(3-11-26 Document #7) FinCom Minutes 2-4-26 (JL)

Word document text

Canton Finance Committee Meeting
Wednesday, February 4th, 2026, 7pm
Virtual Meeting


In Attendance: Emilio Mauro, Reuki Schutt, Nicholas Corkery, John Leonetti, Helen Mancuso, Kristin Mirliani, Evan Patton, Cindy Thomas, and Ronald Wilson.
William Scollins – Finance Director
Absent: n/a
CCTV Recording
Recording Secretary: Allison Neff
Minutes approved 3/11/26

Chairperson Mauro called the meeting to order at 7:02pm.

Chairperson Mauro spoken about the discussion from the previous meeting regarding proceedings on debate and voting. He noted that some materials are often not sent out until shortly before the submitter meets with the Finance Committee, but that members should make their best efforts to review them in advance of the meeting. The guests who attend meetings will present an overview of their topic and then Committee members can ask questions but not give their opinions yet. Once someone has made a motion regarding the matter, it is then time to discuss the pros and cons. If a member feels the discussion has gone on too long or is not helpful, they may seek recognition from the Chair and move to close the discussion/debate and vote the motion. Otherwise, once there are no further questions, the Chair will move to take the vote. It is a better practice to move the motion at the beginning of the discussion of merits.

CONSIDER VOTE on FY27 REVENUE FORECAST

Mr. Scollins noted that the Revenue Forecast Committee met yesterday to discuss the forecast.
Mr. Leonetti responded, stating that the Committee received this Revenue Forecast only today and he would have preferred more time to review it. He requested that all materials and documents be shared as early as possible.

Mr. Scollins presented an overview of the Revenue Forecast. He stated that this is an annual process to forecast revenue for the next year. The Revenue Forecast Committee has 9 members who took a unanimous favorable vote on the recommendations, including the Chair and Vice Chair of the Finance Committee, among others.
There were no Committee questions on the Revenue Forecasting Policy review.
Regarding the Summary of Revenues and Expenditures, the total of $137,756,593 was the projected revenue number voted on by the forecast committee. Note: the redacted expenses are hidden because the forecast is intended to be considered on its own merits, not based on what the department’s requests are. That section will be opened up next week when budget targets are considered.
Mr. Mauro explained that the redacted section is an important part of policy to ensure that the budgets fit the amount of revenue available, not aspirational goals.

Committee members were reminded that Property Tax Revenue comprises both Residential and Commercial areas with different tax rates.

The Net Property Tax Revenue is estimated to increase by $4.18 million, including the levy limit increasing by 2.5%, and new growth tax estimated at $1.2million, with the allowable levy not reduced by the Payment In Lieu of Taxes amount associated with an agreement with Point32Health. Point32Health acquired the most highly valued taxable property in town in FY21; because they are tax-exempt they don’t pay property taxes but agreed to a 30-year payment agreement in lieu of taxes; those revenues are recognized in local receipts rather than here. This is associated with the debt funding involved in permanently bonding the new Galvin Middle School. The allowable levy is not reduced when a property moves from taxable status to non-taxable status as per Proposition 2 ½. There are 3 remaining projects for which the town voted to exceed the tax levy limit for the associated Debt Service. This number is a placeholder estimate; when setting a tax rate, the Department of Revenue requires all tax bills be rounded to the nearest penny. 

Property Taxes from Debt Exclusions - 3 projects have been paid off, and there are 3 remaining.
Mr. Leonetti asked if the Town could take advantage of the current advantageous interest rates by refinancing any of the current debt exclusion projects at the current low interest rates. Mr. Scollins explained that those projects were bonded at lower interest rates than are available today; additionally, the Town is not allowed to do that until the bond is at least 10 years old. Town financial advisors watch for all such opportunities, and will reach out as soon as any allowable financial opportunity comes up.

Regarding State Aid: Massachusetts allocates aid to cities and towns; the bulk of it is in Chapter 70 aid (associated with education); the 2nd biggest part is money coming from the lottery. Combined, this is the vast majority of state aid received – about 95%. The Governor proposed her budget on 1/28/26; the current assumptions/consensus is an overall 2.4% increase for all state revenues. The new situation with the Fair Share Tax adds another .5% to state revenue growth, but that’s bifurcated off as per a new State wrinkle in the process.

The FY2027 State Aid Estimates includes revenues and assessments. The Town only sees the net number after assessments are deducted. Mr. Scollins highlighted the disappointing trend with the current Governor’s approach to local aid, as, historically, the budget released in January could be relied on for municipal budgeting; however, for the 3rd year the numbers are not reliable due to the Governor’s approach to State Aid. The Governor gave a low estimate and those numbers had to be used at Canton’s Town Meeting last year, which left money on the table. Mr. Scollins stated that this situation is happening again this year, and it is more reasonable to go with a growth figure of 2.4% given the new trend with this Governor’s approach to State Aid, despite the Governor suggesting a 1.88% revenue increase for the Town.

