Speaker 1: Welcome to the Thursday, February 13th select board meeting. I call this meeting to order at 6:04 PM and I would like to ask those in the room who are able to stand, say the pledge of Allegiance, and observe a moment of silence, Speaker 2: Pledge allegiance, pledge Speaker 3: To the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic who stands, one nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. Speaker 2: Thank you. Pause one second. Yes. Not up. Speaker 1: We're waiting a moment to allow access
to the viewers on Zoom. At this point, we will move into public speak. Any individual may raise an issue that is not included on tonight's agenda, and it will be taken under advisement by the board. There'll be no opportunity for debate during this portion of the meeting due to the requirements of open meeting law, this section of the agenda is limited to 10 minutes and any individual addressing the board during this section of the agenda shall be limited to three minutes while the select board endeavors to ensure that all interested par persons have the opportunity to address the select board due to time constraints that may not be possible.
Is there anyone in the room who would like to address the board? Mr. Scott? Speaker 2: I, the light on. Speaker 4: Light's on. Okay. Here you go. Roger Scott. 40 Water Street. The way I'd like to address tonight was I was here last night and I just, the general, there was a lot of speculation and negativity last night and confusion. So I just think that that needs to be addressed. I think that the board needs to be pretty much firm on
what they're trying to achieve here and pick out a budget and run with it. And assuming you can't make those assumptions, you know, that's, we are gonna lose a FEMA grant and things like that. Just because you don't like an election or not, you just need to live on what, you know, what you have Speaker 1: Mr. Scott, that's on the agenda tonight, so I'm gonna have to cut you off. Speaker 4: Okay. But Speaker 1: Last night, I appreciate your comments though, and I thank you for them. Speaker 4: Thank you. Speaker 1: So, to level set the expectation for tonight's meeting, the only item on the
agenda is to vote. A figure to vote whether to place an override on the ballot and what that figure would be. That is the entire scope of discussion for the board. And we will now be taking public comment on that. So I'd like to open it to the board for discussion, and I'd like to take just a moment and read exactly what the override language is for the public. The ballot on the ballot will not have explanatory language. It will not say we, we, we agree not to fund this or fund that.
It's just going to be a number. And this is a language that's been, which is required under mass general law. So the question that would be put on the ballot is, shall the town of Natick be allowed to assess an additional blank million in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of funding the operating and capital budgets of the town and of the public schools for the fiscal year, beginning July 1st, 2025. Question mark. There is the entire question that we're discussing tonight. So I'd like to open it to the board for comment, debate. Ms. Pope,
Speaker 5: I'm interested in what we all think about the language, because one of the things that we know about questions on ballots is that they can be very jargony and choppy and have a bunch of double negatives and things like that to the point where you, you have to, you know, really ask somebody what does it mean? But that feels straightforward as it reads right now. It seems very, pretty straightforward. Speaker 1: Yeah, I would agree. Speaker 6: Just to note, that's the language that's required by the state. So we, we can't change that language. We don't, other than the dollar amount really,
you change the purposes as well. Purposes, yes. But when it's an operational override, it's, it, it's fairly set. Speaker 1: Ms. Slager No, I was just gonna comment that it's required. Oh, yes. And this has been approved by counsel, Speaker 6: Which we appreciate that the state gave us. That's straightforward language. Yes. Speaker 1: Mr. Sidney? Speaker 7: Yeah, I think let's start with a motion to put a question on the ballot and then we can go into debate on amounts afterwards. Speaker 1: Is that your motion, Mr. Sydney? Speaker 7: That is my motion. Speaker 1: I'll take a second. Seconded by Mr. Bruce. Mr. Bruce, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed?
Any abstentions? The motion carries to put an, Speaker 7: A single question, Speaker 1: A single question on the ballot for an override. So now that we got that business outta the way, who would like to speak as to what that number looks like? Ms. Slager? Speaker 8: I'm gonna propose $6 million. I, I think that the $8 million amount for the average median home value, which Mr. Erickson was kind enough to give us all the calculations for various amounts today of $515. That's just a lot of money considering that we already,
for this fiscal year, just based on the two and a half, the average increase is over $400 and next year it'll be likely be something about the same. So we're just asking an awful lot from our taxpayers. I think that $6 million, it's $382. It's approximately 25% less. I think that's more palatable. Obviously it's up to the voters to decide, but I think we can do it within, you know, some of the things that we talked about last night that I don't feel like we need to rehash again.
