NAHANT — Residents in Nahant will face a series of consequential budget decisions in the coming weeks, as the Nahant Advisory and Finance Committee prepares to present three distinct financial paths, including two potential tax overrides, at the upcoming Town Meeting on May 16.
At a Friday evening meeting, the Committee finalized materials that will guide voters through the options: a base “level services” budget and two override proposals described as a “modest” and “full” override. Each carries different implications for taxes, staffing, and long-term financial planning.
The base budget represents the minimum required to keep the town operating under the limits of Proposition 2½, which caps annual property tax increases. It funds contractual obligations such as negotiated salary increases, but leaves little room for expansion.
According to Committee materials, the level services budget “funds contractual increases” and “funds other items only within the 2 1⁄2% limit.” It does not include additional contributions to the town’s stabilization fund or extra payments toward existing debt.
Committee members noted that while the plan maintains current operations, it may not be sustainable over time. The level services approach is “likely to require another override in the near future,” according to the Committee’s summary.
The two override options would allow the town to raise additional revenue through higher property taxes, funding expanded services, and longer-term financial planning.
The “modest override” focuses on maintaining services and addressing cost pressures. It would “increase operating expenses, including non-contractual wages, to address inflation pressure,” while also boosting funding for the Fire Department to improve the availability of call or part-time firefighters.
The “modest override” proposal does not include adding new full-time firefighters.
In education, the modest override would “add school tutors, curricula, and professional development to address MCAS scores and overall learning,” it stated in the Advisory and Finance Committee book.
It also includes plans to “increase stabilization fund commitment and pay down debt to reduce future interest payments,” according to the book.
The “full override” builds on those same priorities but expands staffing and spending further. In addition to increasing operating expenses and supporting schools, it proposes hiring four new full-time firefighters while also increasing funding for call firefighters.
Like the more limited proposal, the full override includes investments in education and long-term financial health. It would “increase stabilization fund commitment and pay down debt to reduce future interest payments,” according to the book.
Committee members emphasized that the three options represent different approaches to balancing immediate needs with long-term stability.
Without an override, the town would remain within strict revenue limits, potentially constraining its ability to respond to rising costs. With an override, residents would see higher tax bills but gain expanded services and additional financial flexibility.
The Committee ultimately chose to recommend all three options rather than endorsing a single path forward.
“We have a democracy… let the voters decide,” Committee member Daniel McMackin said during the meeting, reflecting a broader view that residents should weigh the trade-offs themselves.
At the same time, the discussion highlighted the complexity of the decision-making process. At the Town Meeting, residents must first approve a balanced budget, meaning the level of services budget must pass for the town to operate after July 1.
If either override option is also approved at that meeting, those proposals would move to a town-wide ballot for final approval. Voters would then be asked separately whether to approve each override.
Committee members noted that voters could approve one override, both, or neither. If both receive majority support, the larger override would take effect.
Some members raised concerns that the process may not be clear to all residents, particularly those who do not attend Town Meetings.
“There’s a lot of confusion when people go to the ballot,” Josephine Reis said, stressing the need for clear and accessible explanations. Another added that voters should understand the override questions are optional and separate from the base budget already approved at the Town Meeting.
“The ballot is actually not up to me,” Town Administrator Alison Nieto stated after members turned to her, “It’s up to the town clerk,” she added.
As a result, the Committee focused on making its own materials as clear as possible.
The broader context also played a role in the discussion. It was noted that Nahant is not alone in facing these decisions, with other Massachusetts communities considering overrides as costs rise.
In this phase, the Committee’s role is advisory, but its work sets the stage for the decisions ahead. By outlining the differences between the level services budget and the two override options, members aim to give residents a clearer understanding of what is at stake.
The final decision will rest with voters, first at the annual Town Meeting and potentially at the ballot box, as Nahant determines how to fund its services in the year ahead.