Local Receipts: There has been a rise in interest rates in the past 3 years, and rates are now starting to come down. While investment earnings go up and down over the years, the Town can not afford to budget revenues aggressively. The Town’s revenue forecast policy is to not commit all expected recurring revenues to a budget year in order to always recharge reserves and maintain the targeted 15% of general fund budgeted expenses in reserves. Mr. Scollins went on to state that the Town is required to have their finances spread with multiple banks as a form of diversification, and the Town has liquid cash in bank accounts that are earning interest. The Town looks to keep 15% in the reserve fund; some is in investment accounts but a large amount is in cash. 

Transfers from Other Funds: there are a variety of different accounts the Town transfers some funds from for General Fund budgets. When funding accumulates from other places, the Town is less reliant on the funds from Canton’s recurring revenues; Director Scollins is looking to pay the short-term interest on the Galvin Middle School bond anticipation notes with funds from these other sources. He went on to review the Galvin Middle School accounts. The Town is putting money into a capital stabilization fund each year to pay the interest on bond anticipation notes to avoid having to raise excluded debt taxes on taxpayers until the project is permanently bonded. As a result, this approach doesn’t impact the school and municipal budgets during construction. A portion of the revenue from the taxable properties at the Revere Site are segregated off to fund the debt service for infrastructure built by Canton Holdings from an agreement made in 2015, and now another $2 million has been added to the debt service for the new museum exhibits (Plymouth Rubber DIF Fund).
Mr. Leonetti asked if the $6.6 million associated with infrastructure and the $2 million from the DIF fund is in addition to the approximately $2 million being paid by the Community Preservation Fund, which brings total debts on the Plymouth Rubber/Paul Revere Site to over $10 million. Mr. Scollins answered, saying that the CPA funding is different, as it was funding a land acquisition. Mr. Leonetti wondered whether the annual Community Preservation Act debt payments could be rolled into the other debts associated with the Revere Site, but Mr. Scollins answered in the negative, stating that CPA is a separate funding source and if that cost was shifted back to the Town that would reduce funds for general fund budgets. Chairperson Mauro noted that the Committee will be talking about fixed costs moving forward, Mr. Patton pointed out that there are only a few years left on the Revere Site payments, and Ms. Thomas stated that the Community Preservation funding was voted on by the Citizens of Canton.

Mr. Scollins stated that Ambulance revenue is a funding stream that the Town relies on; it is a growing revenue stream for the General Fund as well as for funding Fire Department apparatus. There is also a trust fund that has been analyzed and reviewed for a dental insurance and unemployment claims trust; the balances are such that they can be tapped from time to time for small amounts, as is being recommended for FY27.
Mr. Scollins reviewed the Ambulance Receipts Reserved Fund for the Committee’s reference.

Regarding FY27 budgeting, Chairperson Mauro stated that the School Superintendent is concerned there will be downward pressure on schools and their budgeting due to the cost of special ed, transportation, etc. Mr. Scollins pointed out that the Town Administrator has said the municipal budgets will also face downward pressure in FY27, to which Mr. Mauro agreed.

Mr. Leonetti made a motion for the Finance Committee to support and accept the Revenue Forecast as shown here, totaling $137,756,593. Ms. Schutt seconded the motion.
Motion Discussion:
Mr. Patton asked about the Tax Title foreclosure revenue, questioning if it is $0 because it cannot reasonably be estimated ahead of time. Mr. Scollins answered, stating the Town does not budget that because, though there is a high property tax collection rate, the entire amount is not collected in the year of tax, and that the tax lien
revenue typically makes up for those delinquent tax collections in the year of tax.
The motion passed by a vote of 9-0-0.

BRIEF OVERVIEW of the MAY 2026 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT

The Select Board approved the May 2026 Warrant last night and the Finance Committee will go through every article during the process, leading Mr. Scollins to recommend that this meeting focus on general questions, while more details can be discussed as the Warrant is reviewed by the Finance Committee over the next few months. 

Mr. Scollins gave an overview of the Warrant Draft and the 48 Articles contained therein.
Chairperson Mauro pointed out that the Finance Committee is the primary recommender on all these articles except Community Preservation and Planning Board, where those committee have the primary role of recommendation; the Finance Committee reviews and makes recommendations on those articles, but is secondary.
Mr. Patton asked if Committee members are allowed to request that the Select Board amend an article before town meeting or the Committee vote, or if it has to be accepted as written. Chairperson Mauro stated that the Select Board votes on the articles as written, but the Committee can then tweak a little based on the motions made to Town Meeting, as long as it is within legal parameters and the spirit of the article, with the exception of Planning and Community Preservation, as explained above. Mr. Scollins clarified, saying the Select Board has voted on the warrant but it is a draft and is still subject to Town Counsel’s review; once that’s done the Select Board will vote their position on each article, and that result will be shared with the Finance Committee. What is being reviewed at this meeting is basic information on what is being presented to the voters, but the Finance Committee creates the motions going before voters from a legal perspective. 

CONFIRM LIAISON LIST

Mr. Scollins shared the liaison list which was updated from last week, and asked members to confirm that their assignments are correct.
Chairperson Mauro pointed out a needed correction on a name, and it was pointed out that the new Police Chief hasn’t being sworn in yet and can’t be contacted. 
There were no other changes suggested by Committee members.