I think that That's, that would be my proposal. I think that that will be enough for the town and, you know, we'll see where we are after a year. I don't, I'm hopeful that we would not need another override before, well, maybe for another 17 years, which would be great. But yeah, I, I just am feeling, and I've heard from a lot of people, as you all have that affordability is a huge issue for everyone. And I'd like to see, you know, we've heard from people, we've heard that their concerns and I would like to see the lower amount.
Speaker 1: Mr. Evans. Speaker 9: Thank you Madam Chair. Are we allowed to ask town administration for a clarification on? Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 9: Okay. Well here's, here's what I'm, what I requested, by the way, the figures for the 8, 7, 6 and a half and $6 million, just to be illustrative of what, what the impact would be on the average resident. So my question is, you know, I look at the numbers and I, I, I agree that 8 million is too big a number.
My question actually burns comes down to six and a half versus six. I, I believe that we can, through tax title chip away at that number, increase that revenue. But what I'm concerned about is FEMA reimbursement. I have zero confidence in the current administration fulfilling its obligations financially, and that bumps up a, a $2 million liability to the town. I hope to be proven wrong, but my question is the does
in a, a scenario of six and a half million, let's take that one first. How would that implicate town operations and school operations? Speaker 6: May, may I ask clarifying V versus Speaker 9: Versus Well, versus anything but eight. I, I would say I want to have at least a million dollars off because we will be collecting some monies and I think we do owe it to the residents to cut this back a little at least. Speaker 6: So I mean, big picture when we formulated we being town administration, working
with school administration, working with some of the, a lot of the conversations that have been happening over the last six plus months with a lot of people, including some of you including school committee, including FinCon. We formulated, we, we started actually in an ideal scenario, well, we actually looked at a lot of different scenarios from 5 million to 15 million to 10 million to multi-year. We looked at them all, the consensus came down to 8 million as a, as actually a point
where that was really what was needed in order to have the most minimal impact, but still realize that we were gonna have to be pretty tight, extremely tight between the next fiscal year and FY 30 when we know there's gonna be some more flexibility in our budgeting. So really anything below 8 million is just going to be additional tightness, additional challenge, additional uncertainty moving forward in the future fiscal years where that will be, you know,
where the impact is to be felt is to be determined. You know, we can, I can tell you what our plan is for FY 26, but the FEMA reimbursement is a great example of something that could come in, in FY 26 or 27, which might cause us to have major changes to even FY 26 come October or just today. For example, I sent an email to the board about, we got some positive news about healthcare, but some financially positive news about healthcare and, but some maybe financially not so positive news about Kife tech.
It's positive in the sense that kife tech assessments might go up next year because more native students are going there, but it's a financial impact. So it's just very real that we are seeing changes that are hard to anticipate on a day-to-day basis. And so looking beyond the next year and having less clarity on the finances with a lower override amount would just mean we'll have more pinch points moving forward or more areas where we need to be either, you know,
not able to do what we maybe think we can do in the coming years. Like the forecasting that has been provided to date did build in some assumptions and some of those assumptions included such things as the town budget being at around 3.2%, the school budget at being around 4% on an average increase after FY 26. We've also heard though that, you know, both town and school are in the process of renegotiating contracts with several unions and they are, you know, roughly 80 to 90% of our budget. So depending on how those go, if either town
or school needs more than that, then we're looking at potential other cuts in future years. Those are just some of the very real potential impacts of a lesser number, whether it's six, 6.5 or seven from the eight. Now even the eight had some challenges in the future years, which were also Allen in that forecast. But those are, those were challenges that in working with town and school administrations, we felt comfortable with those amounts moving forward. Any lesser amount is just meaning that we have less comfort. So I think I'll leave it at that for
the answer 'cause it's, you Speaker 2: Know, I appreciate that. Thank you. Speaker 5: Anyone else? I'm comfortable with the eight. I feel as though things have already been trimmed off to make the eight possible. And I'm concerned that going forward we would, we would be too tight and I'm concerned that we would have to come back and ask for more money and I would rather ask for the money now and be in a better place, come 2030 then then be too tight. So my comfort level is, is with the eight, honestly.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Ms. Pope, Mr. Sidney, Speaker 7: I would love to ask for eight. My concern is that I'm not sure it would pass. I think, I think we'd lose at the, at the ballot box with eight and then we got nothing. I was considering suggesting seven. I think six is too low. I think we, you know, even with, you know, the potential for tax title to get cleaned up and, and really, you know, get some extra funds from overlay surplus. I think six is going to drive us drive the town nuts in two years.
