Beverly FY2027: Rising Costs, a Structural Gap, and How It Was Closed for One Year
Part 1 + 2: The Problem
Beverly's costs grew about $10 million this year. Revenue only grew $7.2 million. That gap is not an accident or a one-time event. It reflects a long-running reality: the biggest drivers of city costs grow faster each year than property taxes are legally allowed to grow. Most of a city budget is people. Their pay is set in multi-year contracts, most of the workforce is unionized, and as this year's budget shows, those wage increases outpace what the cap allows. Health insurance, pensions, and special education climb faster still. None of it is optional. These are commitments the city has already made, and they compound. This is not unique to Beverly. Proposition 2.5 squeezes nearly every city and town in Massachusetts the same way, which is why override votes and fee increases have been spreading across the state.
Part 3 + 4: The Response
To close a $2.9 million gap, the levers Beverly could pull on its own this year came down to the trash fee and service cuts. It used both. If your first reaction is that canceling the City Hall renovation belongs on that list, that question deserves a real answer, not a hand-wave. It gets one in Part 2, including a part of the story that rarely makes it into the argument: the timing of the City Hall loans matters more than their size this year.
This piece walks through each part in plain language, with sources noted throughout. It builds on an earlier explainer, How Beverly's Budget Actually Works, which lays out why the gap exists in the first place: the structural mismatch between what the city is allowed to raise and what it costs to run. If you want the why behind the numbers here, start there. Use the tracker above to follow along.
After revenue
+$7.17M
ahead of FY26 baseline
After costs
-$2.88M
gap to close
After trash fee
-$1.81M
still remaining
Final result
$0
balanced, as required by law
Part 1
Where Beverly Gets Its Money
Beverly raises money through property taxes, state aid, and local fees and excise taxes. Property taxes make up about 77 cents of every dollar of city revenue, but a 1980 state law called Proposition 2.5 caps how fast the city can raise them. Each year, the maximum increase is 2.5% of the prior year's levy, the total amount collected from all property taxes, plus revenue from newly built properties added to the tax rolls. Beverly cannot raise property taxes faster than that limit unless voters approve it at the ballot: an override for ongoing spending, or a debt exclusion, a temporary version tied to a specific borrowing. Beverly has not passed one in recent history. Marblehead, a neighboring community, did approve a $15 million override on June 9, 2026.[1] This year, all of Beverly's revenue sources combined brought in $7.2 million more than last year.
+$7.2M
Total new revenue this year
Compared to FY26. Each category below shows its share of this total.
Property tax increase (2.5% annual cap)
Each year, the city is legally allowed to raise property taxes by up to 2.5% of the prior year's levy. This is the formula-driven portion, set by state law.
budget book
+$3.39M
47% of revenue growth
New construction added to the tax rolls
When new buildings are completed and assessed, they are added to Beverly's permanent tax base. Beverly had $1.95M in new construction added this year. Unlike a one-time windfall, these properties keep paying taxes going forward. That said, new construction is not a guaranteed annual increase - it depends on development projects getting proposed, approved, and completed. And more development, particularly residential, can also increase pressure on schools, roads, and city services.
budget book
+$1.95M
27% of revenue growth
Local excise taxes (motor vehicles, meals, hotel, cannabis)
Motor vehicle excise tax (+$215K) and meals/hotel/cannabis taxes (+$115K combined) grew modestly. Cannabis excise is up about 11% as Beverly's dispensaries continue to mature.
budget book
+$330K
5% of revenue growth
PILOT payments (Payments In Lieu of Taxes)
Certain organizations, such as colleges and hospitals, own property in Beverly but do not pay regular property taxes. Some voluntarily pay the city a negotiated annual amount instead. Beverly receives $250K per year in these payments, unchanged from last year. PILOT payments are frequently raised as a potential avenue for raising city revenue, as some communities have negotiated substantially higher amounts.
