Each year, the town budget is compiled by the town accountant and town administrator by working with the individual department heads, town boards, and committees to capture their expected needs for the coming year. The School Committee votes on its recommended budget separately. Revenues are estimated based expected receipts developed by the town assessor and estimates (sometimes referred to as “cherry sheet”) of aid from the state government. There are state guidelines about how to estimate, and in some cases, use, revenue. The budget is reviewed by the Town’s Finance & Advisory Committee, which will then vote whether to recommend it to voters for approval at Town Meeting. The overall budget is voted on at Town Meeting by a quorum (at least 100) of residents.
The tax levy limit is assessed at a town level rather than by individual property. As recent sales in your area have occurred, you may have noticed your assessment increase significantly at some point in the past few years. The tax rate per $1,000 has actually decreased each year as the assessments have increased. This means that some homeowners have seen a reduction in their property tax bill if their assessment has not changed significantly from the previous year.
You can find your home’s value on this map: Georgetown MIMAP (mvpc.org) or by calling the town assessor’s office at (978) 352-5708.
Approximately 2/3 of the town’s revenue is from real estate property taxes. By limiting the increase to 2.5% each year, we are not able to keep up with increased expenses, especially with increased insurance expenses and contractual obligations such as union wage increases and out-of-town tuition payments. The town has also faced significant growth and changes in state and federal laws that have increased demand for services such as police, fire and ambulance, special education, highway, and services for veterans and senior citizens. The town has always had a fiscally conservative budget and there is no room for significant cuts without impacting services.
We have received $2.7 million from community impact fees based on a percentage of revenue since 2016. Because of changes in state law, we are no longer able to collect fees based on gross revenues from cannabis companies in town. We are still projecting to receive $400,000 per year in excise taxes from cannabis companies. 30% of that money will fund our operations while currently 70% is earmarked to fund our stabilization and capital funds.
Yes, we have annual audits and completed a wage study in 2022. A market analysis of non-union personnel found many positions to be below the average wages for comparable positions in surrounding towns.
The annual proposed budgets are available here: https://www.georgetownma.gov/finance-advisory-board/pages/finance-advisory-annual-reports in addition to the resources available under the “documents and presentations” tab of this website. You may also contact the town administrator.
Capital needs and operational needs are considered differently. We can put money aside to fund capital projects as needed or use reserves to fund one-time expenses. Operational needs, such as personnel and personnel-related costs, are those that occur predictably and consistently throughout the year and are funded with our operating revenues. Our operating revenues and expenses must equal zero each year and is how we consider the budget to be “balanced.” There are also considerations like grants and funding sources like the CPA which make funds available for different capital purchases, and we try and take advantage of those when possible.
Each department’s budget is likely to change throughout the year based on actual needs, just as your own household budget might. At the end of the year, excess funds not spent are “returned” to the town and become part of our “free cash” balance. Excess revenues that we may not have expected are also added to free cash. Voters at town meeting can decide to allocate free cash as recommended, typically to pay for expenses that exceeded budget like snow & ice removal or to save for capital projects or other town obligations.
No, as much of the increase is intended to address the structural deficit that Proposition 2 ½ creates by limiting our annual revenue. Police, fire, and schools have included some new staff in their proposed budgets that may not be filled if the override does not pass, but these positions have been requested based on the needs of the town and not because they are considered “extras.”
That is a difficult question to answer. The budget that has been proposed is based on the minimum cost that each department feels it needs to provide their services at the optimal level for the benefit of the town’s residents and families. If the override does not pass, we will consider different scenarios such as raising or implementing fees for town services, reducing staff, or stopping services altogether. Approximately 80% of our costs are personnel related, so it is difficult to discuss hypothetical layoffs without causing undue stress. However, because most of our town costs are personnel-related, cutting a budget likely means reducing staff. Because a majority of our town spending is school related, the school department will likely absorb a significant portion of the cuts.
The town has used the stabilization fund, ARPA money, and free cash from excess cannabis receipts to fund the structural operating deficit for the past 3 years. With the loss of the cannabis host revenue, without using additional reserves we will have less money in our budget for next year than we did for this year. To offset rising costs and avoid using reserves we can’t guarantee, we will need to significantly reduce costs if the override does not pass for the fiscal year 2025 budget.
Yes, the town provides an exemption for volunteer work as well as other state programs aimed at senior citizens and veterans. Contact the assessor’s office for more information.