I think that 26 budget would be frankly be okay tight, but okay, it's, you know, as Mr. Erickson mentioned, going further out, it tightens and tightens and tightens and if the goal is to get to 2030, I'm not sure six would do that. So, you know, I'm, I, I want a number and, and I'm not entirely sure what it is, but I want a number that we can take to the voters and have it pass. And what I've been hearing is, you know, don't ask me to pay for taxes. They're gonna go into savings. You know, I think that's a misstatement of what's happening,
but that's the perception. And I've also heard from a number of seniors who are just, you know, they're on fixed incomes. They're just as concerned about what's happening with social security and Medicare and the stock market as I am, it would with my retirement funds. And they've said that they can't support 8 million. So I'm not sure what I, I still haven't decided what I think the right number is. You know, six and a half, seven, probably little smaller.
The easier it's gonna be to get it through the, get it by the, get it passed by the town. Speaker 1: So along those lines, I spent most of the day off email, away from just going through the notes, the discussion we had last night, looking through the budget book and getting a sense of how to think about six, six and a half. Seven, seven and a half. What does that look like? I apologize. The, the select board receive, because we vote on this, we get different letters than the school committee gets.
And there are plenty of parents who have showed up at school committee and written letters and said, why are you only asking for eight? You need more. You're laying off, you know, 10 people, you've cut $2 million. We're worried about the impact on our kids' education. So we get different letters and different, we have different conversations. I don't know how many of us are talking to young parents. So just want to make that observation. I'm not advocating for more than eight. I'm not saying that. I'm just presenting some of the things that I thought about today when I looked at the numbers as a percentage of our budget, which is almost $200 million.
8 million is roughly what we went for in statistically ins. Significantly different from what the 2008 for fiscal 2009 override was for. And that passed. But eight sounds huge. And so when we break down the difference between six and eight, I don't know that we've done a really good job talking about what the impact is on an average single family home. The difference between six and six and a half million is $32 a year. The difference between six and a half and 7 million is $28 a year.
I'm not saying this doesn't add up, I'm just talking about the margin. The difference between these numbers seven and eight is $73 a year. Now, when we go from six to eight, Ms. Shaw is right, it's $133 a year, which is $11 a month. I think it's important for us to be thinking about not just the very real emotional and, and fear-driven factors about the state of the economy. 'cause not, we're not only taught when people are reacting to that number, they're not only reacting to the number, right? They're reacting to the uncertainty in the markets.
They're reacting to the uncertainty in their retirement accounts. They're reacting to the price of eggs, the restrictions on the price of eggs, the 35% increase in the ever source distribution for gas and electric. I heard about a lot of that today. So there, this isn't just a simple question of $133 a year equaling $11 a month. I understand that the way people are reacting to this, I think we need to do a better job in explaining what the real impact is going to be. I am personally am somewhere between six and a half and seven and leaning towards seven
because I want to make sure that we aren't coming back to the voters. And, and, and this is coupled with whatever number we pick on, we pick tonight to go onto the ballot. 'cause we've, we've made that vote. This is coupled with the commitments that we've made that we'll begin to articulate in the next couple of weeks about how we'll be manage managing our financial management principles, our policies, commitments to the voters, a commitment to looking at a split tax rate seriously next year to shift some of the tax burden onto the com commercial base, doing it in advance of the November vote.
So we've already talked as a board last night. I, I didn't find it negative. I thought it was really positive, the sense that like, we're willing to listen to all of the suggestions that the voters make, but the numbers are kind of the numbers. And so given the unknowns in the, the, the potential, I was reading some analyses by the Wall Street Journal, harb, hardly a liberal bastion of economic thought about what the current administration's proposal's impact will be on continuing inflation and moving into stagnation.
