Sorry for the late, breaking news so close to Saturday morning’s Special Town Meeting. I just learned tonight that I missed the report sent to me by the Advisory Committee this morning!
In the report (here), Advisory Committee members shared info on their split votes and why they cast them. Worth noting, since Advisory’s Chair serves on the Neary Building Committee, he wasn’t allowed to vote on the item (even to abstain).
The other six members voted:
- 3 Support
- 1 Not Support
- 2 Abstain
The Report follows through on the Committee’s responsibility to consider the subjects on Town Meeting Warrants and report information and report to Town Meeting “information and recommendations as it shall deem best.” (For more on the explanations for their votes, scroll down.)
Seven Year Budget Forecast Detail
The report comes with an appendix showing the seven year budget forecast. (It is a different version than the one I recent shared was recently posted was linked from and used for the Neary building website’s property tax calculator. Though it may use the same figures.)
The report explains:
There are two versions of a forecast in the appendix after this page, a “NO to Neary” budget, which assumes that Neary will remain a school and will need some deferred maintenance expenses. The other is a “YES to Neary” budget that assumes that the Neary project moves forward, that the town moves some of the town departments to the Finn School and that there are operational savings to the budget from a reduction in school staffing with the consolidation to one fewer school.
Additional details of the assumptions and differences are listed in those pages. The budget forecasts focus on the next seven fiscal years, up to Fiscal Year 2032, but do not forecast out all the way until the end of the project bond period, which is Fiscal Year 2058.
Position Explanations
The “Yes” Voters provided detailed explanations under the following subheads:
- Smart Investment: A Financially Responsible Proposal
- Predictable Tax Impact: Transparent and Manageable
- High Educational Standards: A Better Environment for All Students and Teachers
- The Real Cost of a “No” Vote: Risk Without a Plan
- “Plan B” = Unclear, Unfunded, and Unreliable
- The Clear Path Forward
The “No” Voter provided their explanation under the following subheads:
- Prior to entering the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) process, potential alternatives to address the issues at Neary at the town level without state involvement were not fully vetted.
- The most affordable options that were on the MSBA list for review ultimately were eliminated without apparent robust debate and consideration in favor of the preferred NEW school option.
- New school builds are not the only option eligible for reimbursement funding through MSBA.
- Increasing taxes for seniors and those on fixed or limited income is a serious concern.
- High tax increases year over year at the proposed rates are unsustainable.
The explanation Abstaining Voters included that they “strongly believe that the role of the Advisory Committee is to review materials from a primarily financial perspective and provide an opinion to the town based on that information. . .
We believe it is up to the Town Meeting to decide if this project is the correct one to move forward with at this time or if an alternative option, not yet realized, would better serve the town, understanding the challenges the delay might cause. As this question before us is not strictly in the purview of the Advisory Committee, we chose to abstain from this vote and will make our own
decision at Town Meeting.
Again, you can read the full report here.
