By DAN TOMASELLO
LYNNFIELD — The Select Board will be making a final recommendation on the proposed $5 million Proposition 2 ½ override for fiscal year 2026 on Tuesday, April 8.
Before Town Administrator Rob Dolan gave an overview of the proposed $5 million override during the Select Board and Finance Committee’s annual joint public hearing that was held in front of a standing-room only crowd on Monday, Finance Committee Chair Tom Kayola asked if the currently proposed spending plan “will be in front of Town Meeting” on Tuesday, April 29 and “there won’t be any material changes to this budget.”
“I don’t know that,” said Select Board Chair Dick Dalton.
Kayola was surprised by Dalton’s announcement.
“It is great to have the public here and this is their opportunity to speak and be heard on the budget, but I expect the budget we are hearing tonight would be the budget they weigh in on and will be in front of the town at the end of the month,” said Kayola.
Dalton disagreed.
“You may expect that, but the board will decide,” said Dalton.
In response to Kayola’s question on whether the public will be able to weigh in on a revised override proposal, Dalton said yes.
Dolan recalled that $4 million included in the override seeks to close a deficit for FY26, including $3,388,698 for the School Department. An additional $1 million is included in the override for school technology.
After the schools use the $1 million for technology purchases over a two-year period, Dolan said the funds will be incorporated into the town’s tax levy moving forward. He said $200,000 would be used to fund two firefighter positions that are currently being funded by the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in order to improve response times overnight. He also said $800,000 would be put towards the Department of Public Works’ next trash collection contract and the remaining funds will be used for future contracts.
“We don’t know where all our contracts are going to land, and a lot of that is our friends in the teachers’ union,” said Dolan.
Dolan said the proposed $5 million override would result in an average $971.86 tax impact on a house assessed at $1,045,013.
After Finance Committee member Brian Moreira asked a variety of questions about the proposed override, he questioned whether the $1 million should be permanently added to the town’s tax levy.
“It doesn’t necessarily feel fiscally responsible to charge an additional $1 million for an override when we know the deficit is $4 million,” said Moreira. “The community is still trying to pick up on learning on all of the changes that are happening right now. I would strongly advocate for an override to support what we need, which is to maintain our schools.”
Kayola said the additional $1 million is needed because “costs in the budget are going to increase in years two and three.”
“We need the additional $1 million to cover those costs to make sure it lasts,” said Kayola.
Select Board member Alexis Leahy expressed concerns that the override could be changing from “what we originally planned.”
“We are doing our best right now to estimate what we think will be our needs going forward,” said Leahy. “We don’t want to just put a quick fix on things. We want to be able to anticipate what our needs are. Could we have predicted health insurance would have gone up 13 percent? I am not sure anyone could have predicted that. This feels like it is our best foot forward to get to a point where we are anticipating what we think we will need.”
Select Board Vice Chair Phil Crawford said the proposed FY26 operating budget and the $5 million override proposal “still needs some work done on it.”
“We have to look at it year-by-year,” said Crawford. “Why are we needing $1 million now when we don’t need it for three years or possibly two years? We will deal with that budget in two years. A $4 million budget is what we need this year to get through our override and keep level-services.”
While Crawford said he supports spending the $1 million on school technology, he said that he supports funding it through a debt exclusion instead of the override. He also proposed that the $650,000 for the first-year of the School Department’s technology plan be put into a technology stabilization fund so that “we know that $650,000 is being used specifically for technology upgrades.”
“There is a lot that needs to be done, and we want to make sure it is used for that,” said Crawford.
Massachusetts General Law (MGL) Chapter 71, Section 37 stipulates that, “school committees shall review and approve budgets for public education in the district, and shall establish educational goals and policies for the schools in the district consistent with the requirements of law and statewide goals.” MGL Chapter 71,Section 34 states “the vote of the legislative body of a city or town shall establish the total appropriation for the support of the public schools, but may not limit the authority of the school committee to determine expenditures within the total appropriation.”
Finance Committee member Sarah Kelley said she supports the current $5 million override proposal, and questioned why some officials want to scale it back.
“It is not fiscally responsible to ask for an override that does not sustain us for more than a year,” said Kelley. “We have been riding the MarketStreet and COVID relief monies without properly planning for the future. We cannot afford to make further cuts to our teaching staff, as it would undermine the progress we have made and hinder the future of our students. We all know that once something is cut, it is not coming back. For so many of us, the quality of our schools was a primary reason for choosing to live in Lynnfield and it is vital that we continue to support them. We have already seen significant cuts in previous years, and this is an opportunity to make strides forward and not backslide.”