That's gonna affect every one of us, including the town. And I think if we undersell, there are people at 8 million or 6 million that are not gonna vote for this period, for their own personal reasons, whether they can afford it or not. There are people who are between six and 8 million who are not gonna vote on this because they simply can't afford it. So I would like to tailor a message to those people who say, okay, you've made commitments to the voters to, to do certain things because between now and the vote, we will be making those, we will be formulating those commitments and making those commitments. But I also wanna stress that the difference between eight
and 2 million, I mean six and $8 million is 1% of our over roughly 1% of our overall budget, more or less roughly at $133 a year for our taxpayer at $11 a month. Ms. Alger Speaker 8: Just wanna point out that that information is not on the ballot. I mean, we have to assume that many people that are coming to the polls will be educated. And I, and I know that there'll be a lot of information that's gonna be put out there,
but there's also people that are just gonna show up and they're not gonna understand that it's $11 a month or anything like that. They're gonna see the number and if that number looks too big, they're not gonna vote for it. That's my opinion. Speaker 1: And I think that when we say six and we come back next year and say we need another two, it's gonna be hard to get that from the voters or in two years or in three years because the question's gonna come up. If we have people who, if we do not do a good job, we meaning the board and to, to our neighbors in articulating what this means, then shame on us. There are going to be people. Look, not everybody can spend the amount of time
that the people in this room and on Zoom spend in researching municipal finance. In fact, I would say the vast majority of the 25,000 voters in this town are busy with childcare going back and forth to, to, to sports drop off, you know, dance classes, extracurricular, they're dealing with aging parents, sick relatives, they don't have time to deal in this. It's, it's our job. If we think that the administration needs 8 million, 6 million, six and a half, it's our job to,
to go out in the community and educate. So you're right. But what I would say is it's also equally possible that we say six and then we come back in two years and go, we need another two. And then what, what do we do? Speaker 7: And it would likely be a little bit higher than two because of inflation and, Speaker 1: And what whatever other, yes, whatever the reasons. Speaker 9: I'm sure. Speaker 1: So for, for me personally, I am somewhere between, I'm somewhere around seven, six and a half and seven. It's even six and a half I think is too tight. And that education process hasn't really started because we, we've been deliberating.
So you're right, none of this information will be on the ballot. There won't, there won't be a little slide that says this is what this is gonna cost you. That's on, that's on us. That's on us. And that those who support this and those who support the schools because 70% of this is gonna be going to the schools. Yes. Mr. S Speaker 9: I'd just like to, our next public forum is when? March 11th, something like that? Speaker 6: 12th, correct. I think it's the 12th. 12th, Speaker 9: Okay. Speaker 6: Yes. March 12th. March 12th. Speaker 9: Okay. Is there a way to schedule one or more other forums to get once, once we have this vote
and once we have that figure and once we have the explanations of how this would affect a, an average resident, we'll call it, that's gonna take education as, as we've all agreed. So the more venues that we can create, and it can be as easy as a zoom type call, it doesn't have to be necessarily in person, but I, I take Linda's point is just when you see that number, whatever that number ends up being, that's gonna be either the catalyst for you
to say absolutely not, or yeah, I'm good for it. So I think it behooves us to leave, leave nothing on the field as they say. When I, when I used to play sports, so, Speaker 1: So for the forum on the 12th 12th, I had envisioned that forum, that entire two hour period to be only engagement from residents. We've done, we've taken up enough time in forums explaining over and over and over with charts and graphs, fire hosing information we need
to make it possible for people to ask us questions. And we, we, I was envisioning that and I'm open to suggestions, but yes, another, Speaker 9: I'm just full of ideas or something full of something. What about a mailer? That's, that's a non-descript. Are we allowed to do a non-descript mailer that just says, here's the potential impact financially? So of that, number two residents, Speaker 6: So the town, the town cannot spend funds on advocacy for really any type of political or other election.
