Town Meeting voters declined to approve Article 13, a proposal to establish a special-purpose stabilization fund for wages tied to eight firefighters hired under a federal SAFER (Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response) grant.

The article would have established a special-purpose stabilization fund under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40, Section 5B, and transferred $400,000 from free cash into that fund to begin setting aside money to help cover an estimated future annual cost of roughly $1,200,000 if the positions were retained after the federal funding ended.

Finance Director Jason Little and supporters said the fund was a fiscally prudent way to “soften the blow” when the federal grant expires and the town must decide whether to continue funding the eight positions. Little explained the town’s plan was to build the fund over two years and draw it down over three to reduce the immediate tax impact. The Appropriations Committee recommended approval; the Select Board’s recommendation was split (two in favor, two opposed).

Opponents, including several residents and two Select Board members, said the town faces a likely Proposition 2½ override and that earmarking free cash for one department could set a bad precedent and reduce flexibility for other needs such as schools, police, public works and human-service grants. Jacob Jones, a resident who spoke against the article, said he would “rather keep [the free cash] in my bank account” and prefer to make the staffing decision when the grant ends.

Fire officials and supporters argued the grant was evidence of demonstrated need: Chief Berentian and other advocates said the additional firefighters reduced overtime and improved response capacity; the chief noted operational examples in which the extra staff preserved property and lives. Select Board Chair Mitch Cohen called the fund “a smart way of saving up” to retain the positions and warned that if the town did not provide stability, firefighters would seek other jobs.

A motion to move the question (close debate) passed by the required two-thirds threshold, and the substantive Article 13 vote later failed to meet the two-thirds majority needed to change the purpose of the stabilization fund; the article did not pass. A subsequent motion to reconsider also failed to meet the required two-thirds vote.