Yes, the budget is voted on by the town residents at Town Meeting every year. If revenues from other sources are identified, we can propose an underride to reduce the property tax levy.
The District begins crafting the budget for the coming year in late fall. Administrators and building principals develop lists of their needs and wishes. These lists are reviewed and refined by the District’s Finance Team with the goal of fulfilling our vision and obtaining the best educational outcomes for our students.
At the same time, District leaders work collaboratively with officials in our sending communities to understand more about their challenges within the confines of Proposition 2 ½. The School Committee reviews these proposals and voted on the final proposed budget on March 14, 2024. The recommended budget is then included in the annual budget which is voted on at town meeting on May 6, 2024.
Proposition 2 ½ was enacted as a state law in 1980. It means that the total town’s property tax levy cannot exceed 2.5% of the town’s total property assessed valuation and that the annual property tax levy cannot grow as a whole by more than 2.5% each year except for “new growth.” New growth can mean properties that increased in assessed valuation because of development, exempt real property
returned to the tax roll, new personal property, and new subdivision parcels and condominium conversions. New growth is only for one year, and then the property is added to the base of the tax levy and becomes part of the basis for next year’s 2.5% increase. An override to Proposition 2 ½ means that the town will vote to allow the maximum amount collected from property taxes to increase more than 2 ½%.
Simply, the costs of providing an education are rising by more than the 2.5 percent cap under the law. The challenges we are facing: Increasing operating costs, health insurance premiums, collective bargaining agreements, staffing and transportation costs.
Further, our sending community provides about two-thirds of our funding. The remaining one-third comes from state aid. However, the state does not always recognize its legal commitment to full funding of mandated programs, such as special education and transportation, and has provided districts such as Georgetown minimal aid increases each year. For the 2024-2025 school year, the District is expecting to receive an additional $28 per student or $35,880. After factoring in the transportation and Charter School Reimbursements the school will pay to other districts, the amount the District will receive from the state next year may be less than what was received in 2024.
These increases do not begin to cover inflationary increases that are baked into each year’s budget. And each year, more of the cost of a Georgetown education is shouldered by the communities.
The District budget comes into sharper focus as we receive new information. State aid estimates are currently based on the Governor’s budget proposal. There are a number of additional items that are not available at this time but will likely come in before town meetings. These include final regular transportation numbers as well as Group Insurance Commission (GIC) retiree Health Assessment.
The Superintendent’s recommended budget has been approved by the School Committee but is contingent upon the $3 million that would be raised by the override. In the event that the override does not pass, the District will be looking at reducing the recommended budget by at least $1.5 million for the coming school year.
Although we have no way to “guarantee” future budget needs, it is expected that an approved override for the school district will be able to provide level services for a number of years. There are unknowns with regard to the future of state aid, or unsettled contracts but we are confident that providing this increase will go a long way to supporting the school’s needs.
The last approved override to fund the public school operating budget was from 2012 and we have been able to make it almost 12 years without asking the voters for another. The proposed budget was developed with the goal of sustaining between 2-3% increases every year after initial investments in technology, curriculum, and professional development.
Be informed. By watching meetings and reviewing budget documents, residents receive a fuller picture of the District and its challenges, and will be more informed when voting at Town Meeting or the ballot box.
The DESE link below has detailed enrollment by school for the state:
https://profiles.doe.mass.edu/statereport/enrollmentbygrade.aspx
This DESE link has detailed per pupil spending information.
(Please note that you may need to download the Excel file to view the data.)
https://www.doe.mass.edu/finance/statistics/per-pupil-exp.html
Georgetown formerly had a robust Part-Time Police Officer pool only a few years ago. That has been wiped out by new police legislation.
Prior to 2020, Georgetown had 17 Part-Time Police Officers who were well-trained and dedicated to the Town of Georgetown. In 2020, a robust police reform package was passed in most states including Massachusetts. Police reform was embraced by most officers as it included additional training, better training facilities, continuity of training, and certification.
However, there was a difficult and expensive consequence, especially for small and rural police departments. The reform law required all officers to a full-time academy or attend a “bridge” program to obtain Full-Time Officer certification. This unfunded mandate required our Part- Time Officer pool to complete an additional 500 hours of training, including 120 hours of the training in-person. The majority of the Part-Time Officers already had full-time jobs and were unable to leave their jobs to complete this additional training – and initial bridge academy training was only offered during the “work day” and was unreachable for most part-time reserve/special police officers.
