A committee participant raised the issue of whether there is a specific percentage limit for Debt Service, noting a commonly referenced figure of around 10%. It was clarified that an increase in leverage could lead to a downgrade in the town’s credit rating. Specific thresholds were mentioned, such as a leverage increase to around 350% of revenue or a decline in available reserves to 10% or lower. The average Debt Service as a percentage of the total budget for all 351 towns in Massachusetts was noted to be approximately 6.95%, with Maynard already standing higher due to projects like Green Meadow, which has yet to fully impact tax books.

Further examination of the data revealed complexities in interpreting figures from the Massachusetts Division of Local Services (DLS), with different metrics such as per capita versus percentage being discussed. The necessity of maintaining a favorable bond rating was underscored, as a higher rating would reduce the cost of future bonding, crucial for funding projects like school renovations or public infrastructure.

The conversation also touched on reimbursements from the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA), questioning how these funds would be allocated and whether they could offset future Debt Service costs. Clarifying the exact figures for reimbursement and their relation to broader debt obligations was emphasized.

A request was made for a detailed spreadsheet outlining the town’s outstanding debt, including principal and interest payments over the next 30 years. This information was deemed essential for future planning, particularly with potential new projects on the horizon. One participant specifically mentioned the need to know when every debt would be paid down.

In addition to debt-related discussions, the committee addressed several other topics. The status of various proposals for the upcoming special town meeting was a key focus. Articles under consideration included amending the general fund budget to reflect state revenue adjustments and a debt exclusion to finance bleacher facilities for the schools. The requirement for a two-thirds majority for debt exclusions was emphasized, along with the subsequent need for a ballot question.

There was also a discussion about the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) and their potential contributions to the bleacher project, though members expressed uncertainty about the timing for finalizing the amount. The CPC had previously decided against bonding for any projects, leaving a range of potential funding amounts from $150,000 to $300,000.

The committee also examined the procedural complexities related to submitting articles for the special town meeting. For instance, the school committee’s proposal regarding bleachers did not receive the necessary approval from the select board, which required a two-thirds majority. Although the bleacher proposal was not included on the November ballot, it could still be presented at the special town meeting, potentially leading to a separate ballot vote within 90 days if passed.

Attention was also directed towards the senior center committee, which faced challenges in getting their proposals approved by the select board. The committee discussed the procedural differences between the school committee’s and senior center committee’s proposals, highlighting the complexities of submitting articles for town meetings.

Further elaboration was provided on the financial performance of the town’s golf course, described as needing significant maintenance and care. The clubhouse, in particular, was in disrepair and unable to host events, raising concerns about whether the golf course operates as a net revenue generator. It was concluded that the golf course does not currently offset all costs, thereby requiring town supplementation.

Another important discussion topic was the stormwater project and its financial implications. The committee addressed two distinct budget figures: one for capital projects totaling $100,000 and another specifically for stormwater initiatives amounting to $50,000. These figures originated from a comprehensive list submitted by various departments to the Capital Planning Committee, characterized as a “wish list” with concerns over the accuracy of the numbers.

The concept of Enterprise Funds was also explored, specifically regarding water and sewer projects. It was noted that stormwater management does not fall under the existing Enterprise Fund structure, leading to discussions about potentially establishing separate Enterprise Funds for stormwater and trash collection.

Finally, the meeting included procedural matters, such as voting on the minutes from previous meetings and reviewing updates from various boards and departments. Notably, the discussion on water capacity and housing production updates from the Department of Public Works (DPW) highlighted challenges for future town growth due to insufficient water supply.