09/13/2026
September 29: The Choice Before Dudley
An op-ed by Dudley Town Administrator Jonathan Ruda:
I understand why some residents are frustrated that another Proposition 2½ override is on the ballot. Dudley voters rejected an override in June, and less than four months later they are being asked again. It is fair to ask whether the Town heard the first vote.
We did.
The June request was $1,985,187. The September request is $717,630 — approximately $1.27 million less. Most of the June proposal is gone. What remains is limited to maintaining two police officers, two firefighter/paramedics and Highway staffing and operations that support road maintenance, snow removal, tree work and other basic services.
These are not new programs or an expansion of the Town government. They are existing employees and services. A majority of the Board of Selectmen believes they should be maintained. I agree.
The June vote mattered. The September request is nearly two-thirds smaller because of it. Rather than simply make the remaining reductions, the Board substantially narrowed the request and decided residents should make the final decision about whether these services are worth maintaining.
Some will say we have heard warnings about public-safety reductions before and they never happened. The history is important. Dudley went to the voters three times during the 2023 budget crisis. The first two override attempts failed. In August 2023, voters were presented with five separate questions and approved three — public safety, the library and the increased school assessment. The public-safety positions at risk were maintained because voters ultimately provided the revenue to maintain them.
Something else has changed since 2023. Three of our five Selectmen have changed, and we have a different Town Accountant. Different elected officials and a different financial professional have reviewed the numbers and asked their own questions. Yet a majority of today's Board has reached essentially the same conclusion: eventually further reductions stop being efficiencies and begin reducing basic services.
That doesn't mean residents have to agree, but I think it matters. This isn't simply the same group of people repeating the same recommendation three years later. Different people, with responsibility for balancing the budget today, have looked at the numbers and arrived at much the same place.
There is no popularity to be gained by asking residents to increase their own taxes. There is no joy in doing it. Under Proposition 2½, we cannot make that decision for you. Only the voters can. Our responsibility is to tell you when we believe the revenue is necessary and what happens if it isn't available.
The override itself is estimated to add approximately 39 cents per $1,000 of assessed value to whatever the FY2027 tax rate would otherwise be. Using the FY2026 average single-family assessment of $449,928, that is about $175 per year, or $14.62 per month. That is real money, particularly when families are dealing with many of the same rising costs affecting the Town, and I don't minimize it.
There is another issue on September 29 that is equally important. Dudley and Charlton voters will decide whether to authorize $11.18 million in school capital borrowing, while Dudley voters will separately decide whether our approximately $5 million share should be paid through a debt exclusion.
The distinction matters because rejecting the debt exclusion does not necessarily reject the debt.
If the district borrowing passes, Dudley owes its share. Without the debt exclusion, those payments would come from the Town's existing operating budget — the same budget that funds Police, Fire, Highway and every other municipal department. The current financing projection shows Dudley's annual payment reaching approximately $739,000 at its peak, roughly the size of the entire public-safety and Highway override.
That isn't a scare tactic or an argument for or against the school projects. It is how the financing works. A vote against borrowing and a vote against the proposed way of paying for borrowing that has already been authorized can have very different consequences. Residents should understand that distinction before voting.
On September 14 at 6:30 p.m. at the Dudley Municipal Complex, the Board will hold a public information session. Our Town Accountant, Principal Assessor, Treasurer/Collector and I will be there. If you think there are other places to cut, ask us. If you question the tax calculation, ask us to show you. If the debt exclusion is confusing, we will walk through it.
You don't have to agree with our recommendation, but you should expect us to explain it, defend the numbers and answer the difficult questions.
The June vote was clear, and the Board responded. What remains is what a majority of a substantially different Board believes is necessary to maintain Police, Fire/EMS and Highway services. I believe it is necessary too.
We will make our case, show our work and answer the questions. Then the decision is yours.
On September 29, that is exactly where it belongs.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Ruda
Dudley Town Administrator
www.dudleyma.gov
