Select Board approves town‑side cuts, authorizes health‑insurance changes; board declines to support school budget as presented

The Westborough Select Board approved a package of town‑side budget reductions and actions designed to reduce the town’s projected FY26 average single‑family tax impact, while also approving a health‑insurance carrier change and adopting recommendations from a nonunion compensation study.

Christy (town staff) outlined adjustments that included a $1,000 cut to Youth & Family Services overtime, the removal of a short maintenance line for a leased building pending a lease finalization, reallocating a portion of a newly funded recreation program coordinator to revolving accounts, and a series of part‑time and hours reductions across council on aging, library custodial hours (40→25), finance counter staffing, and planning/health administrative coverage. Those cuts were designed to meet a roughly $301,000 reduction target requested by the finance committee. Christy said the proposed cuts, if approved, would reduce the estimated single‑family tax increase from a previously estimated $7.37 to $6.59.

On health insurance, staff reported the Insurance Advisory Committee recommended changing the town’s carrier from Blue Cross Blue Shield (renewal 16.9%) to Harvard Pilgrim (renewal of about 8.3% for the HMO). The change includes deductible increases (individual $300→$500; family $900→$1,000) and moving dental plans; staff noted the town would continue existing HSA contributions and that some premium increases would be borne by employees. The board authorized the town manager to execute MOAs with bargaining units reflecting the change; due to a recusal the vote was recorded as 3‑0 with 1 recusal and the motion passed.

The board also adopted a compensation study for roughly 40 nonunion employees: it approved a consolidated salary schedule, a 2% COLA (down from the budgeted 2.5%), market adjustments, and asked staff to adjust budgets. The net additional fiscal impact of the plan was estimated at about $70,703 and the board voted to implement the changes.

On warrant articles and overall budgets, the board voted to support a set of capital warrant articles (including pool repairs, lead service line funding and several school capital items) and to not support citizens’ petition Articles 27–32. After debate, the board took a separate roll‑call vote to record that it would not support the school department operating budget as presented by the superintendent; several members said the school reductions were smaller than the town had been asked to make, and the motion to 'not support' carried in the roll call.

Why it matters: The decisions directly affect FY26 budget numbers that will be presented at town meeting, including service levels for municipal programs (reduced hours for custodial, administrative and substitute services), employee benefits and pay schedules, and capital funding articles. The board’s formal 'not support' for the school budget signals disagreement with the level of school‑side reductions ahead of town meeting.

What’s next: The reductions and MOAs will be incorporated into the final budget materials for town meeting. The school budget disagreement can be raised at town meeting and through subsequent board and committee work.