[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