budget book
no change
Abatement reserve (reduces available levy)
Every year, state law requires Beverly to hold back a portion of the property tax levy as a buffer. This covers situations where a property owner challenges their tax bill and wins a reduction. Think of it like a company setting aside money for potential customer refunds. Beverly held back $500K this year. The money may not all be needed, and any leftover is freed up later.[2]
budget book
-$500K
reduces total by 7%
Chapter 70 school funding from the state
The state distributes education funding to every city and town through a formula called Chapter 70. Beverly receives the minimum aid level, meaning the state formula calculates that Beverly's local tax capacity is high enough to qualify for a lower state contribution than many other communities. Beverly's allocation grew $714K this year, but the city remains in the minimum tier.
budget book
+$714K
10% of revenue growth
Unrestricted General Government Aid (UGGA)
UGGA is the state's annual general aid payment to municipalities for non-school operations. Beverly's allocation actually fell by $24K this year. Here is the part worth understanding: UGGA has no formula that accounts for a city's current population, needs, or economic conditions. It was created in 2010 by merging two older aid programs, and each city's share is essentially frozen to what it received back then, adjusted up or down by a small percentage each year in the state budget. In practice, that means Beverly's aid reflects a snapshot of the city from over a decade ago, not how Beverly has changed since. The Massachusetts Municipal Association has pushed for a new formula that would better reflect current conditions.[3]
budget book
-$24K
reduces total slightly
Other state aid (net)
Veterans reimbursement fell $105K (25%). Charter school reimbursement +$38K, smart growth payment +$158K. Net: approximately +$29K across all other state aid lines.
calculated from budget totals
+$29K
National Grid energy savings credit
National Grid reimbursed Beverly approximately $700K for energy savings through the Electric Division. This appears as revenue in the city's budget. A corresponding cost increase appears in Part 2 under Public Services. The two largely offset each other, so this item does not materially change the overall budget picture. Note that this $700K is included in both the $7.2M total revenue growth and the $10M total cost growth figures, so both headline numbers are inflated slightly by an item that nets close to zero.[10]
passthrough: see Part 2budget book
+$700K
10% of revenue total
Enterprise fund transfers and other financing
Water, sewer, airport, and other city services that run like self-contained businesses (called enterprise funds, each meant to cover its own costs through fees) contribute to shared overhead. Part 3 returns to this, because trash is one of these funds and the general fund's contribution to it is the heart of the trash fee story.
calculated from budget totals
+$147K
Investment income on city funds
Interest earned on city accounts. Down $75K this year.
budget book
-$75K
Questions worth thinking about
The property tax cap lets the city raise only about two and a half percent more each year, well short of what costs are climbing. Closing that gap means some mix of three things: residents paying more, the city cutting what it provides, or someone else contributing more, meaning the state or large tax-exempt institutions. Most people would rather the last group went first. How much of the gap do you honestly think can be closed by someone other than Beverly residents, and what happens if the answer is not enough?
Part 2
Where the Money Goes
This section walks through what Beverly spends money on and what drove the increases this year. Most of the growth comes from contracts, legal requirements, and formulas set before the annual budget process even starts. Part 3 and Part 4 are where the city's choices come in. This section is just the bills going up.
+$10.0M
Total cost growth this year
Education alone accounts for about half. Each category shows its share of the total.
Beverly Public Schools
Up 5.28%, bringing the city's contribution to $89.9 million. Schools now account for 49.7% of the entire city budget. On top of that, Beverly pays $1.52M in tuition for residents who enroll in charter schools or choose another district's schools, part of what brings total education spending to 53.1% of the budget. For comparison, the school budget increased 7.73% in FY25 and 9.08% in FY26. The rate has slowed but the base keeps compounding.
budget book + transmittal letter
-$4.50M
45% of cost growth
The education funding tension
Even with this increase, Beverly Public Schools has acknowledged unmet needs, particularly in special education. The school budget is rising, and it is still not enough by the district's own account. Both sides of that picture are true at the same time.