What we can do is a mailer that's non-political sent to everybody just to say like, come and vote or attend town meeting or, but it has to be just factual, very neutral and very neutral oftentimes for these types of questions. That's where you get advocacy groups like, like a PAC or something similar that can then do that work. But that has to be, as a paid employee, I, I cannot do any of that work Speaker 9: That confirms my, what my understanding was. Speaker 6: And we can't use town resources
necessarily to do that either. Speaker 9: I, Speaker 1: Rich, can you remind me the Mr. Sidney, the number that you were inclined to or the range Speaker 7: Walking into the room tonight? I was thinking seven, but I'm in that same range. Six and a half to seven. I think six, six and a half is too tight. I, you know, I'm thinking about what the, you know, what, what can be supported by the voters of the town and you know, I'm pretty sure eight's not gonna not gonna fly.
I'd love to get eight. I think it would take us right to 2030 and we'd be in good shape from then. You Speaker 1: Know, and and to be clear that 8 million already includes significant cuts on town and school side. Speaker 7: Absolutely correct. And it, it does and it continues the, you know, the, the long pra practices of being very, very lean on both towns and towns and school side, which has been true for years.
You know, I think frankly, I think if we were to go for six and a half, we might not make it to 2030 without needing to either do some major cuts or, or ask for more, more money. But I, I think at seven we might be able to get out and I think we might be able to convince the voters that that's the right thing to do. Speaker 1: Ms. Wilger and then Mr. Evans? Speaker 8: Yeah, I'm not responding to that. Just wanted to make clear for anybody that wasn't part of our discussion last night that in none of these
scenarios, the six, six and a half seven, are we talking about impacting our operations either on the town or the school side? What we were talking about in our scenarios was just cutting back on our stabilization funds. So, and, Speaker 7: And potentially some capital, some capital, Speaker 8: Some capital stabilization funds. But we had also talked about potentially, you know, using free cash in the fall. So if that's a possibility to not really be as far behind on, on capital items. But, you know, just wanna be clear, none
of these scenarios are talking about the kinds of cuts that had been mentioned in terms of school personnel Speaker 1: That thank you for that, that point or, or a after this vote. And we, when we have given administration a number and that has been set and sent to the clerk's office to be put on the ballot after that, this board will work together to give administration instruction about how we would like to see the budget, whether it's a free cash use, use of free cash, whether it's not funding stabilization, so
that they can come up with an amended budget and bring it back to us to finalize a budget to bring it to town meeting in FinCon. So yes, there are a number of scenarios to reach 8 million without reach, 8 million without impacting operations or school. Thank you for that clarification. So I have a a 6 million proposal, a six and a half, a six and a half and a seven, a six and a half, and a seven and an eight. Does anyone wanna make a motion? Speaker 7: I'll move 7000002nd. Speaker 1: So we have a motion for 7 million, which Sidney
Bruce Evans on the second for $7 million. Is there another motion? Ms. Slager? Speaker 8: I'd like to move six and a half. Speaker 1: Is there a second? Speaker 9: I'm gonna second it for discussion. Are we allowed to do that? Yes, of course. Speaker 1: Of course. Okay, so we will take the first motion under for debate and discussion for $7 million was your motion. Speaker 7: So I think 7 million can support the budget effectively if we, you know, on this, I I'm making an assumption
that we can deal with our tax title and get some money going into 2027 from tax title and overlay surplus to, to fill the, fill the hole that the difference between seven and eight makes. So, and I also think it can be supported to the voters and so that's, you know, that's why I'm thinking seven. And so I think it sort of bridges the gap between can we, can, can, can the voters support it and can the town live with it,
with maybe a little bit of bell tightening. Speaker 1: Thank you Mr. Sidney. Any further discussion on 7 million? Mr. Evans? Speaker 9: Sure, ditto what Mr. Sidney said. I remain concerned about the uncertainties. We, we've had a lot of discussion last night and tonight about the things that we don't know coming up in the next fiscal year. We don't yet know. Fiscal year starts in July. It's February. A lot of stuff going on in Washington, a lot of issues that are as yet unresolved.
A lot of judicial intervention, a lot of economic uncertainty. You know, those are all red flags to me that, that say that argue in favor of not going too far on this. While I appreciate that we will be able to collect some revenues and tax title and that will have a, a double benefit of taking it out of overlay surplus and collecting revenue. So that's a twofer, but I remain, what's the right word?
