Southampton Select Board votes to present both full and fallback override amounts to voters

The Southampton Select Board on March 26 voted to present two property-tax override options to voters — a full “requested” budget and a lower fallback — following an extended public comment period and a presentation of the Budget Task Force’s recommendations.

The board’s action came after residents described the real-world consequences if the override fails, including cuts to schools, library services and the senior center. Margaret Larson, a longtime capital committee member, read the task force’s report, which showed departmental requests totaling about $24.48 million, revenues conservatively projected at roughly $22.16 million and a shortfall of about $2.33 million. The task force’s majority recommended a $1,938,947.80 override and the group unanimously recommended presenting the override as a single ballot question; the board decided instead to put two options before voters.

Town administrator Scott Seback outlined three budget scenarios: a requested budget (the full ask), a middle override (roughly $1.9 million) and a no-override “catastrophic” budget that would impose deep service cuts. Seback said the requested budget reflects department asks and capital funding, and noted significant uncertainty in employee benefits that will be finalized later in the spring.

Board members weighed competing strategies: some argued a single, full ask would let voters decide the town’s priorities; others favored a tiered approach to avoid diluting support. After discussion, the board passed a motion (3–1) to present two override choices (the full ask and the middle fallback) to town meeting and, subsequently, to the ballot if required.

The board later set the middle override in concrete dollar terms at approximately $1.94 million and approved a requested/cumulative budget figure of $24,684,897 — an override ask of about $2,529,535 that included a $200,000 placeholder for benefits should positions be restored. Select board members directed town staff to identify roughly $275,000 of additional municipal-side reductions to reconcile the base (no-override) budget and to return with final numbers and documentation before town meeting.

The board also discussed statutory constraints related to funding the Hampshire Regional assessment; members agreed Hampshire Regional’s certified assessment and its $65,000 town share must be treated carefully as the regional certification process affects town budgeting options.

Next steps: the board asked staff to finalize the budget workbooks, verify formulas with the town accountant, and prepare clear educational materials and town-meeting introductions so voters understand what each question would mean. The warrant closes April 1 and annual town meeting is scheduled for May 2; the ballot process would follow if required.

Speakers quoted in this article are identified exactly as they appeared in the meeting record.