by John Osborn ·
Friday, April 3, 2026
The Finance Committee voted unanimously Tuesday afternoon to recommend the Select Board’s proposed fiscal 2027 budget, which calls for a Proposition 2½ override of $135,370, a cost of roughly $64 to the owner of an average-priced property in town. But much of the discussion centered on a five-year forecast that projects the town’s currently balanced budget sliding into a structural deficit of more than $5 million by fiscal 2031.
Finance Director Jared Mullane walked the committee through the assumptions underlying the forecast, which will be presented to voters at Town Meeting May 2.
Assuming the override passes, he reported, next year’s fiscal 2027 budget is balanced at approximately $36.7 million. From there, however, the picture grows darker. The forecast projects a deficit of roughly $1.1 million in fiscal 2028, growing to $2.3 million in fiscal 2029, $3.7 million in fiscal 2030, and exceeding $5 million by fiscal 2031.
The widening gap is driven by a mismatch between rising costs and flat revenues. School expenses are projected to climb from $16.8 million this year to nearly $20.8 million by fiscal 2031, while employee benefits—including health insurance, pension contributions, and other post-employment obligations—are expected to rise from $7.6 million to $10.7 million over the same period. Meanwhile, state aid is projected to hold flat at roughly $4.8 million through fiscal 2031, and local receipts are similarly flat. New construction is expected to contribute only about $100,000 in additional taxes annually, a conservative figure that Mullane said came directly from the town assessor, who is seeing fewer building permits.
Mullane cautioned that even those projections carry uncertainty, particularly on the payroll side. The town’s cost-of-living adjustments are tied to the prior year’s Consumer Price Index, meaning that recent inflationary pressure could push costs higher than the current estimates. “If inflation is higher, then the COLA is higher,” he said, describing the out-year payroll figures as “a guesstimate.” Contracts for the teachers union and the Department of Public Works are also still being negotiated, adding further unknowns to the payroll side of the ledger.
The committee endorsed the Select Board’s budget after a months-long process in which the two bodies arrived at notably different numbers. In early February, the Finance Committee recommended a budget that would have required an override of $396,754. The Select Board reviewed those recommendations at a Feb. 18 budget retreat, agreed with some cuts and rejected others, and ultimately produced a budget with a much smaller override, initially estimated at around $151,972.
The lower number was made possible by an unexpected reduction in health insurance costs. Premiums that had been budgeted to rise 15% over the current year will instead increase by roughly 6%, a difference worth more than $313,000. The final override figure of $135,370 is even lower than the Select Board’s original proposal, reflecting further adjustments made since February.
Among the items that drove a wedge between the two budgets was the Select Board’s decision to restore—and expand—funding for an economic development director, a position the Finance Committee had recommended cutting. Member James O’Leary noted the discrepancy for the record.
The committee debated at some length how to handle the divergence. O’Leary suggested acknowledging in the Finance Committee’s published budget book that its recommendations had differed from the Select Board’s final budget. Chair Mike Derse resisted the idea. “It’s the Select Board’s budget and we were their advisor,” he said, adding that he preferred to leave well enough alone rather than flag the disagreement publicly at Town Meeting.
After some back-and-forth over language, the committee settled on a motion to “recommend passage” of the omnibus budget article—language that stopped short of endorsing the Select Board’s decisions. Derse said he personally disagreed with some of the Select Board’s additions but would support the override regardless. “I will still vote for the override as written,” he said. The motion passed 4-0.
Tuesday’s vote was the final step needed to complete the town’s annual warrant. The Finance Committee’s recommendations, along with reports from the Capital Planning and Investment Committee and the Community Preservation Committee, were due to the printer April 1 for inclusion in the Town Meeting booklet. Interim Town Administrator Dawn Dunbar told the Press earlier this week that she hoped to post the full booklet online by the end of the week.
In other business, the committee voted 4-0 to approve a $20,000 transfer from the Reserve Fund to cover ongoing PFAS contamination testing around the town landfill. Mullane said the town has spent roughly $97,000 on the testing to date and expects costs to reach at least $120,000. The testing is required by the state Department of Environmental Protection, and Dunbar told the committee that each positive test result triggers a further expansion of the testing radius—most recently prompting letters to five additional homeowners. In some cases, the town has also been required to supply bottled water to affected households.
Mullane reported a change in how the ambulance budget is balanced. A general fund subsidy that had originally been included was removed after revenues from user charges proved sufficient to cover expenses through the first half of the fiscal year. The total budget remains unchanged; only the funding source for the ambulance was adjusted.