By MARK SARDELLA
WAKEFIELD — The Town Council this week approved an addendum to the town’s fiscal policies that critics say effectively guarantees that the town will impose the maximum tax levy allowed under Proposition 2 1/2 for the foreseeable future.
The board discussed the draft policy at its Nov. 28 meeting, but deferred voting on it until this week to allow for possible edits based on the previous discussion.
Councilor Jonathan Chines, who drafted the policy addendum with help from Town Administrator Stephen P. Maio, said that the only change since the previous meeting was language inserted dealing with future revisions to the policy.
During the initial discussion two weeks ago, not all councilors were on board with the proposed new policy, which assumes the maximum 2 1/2 percent increase in the tax levy as a starting point, unless certain very specific conditions are met. Those conditions include a requirement that the Reserve Fund, Stabilization Fund, and Free Cash remain at at least 10 percent of General Fund operating revenue.
The two-week waiting period apparently did little to change the minds of the proposed policy’s most vocal opponents, Councilors Edward Dombroski and Michael McLane.
McLane pointed out that the goal of maintaining reserves at 5-15 percent of operating revenue mentioned in the original 2013 Fiscal Policy was “aspirational.” He further noted that for a six-year period right after the original policy was drafted, from 2014 through 2019, the Board of Selectmen did not increase the tax levy by the full 2 1/2 percent allowed under Prop. 2 1/2. In 2016, the selectmen increased the tax levy by only 1.5 percent. McLane observed that the town “did not collapse” during those years.
He said that he would prefer that the Town Council retain that same flexibility to analyze the town’s fiscal situation on an annual basis and make a decision on the tax levy based on that analysis. The changes proposed by Chines, he argued, offered “no flexibility. This is ‘tax to the max’ for the foreseeable future,” he said. “I continue to not support it.”
Chines disagreed. He argued that the policy provided guidance, not a mandate that would tie the hands of future Town Councils. He agreed that looking at the reserve policy would be a good idea but wanted to do that in consultation with the Finance Committee.
Councilor Anne Danehy also supported the policy, reiterating her previous argument that it would provide guidance for the town’s long-term planning and would guarantee sufficient reserves in case of an economic downturn.
But Councilor Edward Dombroski remained unconvinced, arguing that the policy constituted “more than guidance.” He maintained that the board was creating a starting assumption that they will tax to the full amount allowable under law unless certain criteria are met.
“This is a policy that says, ‘We are going to tax you residents as much as the law allows,’ and I don’t agree with that,” Dombroski said. “That is a terrible presumption to have going into a budgeting cycle.”
He maintained that he could make just as strong an argument for starting at a zero percent increase in the tax levy and working up from there based on needs and what the town can tolerate in a given year.
In the end, Chines addendum to the fiscal policy passed by a 5-2 vote, with councilors Robert Vincent, Mehreen Butt, Julie Smith-Galvin, Danehy and Chines voting in favor. McLane and Dombroski were the dissenting votes.