By Geena Monahan
For the North Star Reporter
It was a full house at Monday night’s Town Council meeting, where Councillor Mark Gould proposed a $1 million cut from the 2026 fiscal year budget.
Fellow board members and Town Manager Michael Borg vehemently opposed the measure, while members of the community raised concerns over the impacts of reducing the town’s stabilization fund.
Gould was first to speak during the public hearing, citing an average tax bill increase of 46% over the past nine years and the rising cost of inflation as reasons for presenting this measure. By asking the Town Council to refrain from its usual 2.5% tax levy and instead take only 1.5% for FY26, Gould outlined how a one-time payout of approximately $100 could be given back to residents. Gould further clarified that this measure is not an underride, but instead a tax reduction put forth by Town Council members asking Borg to adopt a lesser budget.
Following Gould’s speech, the floor was opened to the public for comment, where four North Attleborough residents came forward in strong opposition to the councilman’s proposal. Mike Lennox, who formerly served on the Board of Selectmen and Town Council, was one of those residents who voiced concerns about dipping into the town’s estimated $7 million stabilization fund balance and the greater tax increases this might lead to for residents down the road.
“Let’s be really clear: holding back part of the levy does not mean taxpayers will never pay that amount,” said Lennox. “It can and will be added to the levy in future years. Following the path we set before is the only responsible path forward.”
Fellow resident John Casey echoed those concerns, saying “times are better now, but that can change in a heartbeat. Things can change unexpectedly and our town still has a long list of priorities that need to be completed.”
John Donahue, a resident involved in town politics for over 30 years, presented the positive outcomes that have come from North Attleborough utilizing the full 2.5% levy year after year, such as low tax rates, a AA+ bond rating and the highest stabilization fund balance he’s ever seen. Donahue also reminded the council that this measure would not benefit renters, but would benefit all taxpayers, meaning corporations such as the Emerald Square Mall would receive a larger return than residents.
In response to Councilman John Simmons’ question of what impact this could have on the town, Borg called Gould’s proposal myopic, near-sighted and lacking an understanding of municipal finances. Borg boiled his skepticism of the measure down to three main points: it would revoke residents’ rights to approve increases above Proposition 2.5 limits, that short-term reduction will lead to larger tax increases in future years, while failing to consider the broader budget impact, and that it disproportionately benefits large businesses (e.g. Emerald Square Mall) over residents.
“Is allowing the municipal government to raise taxes without resident input worth $7.60 a month?” Borg questioned. I would say it’s worth a discussion and consideration. But as you truly look it over, it’s not the right time or place.”
Borg voiced further concerns over the impact a reduction in budget could have on pre-planned cost of living increases for town employees, a looming 15% projected increase in healthcare costs and 10 upcoming bargaining negotiations for FY26 contracts.
“Should we tell teachers, paraprofessionals and laborers that we know that healthcare costs are rising and that proposed petitions aim to remove cost of living increases?” Borg asked.
Gould followed with a brief rebuttal, equating the levy reduction to a “less than 1% haircut” while also suggesting that the mall be assessed at a higher value and that the levy doesn’t necessarily need to increase in the future if the town continues to be fiscally smart.
An attempt at compromise was made by Gould, who put forth a motion to reduce the tax levy by $500,000 instead. However, with no second on the motion and no support from any fellow council members, the motion was removed.