Essex Tech (North Shore Agricultural and Technical School)
Beverly is one of 17 member communities that support Essex Tech. The city's annual payment is set by a formula in the school's founding legislation: costs are split based on how many Beverly students attend relative to students from other towns.[4] Beverly does not control the school's per-student costs or how many Beverly students choose to apply. This year's assessment rose 17.4%, adding $690K.
budget book + transmittal letter
Health insurance for city and school employees
Up 9% this year (+$1.09M). The annual premium increase is set by the city's health plan, not by the city's own negotiating table.
budget book
-$1.09M
11% of cost growth
Pension contributions to Essex County Retirement System
Up 4.7% (+$669K). The annual contribution amount is set by an independent actuarial review of the pension fund. Beverly cannot unilaterally reduce or defer this payment.
budget book
Electric Division
Electric costs rose approximately $588K this year. Nearly all of this is tied to National Grid, which also reimburses Beverly about $700K through the energy savings credit shown as revenue in Part 1. Because the credit and the cost sit on opposite sides of the budget, this line is close to a wash overall. The $588K is shown here as the actual increase in what the Electric Division spends; the matching credit is counted once, in Part 1.
credit shown in Part 1budget book
-$588K
6% of cost growth
offset by credit in Part 1
Engineering, Highway, Parks, DPS operations (excluding electric)
Fuel, materials, and staffing costs drove increases across these departments.
budget book
Police, Fire, Dispatch, Harbormaster
Wage increases are driven by collective bargaining contracts. The transmittal letter notes that Police and Fire are each holding one position open through attrition this year, meaning when a position becomes vacant it is not refilled. The source describes this as attrition and does not specify the reason each position opened. This partially reduces the contractual cost growth.
budget book + transmittal letter
-$986K
10% of cost growth
Payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare) and OPEB fund
Payroll taxes: Beverly's share of Social Security and Medicare contributions on employee wages, set by federal law. OPEB fund: money set aside today that the city is required to save toward future retirees' health insurance costs, required by state law.
budget book
McPherson Youth Center: deliberate budget increase
The McPherson Youth Center on Rantoul Street received a deliberate 70% budget increase this year, from $68K to $117K (+$48K). This represents a policy decision to expand programming at the center.
budget book
-$48K
Debt service on existing loans
Only roughly +$176K this year, an unusually small increase given that the City Hall renovation loan payments have started.[5] Beverly's debt service historically runs near 5-7% of the total budget. At 5.01% in FY27, it is at the low end of that range. The reason debt payments barely moved despite City Hall is explained in the callout below.
budget book + City Hall PowerPoint, Slide 27
-~$176K
2% of cost growth
A closer look: the City Hall renovation and the debt budget
A $29.4M project that added only $176K to this year's debt payments
Start with the number that actually matters
The City Hall renovation is the loudest fight in town, and the number that headlines the fight is the big one: $29.4M. But that is the sticker price on the whole project, spread over decades of loan payments. It is not what hit this year's budget. What hit this year's budget is the annual payment, and that went up by about $176K. The rest of this section is about why a $29.4M project moved the yearly number so little. The short version is timing.
Think of it like buying a car
Picture a household with a Subaru Forester at 200,000 miles. It runs, but every inspection is a coin flip, and everyone knows it is close to done. There is no car payment anymore, which is nice, but there is also a home improvement loan still on the books from when they redid the kitchen. So they wait, and they plan. They shop with a number in mind: whatever the new car costs, the monthly payment should land right about where the kitchen payment leaves off. When the kitchen loan is nearly done, they pick a car and a loan built to fit that number, and they sign. Their total monthly outlay barely changes. They took on a big new debt and their budget hardly felt it, because one payment ended right as the other began. That is what Beverly did with City Hall.
How the project is being paid for
The full cost is $29.4M: $28.4M for the work, $1M to relocate departments during construction. Beverly is not borrowing all of it. It put in $1.5M already set aside for design, moved $2M from a savings fund built for exactly this kind of capital need, and made a one-time $525K payment in the FY26 budget. That leaves about $25.4M to borrow, split into two loans that start at different times as the construction bills come due.
