Town Meeting Review: Budgets, Petitions And The Residential Tax Exemption

CHATHAM – Select board members have a message for town meeting voters who were critical of town spending: tell us where to make cuts.

 “Tell us what you don’t want us to spend money on,” Chair Dean Nicastro said at the board’s May 12 meeting, held the day after the annual town meeting. The board held a far-ranging review of the annual meeting, touching on citizen petitions, spending, the role of the finance committee and the proposed residential tax exemption (RTE). 

 The RTE was the “undercurrent” to much of the session’s discussions, said Nicastro. Two articles addressed the proposal, one seeking to add $500,000 to the assessors’ overlay fund to cover abatements due to the RTE, the other a nonbinding question backed by the finance committee to pause implementation of the exemption for one year. The finance committee delay passed 178-154, while the overlay funding failed by nine votes.

 Nicastro, who opposes the RTE but supported the overlay funding as sound fiscal management, said he did not detect a mandate either for or against the proposal.

 “I think it’s going to be open to each individual select board member, including whoever is elected Thursday, to vote his or her conscience in September,” he said. While the board has voted twice in support of the RTE, it will not vote to implement it until setting the new tax rate in the fall.

 Board member Jeffrey Dykens noted that if the board votes to implement the RTE, funds for the overlay will have to be identified. Officials might have been better served by asking voters their position on the RTE through a nonbinding ballot question, he said.

 “It would give us more of an indication of where folks stood on the issue,” he said. 

 The finance committee is part of town government’s checks and balances, said board member Stuart Smith, but he was surprised by the finance committee’s position on the overlay funding, which may not have been a prudent fiscal position. If the board implements the RTE, the overlay funding may have to come from the tax rate rather than free cash, as was proposed in the town meeting article. Free cash represents surplus funds from the previous year’s budget as well as higher than estimated revenue from rooms, meals and other local taxes, and does not raise the property tax rate. 

 “It seems to have taken on a life that I didn’t expect,” Smith said of the RTE.

Nicastro advised resident property owners to continue to apply for the RTE and for the assessing and finance department staff to prepare for its implementation. The finance committee has established a working group to research the RTE, its need and who it would benefit. Nicastro encouraged the finance committee to complete its study prior to September.

Finance Committee Chair Stephen Daniel said he was hoping to set up a meeting of the working group this week. He expected that a timetable for the study will be discussed at that time.

The town’s $47 million operating budget and other spending drew criticism from a few town meeting voters who asserted that spending was out of control. Nicastro noted that no specifics were given and that voters had the opportunity to lower the budget and other spending articles or vote them down. “Seldom does that happen,” he said. 

 “A little guidance there would be great,” said Dykens.

 Citing a citizen petition that called for a study whenever the select board proposes adopting a state statute — which did not pass — board member Shareen Davis said it may not be widely understood that the board relies on the town’s many committees to help research and vet issues.

 “We’re being informed all the time by our advisory committee as well as the public at large,” she said.

 Smith questioned referring petition articles to town counsel, which he said creates the appearance that the board is trying to block them. Nicastro said it is important for town meeting voters to hear a legal opinion about a petition, especially if there is a “legal infirmity.” In many cases the state’s Attorney General has the final say over petition articles, especially those that seek to establish or change a bylaw. Dykens added that if a petition article is not legal, it is a waste of time to address. Nicastro, however, said even if there are potential legal problems, petition articles should still go before town meeting. In fact, if a petition has the requisite signatures, the board is required to place it on the warrant.