Reading, Massachusetts · November 3, 2026
PRIORITIES FIRST. TAXES SECOND.
Reading may need an override. But $6.5 million should be the conclusion of a public prioritization process—not the premise.
Vote NO in November. Then do the work necessary to get to YES on the right plan.
This is not “never.” It is a demand for priorities, credible choices, and an ask no larger than Reading can demonstrate it needs.
The case against the $6.5 million override
Reading has shown us what it wants to spend. It has not shown us why $6.5 million is the minimum additional amount taxpayers should provide.
THE CHOICE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE
There are millions of dollars of possibilities between those endpoints. Show us some of them.
A choice voters haven't been shown
The proposed school budget grows about 5.25%. Could Reading responsibly protect teachers, paras, classrooms, and core services with a smaller increase? Maybe. Maybe not. But voters should see the answer before being told the alternatives are the full $6.5 million or severe reductions.
The proposed Town-side budget grows about 3.75%. What would a slightly smaller increase actually require? Which services would change, and which would be protected? Voters should see those choices too.
The question isn't whether services have value. It's which services residents value enough to pay more to preserve—and what level of spending is necessary to preserve them.
Priorities first
Residents should not have to choose between one preferred spending plan and one severe-cut plan. Town and school professionals can build credible alternatives and tell us what each level buys.
“Don’t ask residents whether they want services or cuts. Ask them which services they’re willing to pay more to preserve.”
Town and school leaders know the operational consequences and should construct credible alternatives—not force residents to invent a line-item budget.
Let voters see what different levels of taxation buy and say what they value enough to pay more to preserve.
After the priorities are clearer, determine the structural gap that truly remains and ask for that amount.
The numbers
These are the figures this site is using for the campaign discussion.
The proposed “yes” plan is not a frozen budget. Town materials describe roughly 3.75% growth on the Town side, while the school budget is projected to grow still faster. The choice is therefore not “increase spending or cut from today's level.” The question is what services and staffing can be supported within an already-growing budget before asking taxpayers for an additional permanent override.
For this comparison, the proposed $6.5 million override is measured against Reading’s projected FY28 Town + School operating budget of approximately $138.3 million. This is the combined operating-spending total before separating how those services are funded among property taxes, state aid, local receipts and other general revenues. It excludes enterprise funds and other expenditures outside the Town + School operating budget. The $6.5 million override is about 4.7% of that projected operating spending.
A different way to see the cost
When we vote yes for an override, we're voting not only to spend our own money. We're voting to spend our neighbors' money, too.
At $25 an hour, the Town's roughly $733 average annual override estimate represents almost four full days of someone's work.
Time with a newborn. Time with an aging parent. Time coaching a team, volunteering, or simply doing the things that make life worth living.
Once that time is gone, we can never get it back.
For some older neighbors living on fixed incomes, there aren't more working hours available to earn that money back. Another permanent expense simply means making do with less.
Sometimes the services we're preserving are worth asking our neighbors to make that sacrifice. But before we do, we owe it to them to determine what we truly need, what we can reasonably do differently, and what our priorities are.
Then, if there's still a structural gap—and I think there very well may be—ask our neighbors to fund it.
Priorities first. Taxes second.
Enter your hourly wage below to see how much time you would spend working just to pay for this override.
You’d need to work 29.4 hours (about 3.7 eight-hour workdays) just to pay for the override.
And because the override becomes part of the tax base, that cost continues in the years ahead.
Before asking for $6.5 million
Reading has made substantial staffing investments in recent years while enrollment has remained essentially flat. The data suggest there are reasonable opportunities to save. Some may not be worth pursuing. Others may protect the services residents value most while reducing the size of the tax increase. We should examine those choices before treating $6.5 million as the minimum answer.
A position or service can be valuable and still be worth reexamining when money is tight. Identify the reasonable options. Cost them. Show us the tradeoffs. Protect the highest priorities, then determine how much additional tax revenue is actually needed.
Over the comparable period, Reading Public Schools added approximately 33.7 FTEs, while Town staffing grew by roughly 3–4 net FTEs. That is why more of the staffing choices examined below are on the school side. It is not a judgment about which services matter more. It is simply where most of the recent staffing growth occurred.
Reading added approximately 33.7 school FTEs costing taxpayers roughly $2.5 million per year, while enrollment remained essentially flat. 25.6 FTE were non-teachers; 8.1 were teachers. Examining staffing does not simply mean “cutting teachers.” There are other staffing choices to examine first.
See what positions were added →Reading added five full-time elementary APs in FY24. Nearby high-performing districts use fewer—or none.
Do we need five? Do we need dedicated elementary APs at all?
Reading's student-support investment coincides with strong attendance outcomes. That argues for care—not immunity from review. Caseloads and school-by-school demand can show what staffing level is needed now.
See the full analysis →Different positions should be judged by different measures. When the evidence shows an investment is working, give it credit. Then ask what level of investment is needed to sustain the result.
See how we evaluate outcomes →Reading's graduation rate is excellent—and it has been for years. The current 98.5% rate is almost identical to RMHS's 98.34% ten-year average.
