All options address the same underlying structural deficit between forecasted revenue and expenses. They differ in how much new levy capacity is created, when the increases hit taxpayers, and whether surplus early-year revenue is set aside in stabilization funds.
The "phased" approaches spread override increases over 3 fiscal years but end with a higher permanent levy. The "up front" approaches create stabilization funds in early years and ask for less total override revenue, but leave less cushion heading into FY30.
All options include the regular ~5% FY27 increase (Prop 2½ + debt exclusions) that happens regardless of the override. The difference is the override portion.
Options 1-2 use numbers directly from the E&R Study Committee final report. Options 3-4 are from the Town Administrator's financial planning workbook. All four share the same underlying revenue and expense forecasts.
In Option 4 ($16M up front), the Town Administrator allocates $4.8M to town and $11.2M to schools. Both stabilization funds are nearly exhausted by end of FY29 (Town: $256K, School: $1.1M), meaning the structural gap likely reopens in FY30.
There are minor rounding differences (~0.02%) between the E&R report and the Town Administrator workbook for cumulative tax percentages on Options 1-2, where both sources model the same scenario. This page uses the E&R figures for Options 1-2 and the Town Administrator figures for Options 3-4.
All underlying deficit projections (school and town) are identical across all four options and come from the town's forecasted revenue and expense models. Stabilization fund balances in all options include projected interest per the official documents.