Great Barrington Select Board and Finance Committee FY27 Budget Discussion – March 19, 2026

The Select Board and Finance Committee met jointly on March 19, 2026, beginning at 5:00 p.m., to discuss the FY27 operating budget and give town staff direction on taxes, free cash, and potential cuts. No agenda or minutes were included in the source record; this summary is drawn from the transcript. Staff presented four decision points, and the boards gave straw-poll guidance for a revised budget target rather than making a final appropriation.

Staff Presentation: Four Budget Decisions

• Staff asked the boards to decide: (1) whether to consider any additional taxes; (2) what amount of additional revenue to support; (3) whether to use a Proposition 2½ override, a debt exclusion, or a combination; and (4) what services or positions should be protected or cut.
• Charts showed approximate average residential tax impacts for different revenue amounts. A $2 million increase was described as roughly $600 per year for the average household; the town manager's original $5.5 million recommendation would have been about $1,200 per year.
• A debt exclusion option was introduced: about $2 million of existing debt could be excluded from the levy limit. A debt exclusion is temporary and declines as debt is paid, while an override permanently raises the levy capacity. Staff cited a current debt service line of about $3.7 million, with roughly $2.5 million in FY27 current expenses, and identified about $2 million available for exclusion. The transcript contained slightly different debt service figures.
• Staff said relying on free cash to balance recurring operating expenses is not sustainable and recommended gradually reducing that reliance, for example by using half of the prior year's free cash each year. Last year, approximately $4 million in free cash was used; under the new proposal, $2 million would be used.
• For cuts, staff asked boards to identify non-discretionary services and to say which service reductions were acceptable. A $23,000 summer parking attendant position was given as an example of discretionary spending that still brings in revenue and manages parking.

Board Direction and Straw Polls

• Most board members said they did not want a level-funded budget and were willing to explore a limited additional tax increase. Some members, including Garfield and Michelle, opposed overrides and preferred cutting things before people.
• Phil proposed a tax levy increase around 7.5% requiring an override, citing 10-year average budget growth around 5% and recent tax levy increases of roughly 8% in several years, with a 1.9% increase last year helped by extraordinary income.
• Michelle cited Massachusetts Municipal Association research that 200 of 351 Massachusetts municipalities had pursued no overrides over the last 15 years and said she opposed an override or debt exclusion.
• In a straw poll, roughly 7–3 favored a $2.5 million additional tax target, though some members preferred between $2 million and $2.5 million.
• The boards then agreed on a working framework: $2 million from a ballot question, $2 million from limited free cash, and $1 million in operating reductions. This was characterized as a straw-poll direction to staff, not a final vote.

Board Guidance on Cuts

• Several board members said cuts should be kept as far from employees as possible; they supported a 2% COLA for staff, no layoffs, a hiring freeze, review of vacancies before filling, reduced overtime, and review of stipends.
• Members asked staff to protect revenue-generating and efficiency-improving services, the co-responder position, elder services, and safety-net services relied on by vulnerable residents.
• Some members said they did not support across-the-board percentage cuts and asked staff to highlight non-discretionary items so those would not be treated as cut options.
• Several members also emphasized shared services, volunteerism, and creative revenue streams outside the property tax.

Public Comments & Testimony

• James Garzon (84 North Lane Road): Said Great Barrington must constrain taxes because residents are already struggling and some cannot afford to stay. He supported the staff COLA, criticized the school building campaign, and challenged board member Ben's openness to tax increases, saying, 'Ben, you want everything? Pay for yourself.' He also asked about Housatonic Water Works costs and said second homeowners have little say in the process.
• Sharon Shalo (13 Rushwood Lane), chair of the Library Trustees: Recommended benchmarking comparable towns and creating a five-year plan to realign the budget. She questioned the town subsidizing about 25% of the school population through school choice and suggested exploring per-capita payment or leaving/renegotiating the regional school agreement.
• Jeff Rothenberg (Woodland Hill Road): Urged the town to apply a 'value' lens to all spending, seeking good value rather than the cheapest or most expensive option.
• A resident asked about the budget calendar; the board confirmed April 7 for the capital budget discussion, April 8 for the public hearing, April 9 for follow-up, and April 14 as a tentative additional meeting.

Key Outcomes

• The boards did not choose a level-funded budget. They directed staff to prepare a revised FY27 operating budget based on roughly $2 million in new ballot revenue, $2 million in limited free cash, and $1 million in cuts.
• The choice between a Proposition 2½ override and a debt exclusion was deferred to a later meeting; staff will return with detailed options and a menu of cuts.
• A public hearing on the budget is scheduled for April 8, even though the budget may not be finalized by then. Additional meetings are scheduled for April 7, April 9, and tentatively April 14, with the town meeting warrant to be approved by April 14.