The Select Board, School Committee and Finance Committee met jointly Oct. 22 and were told the town faces a multi‑year structural shortfall that could create a roughly $2.5 million gap in the fiscal 2027 operating budget if current assumptions hold.

Town Manager Michael Herbert and Superintendent Jim Adams presented parallel fiscal reviews showing that rising personnel costs, special‑education out‑of‑district tuition increases, higher health‑insurance and pension assessments, transportation and utilities, dwindling one‑time federal/state funding and reduced “new growth” revenue are combining to push expenditures ahead of projected revenues.

The presentation from Adams, who led the schools portion, said assuming a 3.75% school budget increase baseline and the loss of several relatively flexible revenue sources (school choice, certain federal funds and revolving accounts), the district could face a roughly $4.19 million increase in needs against the $1.66 million available under a 3.75% appropriation—leaving an estimated shortfall of about $2.5 million for FY2027. Adams also warned of continued 10–18% increases in out‑of‑district special‑education tuition and called attention to a growing list of capital and program needs, including a projected $12 million of facility and technology capital items over the next several years.

Town Manager Herbert presented the municipal side and said even with conservative revenue assumptions, if the town’s new growth rises only modestly the general fund faces a continuing gap. He showed scenarios that spread projected revenues from potential future housing projects across several years; even under an optimistic ‘‘enhanced new growth’’ scenario, the town still faces multi‑million dollar deficits later in the five‑year outlook.

Both presenters outlined what would occur under three broad choices: (1) cuts/freeze across municipal and school services (including personnel reductions), (2) relying on one‑time reserves and stabilization funds (a bridge strategy with finite capacity), or (3) a revenue increase through a property‑tax levy override. Herbert and Adams said using stabilization funds can bridge one or two years but would deplete reserves and is not a sustainable long‑term solution.

The joint meeting also included detailed breakdowns of specific budget drivers: Adams highlighted a roughly $975,000 annual shortfall in athletics (fees plus existing operating budget cover less than half current costs), transportation increases, and the loss or fluctuation of revolving and grant revenues such as school choice and ESSER funds. Herbert emphasized health‑insurance and pension assessment risk on the municipal side and noted the town has already used a variety of one‑time revenue sources and revolving‑fund balances to help close recent gaps.

After extended discussion and questions from members of all three boards, committee chairs agreed the next step is to produce candidate options and a communications plan. The three boards committed to a follow‑up joint meeting on Dec. 10 (school committee night) to review specific override structures, numbers and outreach strategies. The boards did not take a binding vote to place an override question on the ballot; instead they agreed to “explore options” and to return with detailed proposals and supporting analysis.

Meeting participants repeatedly emphasized the need for clear, community‑facing information and outreach. Finance Committee members urged a frank presentation to residents about tradeoffs and long‑term consequences if revenues do not keep pace with fixed costs. Board members asked for multiple override structures (single lump sum, tiered package, or menu approach) to be modeled and for the town manager and superintendent to return with staff‑vetted options and cost estimates before any formal decision to place an override on a warrant.

The Dec. 10 joint meeting will be used to review draft options and to set a public outreach calendar; any final decision to place an override question on the ballot would come later from the Select Board (and, as required, from the town’s warrant process).