WHITMAN – Meeting on Monday night, the Select Board voted to place an override article on the Town Meeting warrant for a $2 million, one-year article.
Board member Shawn Kain had made a compromise motion first to support a $2 million override for one year that gained no support.
Member Justin Evans suggested a one-year override at $2.4 million, at which Chair Dr. Carl Kowalski passed the gavel to Vice Chair Dan Salvucci so he could second Evans’ motion. It received a deadlocked 2-2 vote with Kowalski and Evans voting yes and Salvucci and Kain voting no.
Kain restated his motion and, again, Kowalski passed the gavel to second it.
This time, the one-year $2 million override motion passed by a 3-1 vote, with only Salvucci voting no.
But they first had to clear up a resident’s issue with the meeting’s agenda.
Resident John Galvin had spoken during the public forum, objecting to what he called a decision “made behind closed doors” not to include the agenda item attendees and viewers “were expecting … discussing the difference” between a three-year and a one-year override.
Kowalski immediately countered Galvin’s assertions.
“I’ve got a long list of where you were off in your remarks,” Kowalski said. He countered that there was an agenda item for a budget update as well as Galvin’s concern that the override amounts would not be covered.
“What we plan to do tonight is to discuss whether the Select Board goes along with the one-year advice of the Finance Committee, or whether it changes it to three years. We haven’t had that discussion yet. That will happen tonight.”
But Galvin countered that all three options for a ballot article involved one-year overrides that would not solve Whitman’s fiscal dilemma.
“All three of those amounts do not get the job done,” he said.
“I totally agree with you, as far as that’s concerned,” Kowalski replied. “However, the [Select Board] was ready last week … and the Finance Committee went off after we had the joint meeting and they made their decision. We haven’t had a chance to discuss it as a board since that time.”
When the time to vote came, Kowalski said he was moved by Shawn [Kain] and Justin [Evans] in their advocating for a one-year override. He had favored three-years.
“I think that one-year is the way to go however, I’m really hoping that Shawn does some serious thinking right now about the $2.4 million,” he said. “That’s the only way we’re even going to come close to doing anything next year.”
He said he is also not convinced that the town would vote it down.
“I’ve seen the town be generous a lot over the course of my years here and I have faith in it,” Kowalski said.
Town Administrator Mary Beth Carter said the actual language and amount sought does not need to be printed exactly on the agenda to be discussed. The Select Board only needs to have the amount they do vote for to the Town Clerk by April 10.
Once the discussion turned to the meat of the issue – a one-year override, or two, or even three.
Carter said she felt the responsible thing to do would be to look at the numbers that I did fold into the override side and enter a figure that would carry the town for three years.
For example, entering a $1.7 million override, Whitman will have about $2,000 left over in town’s excess levy account this year, In 2027, the shortfall would be $895,000 short in 2028 of a little over $2 million.
She replied to Evans’ question that the numbers assume Town Meeting will support using Articles 19 and 20, to use free cash to pay the retirement assessment and OPEB.
Evans supported a $2.4 million override because he didn’t like assuming Town Meeting would back the use of free cash and he doesn’t expect the four union negotiations still have not concluded and he expressed concern that they all would be before Town Meeting.
“I’m a little concerned about the economic outlook next year,” Evans said. “It is still a one-year override, using the deficit we projected weeks ago.”
For a $2 million override, she based calculations on $302,000 in excess levy this year and be short $587,000 next year and $1.8 million short in 2028. Likewise, a $2.4 million override would be $702,000 in excess levy next year and short about $177,000 next year. And $1.7 million in 2028.
“I do understand the point of keeping it short as well, but the difference between a $1.7 million override and a $2.4 million override on the average home [$495,736.78] in fiscal 2025, is a difference of $10.87 a month or $130.44 a year. The increase in taxes is $316.76.
“I think it’s very important that, if we’re going to ask the people of the town to sacrifice, that we show them how we’ll sacrifice,” said Kain. “I don’t think it’s irresponsible to ask for a number that’s slightly less or less than what we need over the next three years. … In some sense, that’s kind of our skin in the game.”
He advocated that the smallest override in one year has the highest chance of passing.
“That, I’d be really grateful for, and the employees of the town would be really grateful for, and we can do a lot with that money,” Kain said. “I’d feel terrible to ask more and get nothing.”
Member Justin Evans said he’d been listening to the Finance Committee discourse on the night they addressed the merits of a one-year vs a three-year override.
“While I still feel a three-year is the one that makes the most sense financially,” Evans said noting that he appreciated their discussion. “A lot of it was around the practicality of explaining why this is the amount of … and manage that process in the next six weeks.
Evans expressed surprise that the FinCom was unanimous in their vote.
Salvucci, however was just as firm, strongly opposing any override.
“But, I agree [with] one year, the lowest amount [that] we can] get,” he said, arguing that with three-or evan two years, it just opens the doors for town department heads to not control their budgets.
“Whether it’s town budgets or school budgets, if you know exactly what you have to spend, it’s like a family – if you’ve got $100 and you all go out to eat, you don’t go out an buy a $300 meal. You know what you have to spend. … It gets them to do their budgets based on what they need and not what they want. Call me cheap, but that’s how I think.”
Kowalski also challenged that statement on the FinCom directing the town’s financial agenda.
“That’s not what happened last year,” Kowalski said. “What happened last year was that the Finance Committee took over the Town Meeting – in a way that they can – and they voted to do it a totally different way than we had suggested.”
Finance Committee Chair Kathleen Ottina agreed that was an accurate summation of what transpired at the 2024 Town Meeting vote on Article 2. The Select Board had recommended an override and the FinCom sought to fill the gap with free cash. But, she noted, both boards have been working much more closely together this year.
She said there was some support for a three-year override on the Finance Committee before they voted, but members were swayed by Evans’ comment that, statistically voters do not support overrides.
They felt a one-year override stood the best chance of passing.
“We’d hate to risk going for the fiscally responsible three-year override and get nothing,” she said, hoping local receipts increase, some financing from the state increase and Chapter 70 increases, among other fiscal changes.