That's a strength worth preserving. The question is what resources are actually necessary to preserve it.
Reading has a busy library—and one of the most heavily staffed among nearby communities. With visits still 24% below 2019, is the current staffing and hours model still the right one?
Compare nearby libraries →The Town projects $280,000 in added staff and services for ReCAL, including maintenance, custodial staffing and additional cleaning. Could different hours or service levels reduce that cost?
Examine the ReCAL tradeoffs →Even if the override passes, the Town plans to cut 3–5 positions through staffing efficiencies.
If efficiencies make sense after an override, what else should we examine before one?
Examine Town-side choices →The data suggest there are reasonable opportunities to save.
Some may not be worth pursuing. Others may preserve the services residents value most while reducing the size of the tax increase. We won't know until we do the work. And we should do that work before asking our neighbors to pay more.
Reading has done this before
Reading voters approved a major library debt exclusion. In the years that followed, the Town also confronted an operating-budget gap.
Reading voters rejected the request. The community then spent more time engaging residents, explaining tradeoffs, and refining the plan.
After greater engagement and a smaller, clearer request, Reading voters approved the override by roughly 60–40.
The lesson isn't that Reading won't support an override. The lesson is that the process—and the amount—matter.
Community Preservation Act
The CPA would add a separate 1% property-tax surcharge beginning in FY28—the same year Reading is asking voters to approve a $6.5 million operating override. The surcharge raises taxes; it does not lower them. CPA revenue is restricted to eligible community preservation purposes and cannot be used to close the operating-budget gap.
~$820K
Reading taxpayers are projected to contribute roughly $820,000 per year through the CPA surcharge. That is an additional annual property-tax burden for taxpayers who do not qualify for an exemption.
~$130K
Using the Study Committee's 16.87% FY2025 match rate as a guide, roughly $820,000 raised locally would produce about $138,000 in state matching funds. Future match rates can vary.
FY28
The CPA surcharge would begin in FY28, alongside the proposed $6.5 million operating override if both ballot questions pass.
Reading already has a Capital Improvement Program for identifying and scheduling capital needs. CPA creates a separate process: eligible projects would be evaluated and recommended by a new Community Preservation Committee before going to Town Meeting for final approval.
The CPA Study Committee itself identifies this separate funding path as a benefit. Its report says CPA could help Reading fund projects deferred from the Capital Improvement Program, address unmet needs and pursue emerging opportunities that might otherwise have difficulty competing with other demands on the Town budget.
That means CPA is not simply a new source of money for projects Reading has already prioritized. It can also support eligible projects outside the existing Capital Plan through a different prioritization process.
I wanted to support CPA. I signed up to support it and fully intended to vote yes if CPA would primarily help pay for eligible projects Reading was already going to fund—allowing us to capture the state match while reducing what taxpayers otherwise had to pay. What changed my view was the Town Meeting discussion, when proponents made clear that they did not want CPA limited to replacing existing spending.
If we are going to ask neighbors—including people already living paycheck-to-paycheck who do not qualify for an exemption—to pay another tax every year, the cost and the choices it creates should be communicated clearly and honestly.
Help with property taxes
Massachusetts offers a refundable state income tax credit to eligible residents age 65 and older whose property taxes—or qualifying rent—are high compared with their income. Enter your information to see an illustrative estimate based on 2025 tax-year rules (returns filed in 2026).
Your entries stay in your browser. Nothing is submitted to this website.
Enter your details to calculate an estimate.
Important: This is an educational estimate, not an eligibility determination or tax advice. Additional rules apply, including Massachusetts residency, principal-residence requirements, eligible income definitions, and restrictions involving dependents or subsidized housing. For married couples, filing status matters. The 2025 income limits are $75,000 (single), $94,000 (head of household), and $112,000 (married filing jointly); the assessed-value limit for homeowners is $1,298,000.
The credit is claimed on Massachusetts Schedule CB when filing a state income tax return. It is refundable but does not reduce your quarterly property tax bill. See the Massachusetts Department of Revenue's official guidance for current rules and forms. Future tax-year limits may differ.
FAQ
No. The position presented here is that the amount should follow the prioritization process. If a structural gap remains after residents understand the alternatives and the Town has made reasonable choices, an override can be a legitimate way to fund services.
No. The Town's published “no” scenario describes substantial staffing reductions if the full override fails. This site argues that voters should not assume that scenario is the only possible alternative to the full $6.5 million request.
No. Budgeting requires ranking competing priorities. A position can be valuable and still be a legitimate subject for discussion when residents are being asked to increase taxes.
Not automatically—and not automatically harmless either. That is precisely why the district should show what different funding levels would mean. For example, voters could reasonably ask what a 4% school increase would require compared with the proposed 5.25% increase.
No. CPA is a legally separate surcharge with restricted uses. The practical concern raised here is that it adds another ongoing property-tax charge after voter approval, on top of the normal levy and any operating override.