Why the FY27 payment is only $2M, and why total debt service barely rose
Only the first loan starts in FY27. The second ($10M) does not begin until FY28. And just like the kitchen loan coming off the books, two older loans made their final payments in FY26 and left the schedule entirely, opening up room right as City Hall stepped in. Here is the math:
City Hall loan 1 begins+$2,000,000
FY26 one-time pre-payment ends-$525,000
Land acquisition bond retires-$1,000,000
Fire Station loan retires-$293,000
Existing bonds naturally decline-$206,000
Short-term borrowing change+$200,000
Net change in total debt service+$176,000
What happens next
FY28 is when both loans run at once, adding about $2.4M in City Hall payments. The rest of the portfolio keeps shrinking, which absorbs a lot of that. Debt service is projected to hold near 5% of the budget through FY2032. Two ways to read that number. Level: 5% sits at the bottom of the 5-7% range Beverly has run for decades. Direction: the state's guidance treats debt as a fiscal stress problem when the payments grow to the point that they crowd out everyday services.
[11] None of Beverly's immediate neighbors offers a picture of that kind of stress, but Massachusetts has a live example right now: Quincy, the state's cautionary tale on exactly this question. Quincy's own budget breakdown puts debt service at 19.54% of its FY26 budget, nearly four times Beverly's share, a burden swollen in part by borrowing against its pension obligations. Both major rating agencies have acted, S&P cutting Quincy's rating in 2025 with a negative outlook over shrinking flexibility and reserves, and Moody's following with its own downgrade this spring. Per resident, Quincy spends about $882 a year on debt payments. Beverly spends about $212. Beverly's line is flat near 5% and projected to stay there. A full year-by-year breakdown is in the
appendix. Past FY2032 it gets murkier, and depends on projects Beverly has not authorized yet.
The broader strategy
This is not a one-off trick. Beverly has borrowed this way since the mid-1990s, timing new loans to start as old ones end so the yearly total stays roughly flat against the budget. City Hall is the newest project run through that playbook. The January 2026 presentation to the City Council lays it out directly, with charts showing the loans stacking and clearing over time.
[9]
Questions worth thinking about
The sharpest version of the skeptic's case isn't about City Hall at all. It's that the city is borrowing for a building while schools go underfunded and services get cut. That's a real feeling and it deserves a real answer. The honest reply is that the yearly cost of this project is small and steady, and Beverly's debt payments are holding flat against the budget rather than climbing, which is the opposite of the pattern the state flags as fiscal stress. So the question isn't really whether City Hall is worth it. It's whether Beverly should borrow for big long-lived things at all. Because the next bond won't be for a city hall. It might be a new school, or the roof over a branch library. If borrowing is reckless here, it's reckless for those too. If it's responsible for those, what makes this different, beyond that a government building is easier to resent?
Part 3
The Trash Fee: A Choice Between Two Kinds of Burden
After accounting for all revenue and cost changes, Beverly faced a roughly $2.88 million gap to close. The city had two main levers: ask residents to pay more directly through trash fees, or make deeper cuts to services and staffing. The trash fee was the one lever the City Council could pull on its own, without waiting on the state legislature, negotiating with outside institutions, or putting a question to voters. Three realistic options were on the table.
How trash is funded in Beverly
Trash and recycling run as a separate city account that has to break even each year. The money coming in (resident fees plus a bit of other income) has to equal the cost of collecting and processing the trash. Here is an analogy. Picture an apartment building with many units. One unit has two roommates. Their electric bill comes to $500. Each roommate pays only $100 toward it, which leaves $300 unpaid. The landlord covers that $300 out of the rent money he collects across the whole building. But every dollar he spends covering that one unit's shortfall is a dollar he cannot spend fixing the building or paying staff. Beverly runs several of these accounts, called enterprise funds, and trash is the odd one out. Water and sewer are enterprise funds too, and they work the way the model intends: fees cover more than 90% of their cost, with the rest coming from small miscellaneous revenue.
[12] Trash was the exception. Residents were paying $100 per year, the real cost was far higher, and the general fund (the same pot that pays for schools, police, and roads) covered the $2.48M shortfall. This year the new hauler contract alone jumped $1.3M, making that arrangement much harder to sustain. The question became whether to raise the fees residents pay, or leave them low and cut services elsewhere to free up the money. Either way, the cost reaches every resident, homeowners on the tax bill and, indirectly, renters through what landlords charge.
The baseline that ties it all together
Last year, the general fund covered $2.48M of the trash program's cost. That is the number to keep in mind. Each option below changes how much the general fund has to chip in this year, and that change flows straight into the budget. If the general fund has to cover more than last year's $2.48M, the deficit gets bigger and deeper cuts are needed. If it covers less, the deficit shrinks. In other words, the higher the trash fee, the less the general fund has to cover, and the fewer services get cut. Follow each card from top to bottom to see how the fee choice turns into a cut requirement.
