The Townie is an opinion website. The views expressed in this piece belong solely to the author, do not represent those held by The Townie, and should not be interpreted as objective or reported fact.
Dear Newburyport Residents:
I wanted to address the story that appeared in the Daily News this morning, June 17th. This piece misrepresents the cost-saving measures that Councillor Medina Smith and I worked very hard to research, identify, and suggest.
First and foremost, we did not suggest a reduction to the salaries of the Chief of Staff, HR Director, or DPS Director. The budget presented showed an 11.7% raise for the Chief of Staff. We suggested that the raise be reduced to 6%. Similarly, the HR Director was budgeted for a 6% raise which we reduced to 4%.
We were misled by the fact that the budgeted numbers for 2026 were significantly below what these two employees were actually offered. Putting aside why the administration would offer more than what was budgeted (without requesting a transfer to offset the deficit), we repeatedly asked for the actual salaries but that information was never provided — well, only after the reductions to raises were offered. Once the actual salaries were provided, we withdrew the recommended adjustments.
Similarly, we did not propose a cut to the DPS Director’s salary. The administration was attempting to charge a portion of this person’s salary to the Planning Department, using $20,000 allocated to a Special Projects Manager line, a position that no longer exists.
Charging a DPS salary to the planning office is, at the very least, a misallocation of funds. We asked that the salary be charged to appropriate DPS lines, including the water and sewer enterprise funds. This was a change in allocation, not a reduction.
At our second budget workshop in May, Budget and Finance Chair Zeid noted that he was very concerned that the city continues to tax up to the levy limit leaving no flexibility or capacity to deal with future cost pressures. That message resonated with several councillors.
The proposed reductions are an attempt to tighten the belt a little further to avert a future financial crisis. We were fortunate that health insurance increased by just 3.7% for 2027 but we are told to anticipate a 15% increase in 2028. Failing to appropriately plan for that as well as 3-3.5% negotiated wage increases feels fiscally irresponsible.
Nearly half of the proposed reductions were to non-personnel lines and would reduce spending in those categories by less than 1%. It is surprising how much savings can be generated from small cuts to many lines.
Unlike the mayor’s proposal, no positions are eliminated, although a reduction in hours was suggested for two departments. The modest cuts were spread across nearly all departments, ensuring equitable distribution of impact, unlike the mayor’s budget that disproportionately impacts seniors.
The proposed reductions would reduce the property tax increase for the average resident by about the same amount of the increase residents can expect to pay for water and sewer bills. That was by design.
We encourage people to stay engaged and informed. It’s important that we focus on facts, including the fact that this is the first time in recent memory (and perhaps ever) that the administration was provided with suggested reductions in advance of the public hearing and vote. As a result, the administration was able to provide its feedback on Tuesday, which has already resulted in a change to the recommended reductions.
It seems disingenuous at best to say the suggested cuts were a surprise, after councillors submitted over 200 questions on the budget, many of which clearly broadcast our thoughts about where additional savings might be found.
Attempts to demonize or gaslight those of us looking to avert a future financial crisis is an attempt to distract people from the underlying truth that repeatedly taxing to the levy limit is unsustainable. As a council and as a city, we must focus on the difficult conversations ahead as to how we protect our financial future and ensure residents can continue to afford to live here. Increasing spending by 4.2% when revenues are increasing by just 2.7% is just not sustainable nor good for our financial health.
Mary DeLai
Newburyport City Councilor, Ward 6
Passionate about a local issue? We want to hear from you. Check out our submission guidelines.
Subscribe to our Newsletter
Leave a Reply