Wary of, of what's gonna happen in FY 26. If I look at the numbers, the per the average household is an uptick of 4 52 versus on on 7 million versus 4 21 on six and a half million. To me that half a million gives me more comfort. I think to Ms. Coughlin's earlier point, the people who are school parents are looking at 8 million and saying that's not nearly enough
and the people on the town side are looking at eight or some of the people on the town are non-school, I'll call them. Residents are saying, wow, that's way too much. That's a big number. And I feel like 7% is, or I'm sorry, 7 million is the same percentage that was applied in 2008 and in fact a little bit less. So I think this is a, a a, you know, life is about compromise and I think this is a good compromise
where it's gonna satisfy both factions and that hopefully they'll vote for it. Speaker 5: I do think seven is a compromise. I I hold fast to the fact that I think it should be eight, but I'm willing to compromise to be seven to move this forward. Speaker 10: And, Speaker 5: And I'm, and it makes me very concerned. Speaker 1: Thank you Ms. Pope. Ms. Slager, Speaker 8: I'm also concerned, but probably for a different reason, since 2000 there have been 16 overrides for 7 million and more about a third of them have failed.
And I am very worried the civil ride will not pass. That is my driver in asking for a lower amount. You know, if everyone else is willing to go along with the 7 million, I'll support it to put it on the ballot. But I'm very concerned Speaker 1: Ms. Slager, since you have the data, and I do not, can you tell me the ones that failed, what percentage of their overall budget? So in other words, if you had a town with Speaker 8: I, I don't know, but this is just a DLS report and you'd need to do further analysis to find that out. So just the, it just says the amount and whether it was a, the date and you know, whether it was a win or a loss.
Speaker 9: It may have that if you give me a Speaker 1: Minute. Yeah, if you can look, but Speaker 6: In, in the presentation from December 16th as well, right? Speaker 1: As far as we do have that. Okay, let me pull that up. Hold up. I mean, because that, that kind of colors that the analysis, if, if you've got a town with a hundred million dollars budget and they have a 7 million or over, that's significantly different than a $200 million budget. Lemme see if I can find it. I thought we had that. Speaker 6: It's on slide 31 Speaker 1: Of the December 16th Speaker 6: Of December 16th presentation.
Can can you throw it up on Zoom? I can share my screen. Yes. Gimme one second. Sorry. Zoom is acting a little. Speaker 9: I can, I can verbalize it. I like just got it on my screen. Speaker 5: Yep. Speaker 6: Let me, Speaker 1: So of the, of the 10 municipalities that had an override by 8 million or more in the five year period of 2020 to 25, 25, there were three losses. North Reding asked for 10 million, which was almost 11% of their budget.
And that lost, Newton lost for general operations and it was 1.6% of their budget. That was a 9.175 ask and Melrose asked for 7.7, which was 6.9% of their budget. Ours is about four. Speaker 6: It is up on the screen. The slide. Yep. Speaker 7: I am sure. Speaker 1: Yes. I'm sorry. Speaker 7: I think one of my concerns with 6.5 and you know, I can support the 6.5 if I have to, the one of my concerns with it is that in order to plug
that extra half a million in, not in 26, but in 27, a whole bunch of new growth is gonna have to come online and is going to have to be tax revenue generating, which means that all of the retail stuff will have to be leased. And I, I don't necessarily see that going as quickly as I don't think the value, I don't think the taxable value's gonna be there right away because I don't think those will be leased right away. And so that concerns me. I think once those are leased
and they're generating revenue for the landlord and generating taxable taxable revenue for the town, I think that'll help a lot. But I don't think we get to 2028 before that happens. That's one of my concerns with 6.5 and just, you know, I'm, I'm really trying to balance like a lot of different things here. Speaker 1: Well, if this were easy, we would've done it a month ago. Speaker 7: Yeah, exactly. But thank you Mr. Speaker 1: Sidney, Mr. Bruce. Speaker 9: So in, in terms of what Mr.
Sidney just said, it's partially correct and the partially is the retail, a lot of these developments that are going in are mixed use. So there will be a lag between the residential occupancy and the retail or restaurant occupancy. I, I fully accept that, but I know as an example, Stonegate or what is the one now on Union Street corner? Speaker 7: Native corner. Speaker 9: Native corner, right. They're just about to open up.