DISCUSS and/or VOTE POLICY on MINORITY DISCUSSIONS

A Finance Committee recommendation report is mailed to all households before Town Meeting. There is a discussion after each article or motion that encapsulates and explains the Finance Committee discussion and recommendation for that item. In recent years, members who vote opposite to the majority have written minority discussions (this is not legally required, it has just been the practice). Historically, there was a minority threshold, whereas in the past few years only one dissension was needed for a minority discussion to be written. 

Ms. Thomas noted that she had brought this up last year and it was tabled. She pointed out that the Committee’s purpose is to provide a balanced view of the vote and the Finance Committee’s perspective. She went on to say that a negative vote could be integrated into the general motion discussion included in the voter booklet, giving voters a full perspective. She has received several instances of feedback from Town Meeting attendees saying that some minority discussions that reflected the vote of only one Committee member were much longer than the discussion for the “yes” votes of up to 8 other Committee members and questioning why this is the case. Every perspective is important, but the previous practice was that if there was a split decision (the Committee would have to decide on a minimum number of the split) then there would be a minority discussion. This is not intended to silence any individual or information, but the Committee must present the information in a balanced way to inform the voters attending Town Meeting. She went on to suggest an option for the dissenter(s) to write the discussion to include both sides. Ms. Thomas noted for the new members that motions are divided up among Finance Committee members to write the motion discussions.

Chairperson Mauro noted that whenever a vote is not unanimous both sides should be included in the discussion, and if the Committee decides to make a minimum threshold of dissenters for a separate discussion it should be a percentage vs. a number of members; because a quorum is 5 members, though there are 9 members total; if 2 members are against in a vote of 5 members it is 40%, which is much different than 2 members out of 9 members voting against a motion.

Mr. Leonetti expressed his strong disagreement with this idea, noting that he was part of 1 or 2 minority discussions last year. He stated that the proposed action would constitute the silencing of a vote/sitting Committee member, and that if one person feels strongly, they have the right to express it. He noted that it could be proposed and considered that the minority discussion should not go on longer than the majority discussion, but this is something that would require further thought and Committee conversation. He noted his concerns about voters not hearing all views, saying that free speech is answered by more speech, rather than less, and a motion to suppress minority discussions leads to less information being provided to the Town Meeting attendees.

The discussion went on with Chairperson Mauro pointing out that setting a word limit is difficult as different articles have different complexity, and most discussions are reviewed by the Committee, so there is potential to reach a consensus through the natural process. Mr. Wilson pointed out that Committee members can still speak as residents at Town Meeting to express their opinion about any article. Mr. Leonetti reiterated his distaste for the silencing of minority voices, while Ms. Schutt stated that the Committee should be making a position and discussion as a unified group that includes both/all perspectives. Mr. Leonetti added his concerns that a single discussion including both positions may be a slippery slope and lead to the minority feeling their perspective has been drowned out.

Public audience member Brenda Sweeney stated that she prefers nothing is silenced and the minority argument is presented so voters are introduced to perspectives they may not otherwise have thought about.
Ms. Mirliani suggested it is a problem of proportionality, saying the dissenting opinions shouldn’t be longer than the majority opinions.

Committee discussion further revolved around whether more than one dissenting voice is needed for a minority discussion, the possibility of introducing a length limitation to discussions whether for or against, including the minority discussion in the majority discussion, and the need for Committee review of the discussions before going to print.

Chairperson Mauro suggested taking a poll or motion to gauge the Committee members’ interest in changing this protocol vs. leaving it as is, noting that if the Committee wants to make changes time should be taken to draft something appropriate. He went on to say that the Finance Committee has 2 purposes: making recommendations and making sure the voting public understands what these motions mean, and if there is not a separate minority discussion, those opposing views definitely needs to be included in the main discussion, if the vote is not unanimous. He also noted the difficulty with the Committee reviewing all discussions as there often isn’t enough time due to some votes being so close to the print deadline. He suggested that some changes may not be possible for this year but could be implemented next year.

After some further reiteration of Committee points, Chairperson Mauro suggested tabling the idea of changing the conventions of discussion writing, whilst encouraging the Committee to try to write and send in their discussions earlier, so the Committee has more opportunities to review them as a group. He suggested a segment should be included in future meeting agendas for the Committee to look at discussions as they are written.

VOTE MINUTES

The minutes of the 7/9/25 and 1/28/26 meetings are deferred to another meeting. Mr. Scollins noted Allison Neff began acting as note-taker for the Committee as of this meeting and would go back to complete the missing minutes.

Mr. Scollins reviewed the upcoming meeting schedule, specifically noting the “if needed” meetings.

ADJOURNMENT

Ms. Schutt made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:20pm. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion and it passed 9-0-0.

Minutes reviewed by John Leonetti.

Respectfully submitted,

Emilio E. Mauro, Jr.
Chair, Canton Finance Committee

REFERENCED DOCUMENTS:
Agenda – February 4, 2026
Revenue Forecast
Warrant Draft
Committee Liaison List