Option A
Keep fees at $100/year
No change to residents' trash bills. Some council members argued for this approach or for fees lower than what was adopted.
[6]
Step 1: The enterprise fund
Cost to run sanitation$5.27M
Resident fees (at $100/household)-$1.27M
Other fund income-$0.20M
General fund must cover the rest$3.80M
That is $1.32M more than last year's $2.48M subsidy. The extra cost pushes the deficit up.
Deficit remaining for cuts
~$4.2M
Fee covers 0% of the gap. Deepest cuts of the three options.
Option B: Mayor's prior proposal
Raise to $425 standard bin
Per Patch reporting on the fee vote,
[7] the mayor's prior proposal was $425 for a standard bin, $280 for a smaller bin.
Step 1: The enterprise fund
Cost to run sanitation$5.27M
Resident fees (at $425/household)-$5.21M
Other fund income-$0.20M
General fund must cover the rest~$0
That is $2.48M less than last year's subsidy. Nearly the entire deficit is erased.
Deficit remaining for cuts
~$407K
Fee covers about 86% of the gap. Shallowest cuts, highest resident bills.
Option C: Council vote
Raise to $300 standard bin
$200 (35-gal), $300 (standard), $400 (95-gal), $650 (commercial). More than before, less than the mayor proposed.
Step 1: The enterprise fund
Cost to run sanitation$5.27M
Resident fees (at $300/household)-$3.68M
Other fund income-$0.20M
General fund must cover the rest$1.40M
That is $1.08M less than last year's subsidy. The deficit shrinks, but does not close.
Deficit remaining for cuts
~$1.81M
Fee covers about 37% of the gap. The middle path the Council chose.
Each option starts from the same $5.27M sanitation cost and the same $2.88M pre-trash deficit. The only variable is the fee level, which determines the general fund contribution, which determines how much is left to close through cuts in Part 4.
What the adopted schedule means in numbers
Total sanitation program cost
$5.27M
up from $3.93M last year (+$1.35M, +34%)
Hauler contract up $1.30M. Recycling processing up $492K. Incineration savings of $457K partially offset this.
Total fee revenue collected
$3.68M
up from $1.27M last year (+$2.41M, +190%)
At the adopted schedule, residents pay about three times more in fees than they did under the $100 flat rate.
Remaining general fund contribution
$1.40M
down from $2.48M last year (-$1.08M)
The general fund saves $1.08M on sanitation this year. But it still contributes $1.40M, which is part of the gap that Part 4 closes through cuts.
Questions worth thinking about
There's no version where everyone pays less and keeps everything. The trash fee makes that concrete. Holding the fee at $100 instead of $300 doesn't lower the cost of collecting the trash. It shifts about $2.4 million onto the general fund, which has to come from somewhere else in the budget. That's more than the discretionary line items can cover on their own, so the math eventually reaches the things most people want to protect: schools, public safety, public works. Worth asking yourself where you'd find it, and whether that changes how the fee looks.
Part 4
What Gets Reduced or Eliminated
After the trash fee offset, Beverly still needed to close a $1.81 million gap. The mayor's proposed budget included cuts across staffing, services, and reserves. The City Council reviewed the budget at a meeting on June 23, 2026, and added four further reductions totaling $93,120 on top of the mayor's proposal. Council members noted it was the largest dollar amount of cuts ever introduced by the Council in a final budget session, which speaks as much to the pattern of minimal amendment activity in prior years as it does to the scale of this year's cuts. The final budget passed 5-4.[8]
Capital projects fund: zeroed out
In most years, Beverly sets aside surplus cash to pay for one-time needs: replacing aging equipment, emergency building repairs, road work that falls outside normal maintenance. This year that pot was eliminated. Those needs do not disappear; they get deferred.
budget book
What residents feel
Equipment that breaks this year may not be replaced on a normal timeline. Road or building repairs that would have come from this fund get pushed to a future budget, often at higher cost.
