# Maturing Debt & Interest: what the town votes for it

One of twelve departments in the omnibus budget Town Meeting votes each spring. [All twelve together](/analysis/town-budgets).

## What it is

The town’s annual bill for money it has already borrowed. The group holds `Principal-Loans` and `Interest-Loans` — repaying the capital on bonds issued to build things, and the interest on them — plus interest on temporary borrowing, loan administration fees and bond issuance costs. It buys no service in the year it is paid: the thing it paid for was built earlier. It falls when bonds finish and the town has not issued new ones to replace them, which is what has happened here — almost all of the fall is PRINCIPAL rather than interest.

## The department

| | FY2023 | FY2024 | FY2025 |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| voted | $4,497,723 | $3,518,013 | $2,941,322 |
| a year | -19.1% |  |  |
| share of the budget | 6.7% |  |  |
| pull on total growth | -1.45 |  |  |

## Its lines, as printed

### FY2023

| line | label | voted |
|---|---|---:|
|  | Maturing Debt & Interest | — |
|  | Principal-Loans | $3,220,579 |
| 2 | Interest -Loans | $1,272,701 |
| 3 | Interest-Temporary Loans | $1,825 |
| 3A | Admin Fees-Loans | $2,619 |
| 3B | Bond Issuance Costs | — |
| | **total** | **$4,497,723** |

The page prints **$4,497,723** for this department. The lines above come to the same.

### FY2024

| line | label | voted |
|---|---|---:|
|  | No. FY 2024 | — |
|  | Maturing Debt & Interest | — |
| 1 | Principal-Loans | $2,335,200 |
| 2 | Interest -Loans | $1,169,577 |
| 3 | Interest-Temporary | $11,406 |
|  | Loans | — |
|  | ЗА Admin Fees-Loans | $1,831 |
| 3B | Bond Issuance Costs | — |
| | **total** | **$3,518,013** |

The page prints **$3,518,013** for this department. The lines above come to the same.

### FY2025

| line | label | voted |
|---|---|---:|
|  | No. FY 2025 | — |
|  | Maturing Debt & Interest | — |
|  | Principal-Loans | $1,832,253 |
|  | Interest-Loans | $1,101,717 |
|  | Interest-Temporary Loans | — |
| 5 |  | $5,986 |
|  | ЗА Admin Fees-Loans | $1,365 |
|  | Bond Issuance Costs | — |
| | **total** | **$2,941,322** |

The page prints **$2,941,322** for this department. The lines above come to the same.

## Why it is falling

Debt service drops when bonds finish and the town has not issued new ones to replace them. Almost all of the fall here is PRINCIPAL — the capital being repaid — rather than interest:

| | FY2023 | FY2025 | change |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| Principal-Loans | $3,220,579 | $1,832,253 | −$1,388,326 |
| Interest-Loans | $1,272,701 | $1,101,717 | −$170,984 |

What this does NOT say is WHICH bonds finished. That is in the town’s debt repayment schedule, which the annual report prints and this project has not yet read properly — the FY2025 extract of it is the trust-fund table by mistake.

## What moved

Lines that appear in FY2023 and FY2025 under the same printed label, biggest move first.

| line | FY2023 | FY2025 | change |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| Principal-Loans | $3,220,579 | $1,832,253 | -$1,388,326 |
| Interest-Loans | $1,272,701 | $1,101,717 | -$170,984 |
| ЗА Admin Fees-Loans | $2,619 | $1,365 | -$1,254 |

## What this cannot show

- What any department ASKED for. The omnibus is what Town Meeting voted, which is already balanced — the difference between a request and a vote is where a cut lives, and the annual report prints only the second.
- What was actually spent. Voted and spent are different quantities and rule 1 forbids mixing them in one calculation.
- Whether any department reduced SERVICE. A department can hold its dollars and cut its hours, and a dollar figure will not say so.
- Why any line moved. The omnibus states an amount and gives no reason for it, so every explanation of a movement here would be a hypothesis.
- Anything about FY2026 below the total. The FY2025 annual report prints no department figures at all.
- That growing faster than the levy cap is a problem. Proposition 2½ limits the LEVY, not the budget: the budget is the levy plus state aid, local receipts and transfers, and new growth raises the levy limit on top of the 2.5%. The cap is used here as a common reference point every board in town already uses — it is not a ceiling anybody breached.