Water
$2,524,747- Receipts
- $1,900,000
- Retained earnings
- $574,747
- Other receivables
- $50,000
Start with the complete year
What money supported Wilbraham's FY2026 tax-setting plan?
The certified historical basis totaled $65,442,207.34. The property-tax levy supplied $48,746,259.34; eight other source lines supplied $16,695,948.00.
Think of this as one household's full income picture for that year—not as the balance in one bank account. It shows the scale and mix used to support the FY2026 tax-setting plan. It does not show what money is available now.
One complete stack
Property taxes carried nearly three quarters of the historical basis.
Keeping the levy and every other source on the same scale makes their relationship visible. The levy was 74.5% of the total; the non-levy sources together were 25.5%.
Property-tax levy$48,746,259
Other sources$16,695,948
Complete historical basis$65,442,207.34
Reconciliation difference$0.00
Additive source rows9
What filled the rest?
The non-levy side was a mix—not one interchangeable pot of money.
Some sources supported specific funds. Some were one-time resources. Some were recurring receipts. Their presence in the same certified stack does not make them equally dependable or available for a new use.
Open one layer
Motor-vehicle excise supplied most of the local-receipt estimate.
Local receipts totaled $3,848,944. Motor-vehicle excise alone supplied $2,300,000, or 59.8%. Meals excise was explicitly reported as zero; room occupancy excise was $20,000.
Motor Vehicle Excise$2,300,00059.8% of local receipts
Other Departmental Revenue$435,00011.3% of local receipts
Investment Income$325,0008.4% of local receipts
Building Permits$200,0005.2% of local receipts
See all 18 certified local-receipt lines
| Receipt | Amount | Evidence state |
|---|---|---|
| Motor Vehicle Excise | $2,300,000 | Present |
| Other Departmental Revenue | $435,000 | Present |
| Investment Income | $325,000 | Present |
| Building Permits | $200,000 | Present |
| Penalties and Interest | $200,000 | Present |
| Other Licenses and Permits | $150,000 | Present |
| Other Fees | $128,000 | Present |
| All Other PILOT | $53,584 | Present |
| Room Occupancy Excise | $20,000 | Present |
| Miscellaneous Recurring | $13,874 | Present |
| Fines and Forfeits | $8,700 | Present |
| Other Charges for Services | $7,000 | Present |
| Rentals | $5,000 | Present |
| Libraries | $2,000 | Present |
| Other Excise | $786 | Present |
| Cannabis Excise | $0 | Source-stated zero |
| Meals Excise | $0 | Source-stated zero |
| Solar PILOT | $0 | Source-stated zero |
| Certified control total | $3,848,944 | 3 explicit zero lines |
Keep the accounting relationship straight
Enterprise detail explains the $4,343,656 control. It is not extra revenue.
Water, wastewater, and solid-waste sources are already represented by the enterprise line in the complete stack. Adding the details again would count the same support twice.
Wastewater
$1,410,861- Receipts
- $919,111
- Retained earnings
- $210,374
- Other receivables
- $281,376
Solid waste
$408,048- Receipts
- $330,000
- Retained earnings
- $31,248
- Other receivables
- $46,800
Do not add: the three fund totals back onto $65,442,207.34. They decompose an amount already inside it.
Try the scale—not an affordability verdict
How large would a proposal look beside the historical FY2026 basis?
Enter a dollar amount. The comparison can tell us whether it is tiny or substantial relative to one historical year. It cannot tell us where the money would come from or what a household would pay.
Historical scale comparison only.
Of the complete historical basis1.5%$1,000,000 ÷ $65,442,207
Of the historical property-tax levy2.1%$1,000,000 ÷ $48,746,259
What this comparison adds
A consistent historical scale for discussing the size of an idea before assigning a funding source.
What still has to be answered
Is the cost one-time or recurring? What current source would pay? What changes later? What reaches households?
Why it matters
A percentage can orient the conversation. It cannot make the decision.
A proposal that equals 1% of a prior year's revenue stack may still create a difficult recurring obligation. A larger proposal may be essential. The next question is not simply “Does it fit?” It is “Which current and future resources would carry it—and what else would change?”
Evidence and method
The figures reconcile exactly—but remain historical and non-publishable.
Fresh governed read
Read-only query completed Invalid Date. Contract: release 0366, historical affordability revenue v1.
Database objects
reporting_wilbraham_historical_affordability_revenue_v1, local-receipt v1, enterprise-source v1, and the certified reconciliation record.
Source records
2025 Annual Town Report, certified FY2026 ATM motions, and Massachusetts DOR/DLS levy export, with page/article locators retained in CSKE.
Use boundary
historical_only=true; publishable=false. Not FY2027, current revenue, audited actual, budget authority, available cash, or proof of affordability.