Reserve for Appropriation: reduced by $186K
The mayor's proposed budget reduced this reserve from $1.1M to $915K. This is a pool of money set aside at the start of the fiscal year specifically for unexpected costs that come up mid-year: a major storm blowing through the snow-removal budget, an unexpected legal settlement, equipment that fails ahead of schedule. Beverly actually keeps two separate mid-year buffers. This one is the larger operational reserve. A second, smaller fund called "Reserve and Unforeseen" is controlled directly by the City Council and requires a Council vote to tap. Budget Analyst Gerald Perry cautioned during the June 23 meeting that these funds are essential for situations like overtime during snowstorms, and that they cannot be replenished from free cash until year-end certification.
budget book + CC meeting notes
What residents feel
Less cushion if something unexpected costs more than expected mid-year. If the emergency fund runs out, additional cuts may be needed before the fiscal year ends.
City bus (CATA shuttle): discontinued
Beverly's municipal bus service ran on a contract with the Cape Ann Transportation Authority. The contract was not renewed. This was the largest single service cut in Part 4.
budget book + transmittal letter
What residents feel
Residents without cars who used the bus for work, appointments, or shopping have no direct replacement from the city. A Council on Aging transportation program exists but requires eligibility and runs different routes.
Library, Council on Aging, Health Dept, Veterans Services (combined)
Beverly Farms library branch: reduced hours. Council on Aging: one part-time position eliminated. Health Dept dental clinic: grant-funded for FY27, removing it from the city budget for now, but the grant must be renewed annually. Veterans services reduced.
transmittal letter
What residents feel
Fewer library hours in Beverly Farms. Less COA capacity. Dental care access for lower-income residents now depends on a grant that may not be renewed in future years.
Planning department: one staff position eliminated, consulting reduced
One full-time position eliminated. Consulting and outside services budget reduced. The $185K shuttle bus contract shown above was also part of the Planning budget.
transmittal letter
+$22K
What residents feel
Less capacity for permit review, zoning analysis, and grant writing.
Mayor's office: 2.5 positions reduced
Two and a half positions were eliminated. One of those was the Assistant Sustainability Director, whose role is being funded for FY27 and FY28 by a private donor. When that donation ends, the city would need to find funding to continue the position. Two nonprofit contracts were also ended: $35K for downtown initiatives and $15K for economic stimulus work.
transmittal letter
Additional cuts added on top of the above by the City Council at the June 23 meeting
Mayor's office expenses (line 51892)
$13,500 → $10,000
saves $3,500
vote 9-0
Racial Justice staff position
$62,620 → $0
saves $62,620
vote 5-4
What residents feel
Reduced mayoral office capacity. Downtown and economic stimulus partnerships ended. Racial Justice staff work eliminated after a narrow council vote. Sustainability work continues for now under private funding.
Finance department: Budget Analyst position reduced
Originally proposed by the mayor. The City Council added an additional reduction at the June 23 meeting.
transmittal letter + CC meeting notes
+$20K
Cut introduced by the City Council at the June 23 meeting (not in the mayor's original proposal)
Budget Analyst salary (per diem, est. half of Finance Director salary)
$79,870 → $59,870
saves $20,000
vote 9-0
Purchasing / Mail Messenger: position zeroed out
Added by City Council at the June 23 meeting. Voted 5-4.
council additionCC meeting notes
+$7K
Cut introduced by the City Council at the June 23 meeting (not in the mayor's original proposal)
Mail Messenger position
$7,000 → $0
saves $7,000
vote 5-4
Inspections (-$70K), HR (-$35K), Solicitor (-$16K), Council and Clerk offices (-$31K)
Reductions across several administrative departments through attrition and eliminated positions. Inspectional Services lost 1.5 positions. Finance lost 2 positions to attrition.
budget book + transmittal letter
What residents feel
Building inspections and permit reviews may take longer. Less administrative capacity across the city.
Workers compensation reserve: reduced $80K
A calculated risk that workers compensation claims will remain within a lower ceiling this year.
budget book
+$80K
Consulting budgets, conference travel, surveys, and departmental supplies
Departments across the city are running leaner on discretionary spending. Reduced travel to professional conferences, fewer outside studies, and tighter supply budgets across the board.
estimated from budget constraints
What residents feel
Departments have less capacity for outside expertise, property appraisals, and professional development for staff.