So we'll get some revenue from that. Admittedly this, that is not going to be enough in, in FY 26 to, to make an appreciable difference. But in FY 27, that's where I think we start, start to make some more new growth and than, than we have. But it's, it's not, it's going to be a gradual process. I fully acknowledge that. Speaker 1: So just an aside a comment for following up for both of you. When that property, that multi-use property is assessed, the revenue on the, that's coming in from the
rented apartments and or sold townhouses slash condos, that revenue's gonna be offset by the expenses or the loss of the retail. So even it isn't going to be assessed separately, it isn't going to be the case that we're gonna get money in on that they're gonna offset that building with all of the expenses. So that would be unleashed space, their construction loans and stuff like that. So we may even see that new growth later than we're projecting. Yeah, Speaker 9: And thank you for that clarification. Speaker 7: Oh, and that's exactly the concern I was trying to raise Speaker 11: And you did. Yeah, Speaker 1: I I I would chair yes Speaker 8: If I can add to that.
'cause this was also part of our discussion. The other part of that is the amount of building that we're seeing in town for, for houses, you know, that that has grown exponentially. We can all go around our neighborhoods and see Yes. You know, the, the teardowns that have been happening. So I see that continuing. Speaker 1: Yeah, it doesn't look like interest rates have slowed down, that type of construction. I could get behind seven, but I I, given all of the unknowns, I'm uncomfortable with 6.5 i I don't wanna have to come back
to the voters before 2030. I'd like to implement a number of the cost saving measures that we're currently working on. Come up with commitments to the voters and educate all of the voters about what $7 million actually means. Both their personal pocketbook and also what happens if it doesn't pass. So to be clear, for those who are more familiar with the town side of things and are hoping that town meeting will ride to the rescue in April and fund the schools as they have traditionally done, if the override fails, that will not impact the 41 teachers
who will get pink slips on March 26th. The school superintendent has been very clear, it's not a threat, it's an ethical obligation to ensure that teachers are out in the market and they know that the, this would be the end of their, this would be the end of their, their contract. So I respect that and that puts a burden on the school committee and the select select board to ensure and concerned residents to ensure that whatever number we put on the ballot, we we explain and educate and, and advocate for.
So we've discussed motion number one for 7 million made by Mr. Sidney motion, six and a half made by Linda Ger and Bruce Evans discussion on that. We've kind of overlapped that, but are there any more comments or ideas, thoughts? I I can't support that. Speaker 9: Which one? Speaker 1: 6.5. You second it just for discussion purposes. Speaker 9: Yes, sir. Speaker 8: I think it comes down to all, you know, we all have to measure what we think is likely palatable to the voters. And, you know, everyone might have a different opinion of that based on discussions that they've had, you know,
and who's likely to turn out to vote and all those things that everyone thinks about during these town elections where the turnout is highly variable and more unpredictable. So it's really a matter of, of, you know, what everybody feels is, is likely to be supported by the voters because it's, it's clear we all support the concept of an override, right? We all voted, none of us is against that. We, we already voted that, but it's, it's, you know, whatever. I feel comfortable that I think six is also doable. No, everybody else doesn't feel that.
