Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comments Schools Seniors topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge council to protect seniors while school leaders call for full funding of FY2025 request
Summary
At a June 10 public hearing in Woburn, dozens of residents, senior advocates and teachers urged opposing priorities: residents and councilors warned of steep tax impacts on seniors, while school officials and teachers said cuts would harm students and violate legal obligations.
WOBURN, Mass. — Dozens of residents and stakeholders filled the council chambers on June 10 to press a single, urgent question to the Woburn City Council: how to balance an $11 million increase request from the school department with the potential tax impact on seniors and vulnerable households.
Marie Lingblom, director of the Woburn Council on Aging, told councilors seniors were "frantic" about their ability to stay in their homes if taxes rose by the amounts being discussed. "If you're talking about, 600 to $800 increase in residential tax bills ... it's absolutely devastating for a lot of seniors who are on a fixed income," Lingblom said.
School leaders and teachers urged the council not to cut the school committee's proposed budget, saying it reflects contractual obligations, special‑education needs and legally required services. "My job, as I understand it, is to advocate for the kids, for the students, and the staff of the Woburn Public Schools, and I think that's what this budget does," Superintendent Dr. Matt Crowley told the council.
A number of parents and teachers said the requested increase is driven by mandates and higher needs that cannot be trimmed without reducing services; the Woburn Teachers Association and classroom teachers described long‑running austerity and argued the request is the minimum necessary to meet students' needs. Several speakers offered examples that cannot be cut, including individualized education plan (IEP) services and homeless transportation obligations.
Other residents, including some without children in the system, urged fiscal restraint and greater transparency, asking for line‑by‑line publication of how requested funds would be spent. Councilors discussed a range of mitigation options, from targeted tax abatements and deferral programs to use of free cash; some warned that relying on one‑time funds for recurring operating costs would create fiscal strain in following years.
The public hearing closed by roll call after extensive comment; councilors then resumed budget votes. The hearing raised two continuing tasks for elected officials: implementing this year's adopted budget and returning quickly with concrete proposals to shield vulnerable residents from short‑term tax shocks.
Next steps include finance committee follow-up on transfers and referrals and continued meetings among the mayor, city auditor and school leaders to operationalize the budget and explore mitigation mechanisms for seniors.
