During the meeting, the town’s veteran agent outlined the implications of the Hero Act, which would increase current exemptions for veterans rated between 10% and 90% disabled from $400 to $800, and for those rated 100% disabled from $1,000 to $2,000. The agent provided demographic data indicating that approximately 53% of veterans receiving abatements are aged 65 or older. However, the financial impact of this increase was a primary concern, with the potential to double the town’s budgetary burden from $94,400 to $188,800 annually without an increase in state reimbursements.

The debate included a suggestion to adopt the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) option, which would allow for a more moderate increase in benefits while enabling residents to vote on any further increases at town meetings. This approach aims to balance the financial constraints with the desire to provide relief to veterans. The possibility of combining the COLA adjustment with the doubling of the exemption was also discussed to ensure a more substantial benefit while being mindful of financial limits.

Some board members expressed reluctance to implement the doubling option immediately, citing broader economic concerns such as potential cuts to school funding and additional financial pressures from upcoming sewer assessments. One member remarked, “I’m always reluctant to be the first one to do anything,” reflecting the cautious stance of some members toward immediate implementation.

Further discussion centered on proposed changes to veterans’ benefits under articles 22i and 22j. One member advocated for a 50% increase in exemptions, noting that current exemption amounts had not changed in 20 years and had not kept pace with inflation or the rising cost of living. This speaker questioned the town’s ability to sustain such an increase, describing $50,000 as an amount of money. However, another member countered by urging the board to recommend full funding of the benefit, framing it as a negligible expense compared to the town’s $60 million budget and emphasizing the moral imperative of supporting disabled veterans.

The conversation also included a discussion on whether the responsibility for funding veterans’ benefits should rest with the town or the federal government. One participant stated, “the federal government should be the one to feel some pressure,” although this view faced resistance. Ultimately, there was agreement to recommend a 50% increase in benefits, with the understanding that the proposal could be amended during the town meeting. The Board of Assessors was designated to sponsor the articles.