That's, that there's maybe more risk with that long term financially. I mean, we've also heard from the superintendent, she's new and she said, you know, she is committed to looking at her, the finances over the next few years. So I feel confident that she can probably find some additional savings. She's done an amazing job so far, I think coming up with almost $2 million in savings. She doesn't say it's over. So that's, that's one of the reasons that I feel like we could get by with a,
a smaller number or, you know, I'm hoping that there will be some efficiencies and things that she'll uncover or figure out different ways to do something. And with our, you know, our school committee as well that are, I think no one wants to see higher class sizes. No one wants to see our, our kids impacted. But I think there are ways probably to do things in a different way and in a less costly way. So that's why I feel comfortable with that. Sounds like everyone else really isn't, but yeah. And I, I also wanna be a, you know, fiscal steward
of the town, so, Speaker 1: Agreed. Speaker 9: I'm sure. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 9: Just a quick comment is, I would love to be pleasantly surprised in the middle or end of FY 26 by all these things that I have doubts about or concerns about dropping on the positive side, but as a hedge against that, that's why I think the 7 million number is more appropriate for me. Speaker 1: One of the things we haven't talked about is that, you know, there are other towns that don't tax up
to their levy and if it turns out we're in a better place in two years or three years, it's very possible for town meeting and town administration to say, we can collect this much under mass general law with a 2.5% and plus or minus this or plus or minus that. Speaker 6: No, no, Speaker 1: Mr. Erickson, you, you're someone who has actually raised this before and you know more about it than I do. So could you share, Speaker 6: You're 100% correct. It is possible. And some towns do leave what's called excess levy capacity. Basically they don't, they don't budget all the way
to the top of their levy capacity, which leaves excess, which means that in a future year, if they need it, they don't have to go to the voters. They can capture it. That has not been the practice in Natick for, for many, many years. Probably dec, decades or generations. And I know when we've talked about it in the past or even when we've left relative to our budget, small amounts of excess levy, it's been met with disdain criticism, constructive criticism, healthy debate, you know, the passionate
discourse, you name it. Use every Speaker 9: Euphemism we can come up with. Speaker 6: So, Speaker 1: Agreed. But Speaker 6: There's been attempts there. Speaker 1: We've also floated the idea of having an overlay stabilization fund. And if we had an overlay stabilization fund override, I'm sorry, override not an override stabilization fund, Speaker 6: You could still tax that and then put it into, and Speaker 1: Put it into that. We, that's something. So there, there are a lot of different changes in the way that this town has managed its finances that have been proposed and that are actively being researched, analyzed. And I feel good about that going forward.
That's a known for me, a known for me is knowing that we have a commitment from this board to review our financial management policies. We have a commitment from administration to find efficiencies by potentially outsourcing and maybe not maybe looking for efficiencies. And that way we have a number of different things that I feel confident we can do. What I'm not confident in, confident with is what the economy will look like a year or two from now. There are things that are simply beyond our control and one of those is state aid. We mentioned last night, none of the budget
or the policy, the forecasts factor in federal grants. So that's, we're not worried about that. But if the state receives less from the federal government than our local local UGGA, what's the u Restricted government? Unrestricted government, yeah. General government aid. So that number may get lower. Now we have cons, we do have conservative estimates and we, we've, you know, through the budget process, the administration has kind of kept that, but there are a lot of negative unknowns. And so I'm, I'd like to see us move forward
very positively in and with conservative fiscal management principles, reviewing some of the suggestions that have been put be behind us, that this select board working with town administration can demonstrate good fiscal stewardship. And perhaps by 20 28, 20 29, we can look at having an override stabilization fund where we could take excess levy and put it in. Now these are all ideas that are banding about. We need more analysis, we need more work. But I, I know speaking for this board that
this board's committed to that at this time, if there's no further debate or comments, questions, remarks, I'd like to move. Yes, Ms. Moger, I'll just Speaker 8: Say that it, it seems like the sentiment is seven from the rest of my board members and I would also vote to support that for putting it on the ballot. I don't necessarily agree with the number, but in the interest of, you know, harmony and a unanimous vote, I would, I would vote to support that. Speaker 1: Thank you, Ms. Wolf. Schlager. So we have a motion by Mr. Sidney, second by Mr. Evans to place the sum
of $7 million for an override as read earlier into the record. Are we ready to take a vote? Speaker 7: Yes. Yeah. Speaker 1: All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstention passes? 5 0 0 Mr. Erickson? Yes. Could you get that language to Andrew for ballot purposes? Speaker 6: I will, yes. And I did talk with him earlier today. Andrew's town clerk for those watching from home or in the room? This right now is the only question on the ballot, so it's likely to be question one. Speaker 7: And just to be clear, because we passed the 7 million, we don't have to take up the 6.5 million motion.
Speaker 1: Thank you board parliamentarian. I appreciate that. Do, when would we know if there was a question too, just outta curiosity. Speaker 6: Well, I think it would've to go through you. So it's really up to you if you're gonna put a second question on the board tonight. I don't think you are. No, Speaker 1: No. And there's no citizens petition, no citizens develop. We're, we're aware. Yep. So it's Speaker 6: One to be aware. Speaker 1: Yep. Yes. I am ready for a motion. Mr. Sidney. Move to adjourn. Move to adjourn. Second by Ms. Pope with a smile. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you very much everyone for tuning in and for coming out tonight to hear this discussion.
6 56 for the record and I'm adjourning this meeting at 6 56. Thank you.