Voters approved Article 35, establishing a capital stabilization fund under state law to provide a dedicated legal mechanism for long-term financial planning. Unlike general funds, a stabilization fund acts as a reserve account that requires a two-thirds vote of Town Meeting to withdraw money, offering greater fiscal protection for future infrastructure needs.

The article sparked a debate over whether the fund was necessary. J. Griffin, Chair of the Capital Budget Committee, opposed the measure, arguing it was a duplication of a capital project fund established in 2001. However, Town Counsel B. Galvin and Town Accountant Memay clarified that the 2001 fund was not a legally recognized stabilization or enterprise fund and did not offer the same benefits. The stabilization fund has a very different purpose. It's a reserve fund, Galvin explained, noting it is customary in surrounding towns.

P. de Christophar spoke in favor of the fund as a building block for the town’s five-year capital plans, allowing the community to grow reserves for specific projects over several years. While some residents expressed suspicion that the fund was a way to squirrel money away, the majority agreed that the mechanism was a necessary step for financial flexibility and interest-earning potential.

Motion: To establish a capital stabilization fund pursuant to MGL Chapter 40 Section 5B.

Vote: Passed