can down the road (pardon the pun), on fixing the road or maintaining a piece of equipment than it is to reduce an operating budget which means headcount. This is a structural problem with our budget process.
I voted in favor of Mr. Barron’s article not because I think we will find problems but because it is clear to me that the public needs to be reassured that we are in fact allocating their tax dollars appropriately.
Thank you for this letter Al. This is very informative. On Tuesday at the joint CIPC/SB meeting I also supported bringing this whole program to the town meeting for debate. My reasoning is that the town should be given the option to assess the full road situation along with the full costs of repair and give an up-or-down vote to it according to people’s priorities. The sticker shock associated with the price of the program is no doubt unpleasant, but this isn’t like the school issue where there are a lot of factors involved and potentially many options to consider, this is far simpler. These are the roads, this is what they look like and this is the price to fix them: yes or no? I will probably vote in favor of the article although I understand if the voters choose not to spend this much money, but I do favor the option being in front of the voters in as clear and complete a fashion as possible.
Full disclosure: I live on Wildwood Dr. which is slated for routine maintenance during the program, but I drive a 4runner so a couple potholes don’t scare me none 8-)
(disclosure upfront: member of the Planning Board, speaking on my own behalf; employee at VHB (same company as town consultant, but NOT on the town’s asset management))
Al’s point is a good one. Speaking purely from the mechanics of the matter (I am a software product manager for a product that evaluates this very thing: pavement lifecycle), pavement is like brakes on your car: you notice a problem at first; then you think ‘I can probably defer a little bit’. But the longer you defer, the way more costly it gets. Put another way: pavement deterioration is not linear in terms of actual deterioration nor cost per cent of life lost.
I’ll link to an image since I can’t paste it into the comment. As a description, it’s a falling ‘s’ curve, with pavement rating on the vertical axis (going from ‘great’ to ‘this is terrible’ (top to bottom); and the horizontal axis in years, from 0 (left) to 16 (right).
What you’ll see is a sharp drop in the middle. At the 12-year mark, you’ll see that:
from years 0 to 12 (~75% of a pavement’s life), a 40% drop in quality (typically measured in PCI; comment here if you really want to know) would cost $1 (unit cost, for comparison) to fix/return to 90% or higher of serviceable pavement life.
If left alone, in just *4 more years* (now we’re at year 16), that same repair ‘dollar’ is now $4. A four-fold increase per-mile increase.
Yowzers!
And, the decline of the drop/slope of the curve gets less friendly.
We do not want to ‘kick the can down the road’, but pretty soon, we’ll be kicking the can on a gravel sub-base, *wishing* we had pot holes, because that implies pavement.
Comment/reach out if you want me to post more tech stuff or share more resources.