As a result, Georgetown’s corps of 17 Reserve Officers overnight became a corps of just four.
The 17 part-time officers had covered annually 6,000 hours of full-time officer’s days off and training days. With four remaining, we now only have about 500 hours of coverage. This has resulted in expensive overtime expenses, including GPD regularly “ordering in” full-time officers who are off duty.
As a result of this shift, it is projected that FY25 will require $273,000 in overtime costs.
Adding two more full-time officers would eliminate the need to bring in an additional officer for coverage when one of the officers on shift is looking to utilize a benefit day, court, or go to training.
Immediately, the two new officers would have a new positive result for Georgetown, as the new officers will be less expensive than the forced overtime pay we are currently projected to pay.
Most importantly it is about our ability to respond to our community needs.
The calls for service have relatively stayed the same through the last few years but the complexity of the calls has become more difficult to resolve. Our focus and the focus of all police has shifted to care and not simply custody. This requires advanced efforts and additional time on every call.
Mental health calls have increased exponentially, and our efforts at those calls for service are taking two officers off patrol potentially for hours. Police officers are exceptionally well-trained and prepared to respond to mental health emergencies, however, these calls are resource- and time-intensive.
The $220,000 covers the yearly salary of the two new police officers, their benefits, their equipment, and the additional training they are required to undertake. The two new hires will provide the town at all times with three officers on duty for each shift. Three officers open up a multitude of opportunities. It allows for the detective to focus on investigations, it allows for officers to attend training or court without backfilling their shifts with overtime, but most importantly it allows for the Georgetown Police Department to meet the modern needs of the community.
An additional officer on a shift will allow for more timely response to calls for service, additional traffic enforcement, increased patrols, increased property checks, more in-depth investigations, and enhanced community engagement.
The department is currently staffed by five full-time firefighters and a full-time chief. Most of the shift hours worked are by a call firefighter force of approximately 20 firefighters who also work regular per- diem shifts supplemented by the full-time staff. The majority, 52%, of the fire department’s hours worked are by per diem/call firefighters.
The department currently has 20 firefighters who are considered “paid-on-call.” These members are utilized in several ways within the department. A small number turn out only when there is an emergency and they are available, while the remainder typically work per-diem shifts in the department, supplementing our current full-time staff. Approximately half of these firefighters live in town, reducing the actual availability of a call firefighter.
Over the years, we have seen close to a 40% reduction in call firefighter staffing as demands of other jobs, family, training requirements, and the general demands of being a paid-on-call firefighter have made it difficult to maintain our staffing. This trend does not show any sign of letting up, and recruitment and retention of paid-on-call firefighters is expected to continue to decline precipitously in the coming years.
While they are important members of our department, a report on our department in 2018 showed that our current per-diem model of staffing is not sustainable. As our call force continues to decline, this is leaving increased shifts unstaffed and requiring our full-time staff to pick up the extra shifts or going unfilled altogether. The model is losing it efficiency and is unsustainable.
Unfortunately, this isn’t a one-size-fits-all question. The department looks at its current emergency call workload, trends, secondary responsibilities (fire prevention, fire safety education, public relations, etc.) and uses mandates and industry guidelines to recommend and set the optimal staffing levels. Weekday hours historically produce the largest call volume as well as contribute to the most secondary responsibilities and administrative work. In addition, fire dynamics have changed considerably over the past 3-4 decades. The modern fire formula is “larger homes plus open floor plans plus increased fuel loads plus new construction materials equals shorter escape time and shorter time to collapse.” (Analysis of Changing Residential Fire Dynamics and Its Implications on Firefighter Operation
Timeframes; Kerber, Stephen; 2011; UL, LLC)
When looking at mandates and industry guidelines, to operate an ambulance it requires at least two EMTs. For a fire response, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) recommends for suburban communities of our size have at least 10 firefighters on scene within 10 minutes. In addition, OSHA mandates require at least 4 firefighters be on scene (referred to as the 2-in/2-out rule) in an immediately dangerous to life and health (IDLH) environment.
Based on this information, the Georgetown Fire Department believes in a minimum staffing level of three firefighters on duty 24/7/365. This allows for a full engine company response and the Chief or other command staff officer to arrive and immediately begin work in an IDLH environment. It also allows for staffing of the ambulance and leaving at least one firefighter in town on duty to respond and make immediate decisions. What it does not cover is simultaneous calls. This is where both callback and the regional mutual aid system are crucial to the stability of our public safety.