by John Osborn ·
Friday, January 9, 2026
With the fiscal 2027 budget season underway, Harvard officials are staring at a significant gap between anticipated revenues and requested spending—and no consensus yet on how far to go in asking taxpayers to make up the difference.
At the Select Board’s Jan. 6 meeting, Finance Director Jared Mullane said that, based on what is known to date, revenues allowed under Proposition 2½—including the standard 2.5% property tax levy increase and new growth—leave the town with a $740,000 deficit in the projected fiscal 2027 budget.
While that number is considerably less than the $1.2 million deficit estimated a month ago, Finance Committee Chair Mike Derse said closing that gap without an override will be extremely difficult.
“I see [fiscal 2027] being another tight year,” Derse said. “I think it would be painful to do a strict no‑override budget,” adding that the size of the shortfall rules out superficial trimming.
“The deficit right now is $740,000,” he said, and closing that gap “would take … [cutting] people.” A deficit of that size, he said, “is not something that we’re going to reduce by cutting [our spending] on salt.”
Derse and Mullane both pressed the Select Board for more precise direction—either a firm “no‑override” stance or at least a numeric target for how much to allow the budget to exceed expected revenues. Voters approved a $1.3 million operating override last year, and several board members said they are mindful of both the size of that increase and the concerns it raised among some residents.
The discussion was prompted by the Select Board’s commitment this year to provide the Finance Committee with budget guidance by Dec. 31, as required by the town charter. At the meeting, Select Board members reaffirmed their goal of avoiding an override but stopped short of committing to a specific spending ceiling.
Vice Chair SusanMary Redinger said that while board members had agreed to aim for “no override” at their fall 2025 retreat,” some of the cuts required to achieve that result would “probably be untenable.”
Board member Eve Wittenberg said she wanted to first see a complete no‑override budget and questioned some of the level‑service justifications in departmental requests. “I think that it is natural to protect one’s budget and domain and staff and services,” she said. But she did not think that it would be as catastrophic as some departments claimed if level service could not be achieved.
“I feel reasonably strongly that we need to demonstrate what a budget would look like without an override so it is eminently clear to the town exactly what our choices are.”
Board member Eric Ward questioned whether “no override” alone constituted usable guidance: “Of course, we always want that. … So I think we’re going to have to come up with some better guidance.”
Select Board Chair Kara Minar framed the evening’s conversation as an early “top‑line” discussion, saying the board will “come back later to give more detailed guidance and to understand what no override would look like.”
Derse suggested that sharper guidance should follow next week’s Jan. 12 joint session with the School Committee, when school officials will present their fiscal 2027 budget, saying decisions on targets would be better made after seeing the schools’ request
In coming weeks, Derse said, the Finance Committee will continue departmental reviews and work with Town Hall staff on possible cuts. Mullane said more “defined guidance” from the Select Board—on both the overall target and how much should fall on town versus school budgets—will be critical as officials attempt to close the $740,000 deficit ahead of Town Meeting.