Beverly City Council opens FY27 budget hearing as residents press for school funding and process changes

The Beverly City Council opened a public hearing on Mayor Cahill’s proposed fiscal 2027 budget on June 22, and the Finance & Property subcommittee formally referred the proposal to the full council as a committee of the whole for final discussion and a vote scheduled for the next day.

Dozens of residents spoke during the hearing, focusing largely on school funding, the mayor’s control over the budget proposal, a planned $30 million renovation, trash‑fee options and possible library cuts. The subcommittee vote to refer the budget to the full council was announced during the meeting; councilors were instructed to bring amendment motions to tomorrow’s public meeting if they want to propose cuts.

“Essex Tech students will cost an average of $20,881 each, and Beverly school district students will cost an average of $20,141 each,” resident Rick Marciano said, urging officials to explain what he called a discrepancy he tied to Chapter 70 funding. Marciano estimated that the per‑student differential—$734—amounts to roughly $176,160 for 240 students and argued the state funding formula has disadvantaged Beverly.

Several speakers urged the council to prioritize schools over other proposed spending. Andrea Sherman, who identified herself as president of the educators union, said the city’s governance structure concentrates authority in the executive branch and limits the council’s ability to increase school appropriations. “Beverly has concentrated extraordinary power into the executive branch while limiting the ability of its elected legislative body,” Sherman said, urging the council to pursue charter or local‑option changes to give the council meaningful authority over school spending. She also cited staff departures, saying the district had lost dozens of educators in recent months.

Other public commenters raised different budget priorities. Nancy Gillis criticized what she described as a proposed $30 million renovation and suggested cutting non‑essential positions and negotiating health‑insurance costs. David Hannibal recommended closing or trimming hours at Beverly Farms Library and said the city should have started trash‑contract negotiations earlier; he cited a prior estimate that alternating‑week recycling could save roughly $500,000 and urged a one‑year trial. Brad Willenbrock told the council his family voluntarily chose the $400 trash‑fee option as an investment in city services.

Several speakers who represent or work with the schools asked the council to ensure funds recommended by the School Committee reach students. Laura Newton, speaking in support of the School Committee’s recommended budget, said the council should act to prevent unilateral reductions of school funding and to ensure community priorities are reflected in final appropriations.

Councilors also used the hearing to explain the process for public participation in the budget. Councillor Feldman, chair of the Finance & Property subcommittee, said the balanced budget was released June 1 and the full budget book has been available online; he described a December financial‑forecast process and a series of department budget presentations in May and June that were recorded on BevCam. He encouraged constituents to follow committee schedules and contact ward councilors earlier in the cycle.

Procedure, motions and votes: councilors approved a motion to take the agenda out of order to accommodate the Finance & Property referral (vote recorded 9‑0). Within the subcommittee, councilors voted 3‑0 to refer the proposed budget to the full council as a committee of the whole so the hearing could proceed and a final vote could occur on the following day. At the end of the open meeting the council voted 9‑0 to enter an executive session to discuss collective bargaining with multiple public‑safety units and litigation matters; the council did not return to open session that night.

What’s next: the council will meet in public the next day for full deliberation and a final vote; council members were reminded that the council cannot increase a line item above the mayor’s proposal—councilors may propose cuts via amendment motions and then vote on the amended budget.

The public hearing portion of the meeting is available on BevCam. The council’s final action on the FY27 budget was scheduled for the committee‑of‑the‑whole meeting the following evening.