by John Osborn ·
Friday, February 27, 2026
At an unusual in-person, three-hour Feb. 18 meeting at Town Hall, dubbed a “budget retreat,” the Select Board reviewed the cuts recommended for fiscal 2027 earlier this month by the Finance Committee. They agreed with some, pushed back on others, and called for stakeholder “mini-summits” on three items before any final decisions are made. No votes were taken.
The Select Board, which has the final say, is scheduled to vote on a fiscal 2027 budget at its March 3 meeting, but that’s also the date the Finance Committee is scheduled to present its own recommendations. Select Board member Eric Ward told the Press that the board could decide to delay its vote until March 17. At stake is the level of services the town and schools can provide in the coming year and the burden taxpayers will be asked to bear to pay for them.
The most consequential development at last week’s meeting had nothing to do with cuts. Health insurance premiums for town employees, which had been budgeted to increase by 15% over the current year, will instead rise at roughly 6%—a difference worth $313,244.
The news, reported by Assistant Town Administrator Dawn Dunbar, was an unexpected surprise. Board Chair Kara Minar called it “a budget miracle,” but board members worried that with the regional economy unsettled and private sector layoffs possible, more employee spouses could lose jobs—and with them employer-sponsored health coverage—leading them to opt into the town plan. Finance Director Jared Mullane, who participated in the meeting along with Town Administrator Dan Nason, told the group the number of employees joining the plan this year was the highest he had seen during his five-year tenure. In the end, the board agreed to retain a 5% buffer in the health insurance budget—roughly $200,000—against that contingency.
Where the board and the Finance Committee most sharply diverged was on the town’s Land Use Department planner. The Finance Committee had voted to reduce the position from full time to 19 hours a week, saving $50,000 plus benefits. The Select Board, however, rejected that cut and went the other direction, agreeing to keep the full $100,000 salary in the current fiscal 2027 budget and adding $30,000 more—in hope of attracting a higher-caliber candidate who could focus on commercial and economic development while supporting the ongoing needs of the Planning Board. Even so, Minar cautioned that $130,000 plus benefits might still not be enough “to get the quality of person” the town needs.
Still River resident Craig Maxey, speaking during public comment, urged the board to make the case for a planner to taxpayers with a return-on-investment analysis showing what comparable towns have gained from similar positions. Nason acknowledged the idea had merit but said outcomes would be hard to track.
The board did agree with several of the Finance Committee’s recommendations. Members accepted moving the $80,000 annual police cruiser purchase to the capital budget; reducing OPEB (other post-employment employee benefits) trust funding by $25,000; trimming $14,000 from the Nashoba Valley Dispatch District assessment; and shifting $10,000 in building department salaries to a revolving fund. The board also identified a $30,000 reduction in the public buildings supplies budget—a line item the Finance Committee had overlooked—noting it has historically come in well under its appropriation year after year.
Like the Finance Committee, the board was firm in rejecting cuts to some services. Reducing the number of police officers—the town had floated cutting one position at $85,000—was dismissed as a “horrible look,” particularly since the department had only recently filled the slot. Library hours and Council on Aging services were similarly declared off limits, with the COA board having voted unanimously the day before to oppose any reduction. But the board felt the schools should be asked to cut only an additional $50,000 from their budget, as opposed to the $88,000 asked by FinCom.
The board called for mini-summits—small meetings of affected parties—before taking a position on three line items. Those involve the tree warden’s $10,000 purchase services budget; the proposed consolidation of finance receptionist duties with Board of Health administrative support; and the ambulance enterprise fund subsidy, where members said they need better data on user fee revenues and a pending state grant before deciding whether to cut a $62,000 subsidy.
With the health insurance savings factored in alongside the board’s own adjustments, the Proposition 2½ override that would be needed to balance the budget fell to approximately $151,972—roughly half the $396,754 recommended by the Finance Committee and a fraction of the $1.4 million override that appeared necessary last November.
The difference is meaningful to taxpayers. According to the state Department of Revenue’s tax calculator, the Select Board’s suggested $151,972 override would add an estimated $73.50 to the annual tax bill for a home assessed at the town average of $918,796, which currently carries a tax bill of $14,581. The Finance Committee’s larger override would cost the same homeowner an estimated $192—nearly three times as much.
Either amount would come on top of the tax increase necessary to pay for the 2.5% increase in next fiscal year’s levy allowed under Proposition 2½.