Questions worth thinking about
Balancing this year took real work, and it used up the moves that were available. The gap comes back next year, larger. Getting out of the pattern means one of a few hard things, each with a catch. An override, which raises everyone's taxes and can lose at the ballot. More from the state or from large tax-exempt institutions, which Beverly has to fight for and can't simply decide. Or not building, and not just City Hall but any major project that needs that kind of money, while the buildings the city already owns get more expensive to fix the longer they wait. None of these is free and none is guaranteed. Which would you actually push for? Because doing none of them is choosing this same squeeze again next year.
What happens next
This year is balanced. The problem is not solved.
Everything in this piece describes how Beverly closed the gap for one year. The gap itself does not go away. The same forces that opened it, costs climbing faster than the property tax cap allows, are still in place, and several of the moves used this year were one-time fixes that cannot be repeated. A private donor is covering a position for two years. A dental clinic shifted onto a grant that has to be renewed. Reserves were drawn down; the mayor noted the city has spent roughly $2 million from its rainy-day fund.
At the June 23 budget meeting, Councilor Scott Houseman raised the kinds of moves FY2028 might force onto the table if the trajectory holds: things like raising kindergarten fees, cutting the school budget, bringing the city's share of health insurance costs below 80%, cautioning unions that raises above the 2.5% the tax cap allows may not be affordable, and leaning on the state for more aid. He was not endorsing these as a platform. He was naming them as the uncomfortable levers a city starts reaching for when the easy ones are gone, and he called it a "break glass" moment.[8] The specific list matters less than the direction it points. This was not the hard year. Next year is harder.
If you want to understand the structural squeeze underneath all of this, or see where residents can weigh in before the next budget is set, the earlier explainer covers both. This piece has stuck to the mechanics of how the money moved, not the politics of the moment.
Appendix: Beverly's Annual Loan Payments, FY2026 Through FY2034
Beverly borrows money for large capital projects and repays those loans through annual payments in the operating budget. The table below shows how those payments are projected to look over the next several years, based on the General Fund Debt Schedule presented to the City Council in January 2026. FY2026 and FY2027 reflect actual budget figures. FY2028 reflects an authorized loan not yet issued. Everything from FY2029 onward is a projection based on capital projects Beverly was planning as of January 2026. Many of those projects have not yet been formally authorized, and if they do not proceed, the numbers for those years would be lower.
The large jump shown in FY2033 is driven primarily by a proposed $50 million Public Services Building that appears as a planning entry in the January 2026 debt schedule. As of this writing, no additional details on the status of that project have been confirmed. If it does not move forward, the FY2033 figure would be substantially lower.
| Year |
Existing bonds paying down |
City Hall loan 1 |
City Hall loan 2 |
Other projected |
Total |
% of budget |
| FY2026 | $6.87M | $0.53M | -- | $1.39M | $8.79M | 5.06% |
| FY2027 (this budget) | $6.67M | $2.00M | -- | $0.30M | $8.97M | 5.01% |
| FY2028 | $6.38M | $1.40M | $1.00M | $0.40M | $9.18M | 5.00% |
| FY2029 (projected) | $6.16M | $1.02M | $0.74M | $1.55M | $9.47M | 5.01% |
| FY2030 (projected) | $5.98M | $1.00M | $0.73M | $2.05M | $9.75M | 5.02% |
| FY2031 (projected) | $5.81M | $0.97M | $0.71M | $2.53M | $10.02M | 4.98% |
| FY2032 (projected) | $5.65M | $0.95M | $0.70M | $3.33M | $10.62M | 5.10% |
| FY2033 (projected) | $5.53M | $0.93M | $0.68M | $8.32M | $15.46M | 7.18% |
Source: City of Beverly General Fund Debt Schedule, City Council Presentation, January 20, 2026, Slide 27. "% of budget" figures are the presentation's own projections of debt service as a share of the estimated general fund in each year. FY2029+ figures are conditional on planned capital projects proceeding as described in the January 2026 presentation.