Kelley also urged the Select Board to “please consider the long-term impact of underfunding our schools.”
“Otherwise, we will be right back here next year needing another override,” said Kelley. “Our families, children and educators deserve the resources they need to succeed, and this budget proposal provides that opportunity.”
Daventry Court resident Lindsay Witkin inquired why the Select Board was looking to change the proposed $5 million override.
Dalton said the override could change by the Select Board’s next meeting on Tuesday, April 8.
“This has been a process that has been going on for months,” said Dalton. “I will speak quite honestly that getting information from the School Committee at times has been a challenge. It has been late or we get no answers. We were ready months ago to delve into this. We meet regularly with the chair of the School Committee and the superintendent. We have morning meetings and there has been a lot of communication and a lot of asks, and there have been repeated asks about the same thing. We are trying to get information to make what we think is an intelligent decision in the best interest of the town that is fiscally responsible, and we can’t do that until we have everything in front of us.”
While Dalton said the Select Board “can’t micromanage” the School Department, he “wants to know that each line item makes sense.”
“I have been very public about my dissatisfaction with certain parts of this,” said Dalton. “It has nothing to do with the amount of teachers in classrooms. It is other expenses like how we handle the technology. Technology, quite frankly, has been something they have never been held accountable for.”
While Dalton said he supports the School Department’s technology plan, he said that he wants to make sure it “goes to benefit the children and the teachers so they have the equipment they need.” He said the School Department’s current approach to addressing technology issues is a “broken system.”
“Those are legitimate concerns,” said Dalton.
Witkin asked Dalton if the School Committee still needs to answer some of the Select Board’s lingering questions.
“I think we are finally at the point where we have as much as we are going to get from them,” said Dalton. “Am I satisfied with what we have gotten from them? I can’t say in all cases I am.”
Dalton said the Select Board has requested a copy of Focus Technology’s audit of the Technology Department “a number of times.” After the issue was raised during a Select Board meeting last month, Dalton recalled that Superintendent Tom Geary opposed releasing it due to concerns about cyber attacks.
“We don’t want to know the IP addresses of things,” said Dalton. “We want to know an executive summary that this is the equipment we need and have a conversation about why that equipment is necessary.”
Crawford said a Focus Technology representative informed him that the firm “never finished the audit.”
“(School officials) were telling us they were relying on an audit that never got finished,” said Crawford. “They never came to a summary, they never provided anything further than a three-quarters done audit. We still never got an answer on where they got the final recommendation that they gave us for the $650,000. We are not actually against that number. We want that number to be right and we want to fund it.”
Crawford reiterated that he supports funding the $1 million technology plan through a debt exclusion instead of the override.
“That is a better way to do it for the town,” said Crawford. “We can make sure it gets used just for that part and it benefits all of the teachers and the kids the way it is supposed to.”
In response to a question from Kayola, Dalton said he also has “issues” with the School Department’s recommended $34,196,514 operating budget for FY26, which is an 11 percent increase over FY25’s $30,806,245 appropriation.
Witkin was surprised by Dalton and Crawford’s skepticism of the School Department.
“As the kids would say, it seems a little sus (suspect),” said Witkin.
Crawford said in response: “Yes it does when we don’t get answers.”
School Committee Chair Kristen Grieco Elworthy said the $650,000 included in the first year of the district’s technology plan was “a recommendation from our technology director in the schools.”
“The $650,000 is outlined line-by-line as to what is in that budget,” said Elworthy. “We walked many of the folks sitting at these tables through, and you saw the servers. It is a replacement for aging technology. The full amount has been outlined. We intend to spend that $650,000 on that exact outline of technology infrastructure. Part of the reason why we are in this position is because we have been receiving $250,000 a year since 2009 and then moving into a Chromebook program. Obviously if you don’t have the funds for that replace and replenish cycle, you are going to end up potentially having things age like a car if you don’t fix it. The asks are a little higher in future years for various reasons, a little because things have changed since 2009 and a little bit because that allows us to flatten out so we are not coming back to you all with a $650,000 ask in five or 10 years. If there is any additional information that folks at this table feel they need on that $650,000 or the ongoing capital expenses for technology, we are more than happy to provide that.”