No. The CPA surcharge itself is an additional property tax. Reading taxpayers are projected to pay roughly $820,000 per year through the surcharge, with additional money coming back to Reading through the state CPA match.
CPA could reduce what taxpayers would otherwise have to fund through the regular Town budget if CPA money is used for eligible projects Reading was already planning to pay for. But that is different from saying the CPA tax itself lowers taxes. If CPA instead funds additional projects or spending that would not otherwise have occurred, there is no corresponding reduction elsewhere.
The relevant question is not whether CPA brings state matching money to Reading—it does. The question is whether CPA will replace existing local spending or add to it.
It could, if Reading reduced library hours below the state's requirements. The normal state standard for a community Reading's size is 59 hours per week across six days. Reading currently provides 64 hours including Sunday, or 60 hours Monday through Saturday.
The Town says eliminating Sunday hours is financially equivalent to reducing 0.5 FTE, and that reducing another 1–2 FTE would require cutting Monday–Saturday hours to 56 or 54—below the normal certification standard.
The certification requirement is real. What has not been demonstrated is why reducing 1–2 FTE necessarily requires reducing service below 59 hours. With library staffing 8.1% higher than in 2019 while physical visits remain 24.1% lower, it is reasonable to ask whether scheduling changes, attrition or a different staffing model could preserve the hours required for full certification with somewhat fewer staff.
Before treating loss of certification as the inevitable consequence of a modest staffing reduction, show us the staffing math.
Because the decision is real, and so are the tradeoffs. Residents should understand the strongest case for preserving services as well as the case for prioritizing before increasing taxes.
No. The Town is not proposing to lay off four existing firefighters.
A Vote YES graphic warns that a NO vote “could mean the loss of 4 firefighter positions.” Read naturally, many residents will understandably take that to mean four current firefighters could lose their jobs. That is not what the Town has described.
At the September 16 override forum, Town Manager Jayne Wellman explained that Reading had four open firefighter positions. The Town planned to fill one and leave three vacant during the hiring freeze rather than hire firefighters it might later have to lay off.
The Town's official override information likewise does not identify four firefighter layoffs as a consequence of a failed override. Its specific Fire impacts include delaying the purchase of a new ambulance and simulation equipment.
There is a big difference between laying off four firefighters and leaving vacant positions unfilled. No current firefighter has been identified for layoff.
A failed override could still have real consequences for public safety, and residents should take those seriously. But those consequences should be described accurately.
No. A NO vote in November does not automatically enact every cut in the Town's current “no override” scenario. It means voters have not approved this particular $6.5 million override.
Town officials have themselves described a planning process that would follow a failed override. At the June 25 Joint Financial Forum, Chief Financial Officer Sharon Angstrom said the Town would need to develop a strategic plan around a target number, which would then determine the staffing reductions required. Town Manager Jayne Wellman described the work as requiring “thoughtful consolidation.”
The possibility of another vote in April isn't something we're inventing, either. At the Select Board retreat, one Board member explained the timing directly: “This is being done now so if it fails there is another chance in April.”
We welcome that planning. We still believe the better approach is for the target amount to follow from the prioritization process, with meaningful input from residents—not the other way around. But the important point is that both the Town and those of us opposing the current $6.5 million request are already thinking about what comes next.
If the full override fails, the goal should not be to stop the conversation. It should be to do the work necessary to develop a better plan, determine how much additional revenue Reading actually needs, and, if another override is necessary, get to YES on the right plan.
Some reductions may ultimately be necessary. So may an override. But those decisions should come from the prioritization process rather than being predetermined by the November vote.
Vote NO in November. Then let's get to YES on the right plan in April.
We try hard to get the facts right. We use Town documents, state data and other public sources whenever possible, and we show our sources so readers can examine them for themselves.
But we're human. We may occasionally misunderstand something, use an outdated figure or simply get something wrong. If we do, tell us. We'll check it and correct it.
A factual correction should change the argument when the fact matters to the argument. What it should not do is end the larger conversation.
Reading is being asked to approve a permanent $6.5 million override. It is reasonable to ask what different spending levels would look like, which services residents value most, where reasonable savings may exist, and how much additional revenue Reading actually needs.
Get the facts right. Correct them when they're wrong. Keep talking about the priorities.
No. Questioning whether Reading needs a particular position—or whether it needs five of something instead of three—is not an attack on the people doing those jobs.
Teachers and school administrators do important work. In my own family, my aunt, grandfather and sister were teachers, and my sister also served as an assistant vice principal. I have enormous respect for the profession.
But respecting educators doesn't require believing that every position currently in the budget must remain there forever. Reading is asking its neighbors for a substantial permanent tax increase. That makes it reasonable to examine staffing levels, workloads, outcomes and alternative ways of providing services.
Budget questions are not judgments about the people doing the work. They're decisions about priorities, resources and what Reading can afford.
As our neighbors and friends.
We may disagree about these ballot questions, but we don't believe that disagreement reflects a difference in how much any of us cares about Reading. We share many of the same values. We want excellent schools, strong public services, a vibrant community, and a town that remains a wonderful place to live.
Where we differ is mostly about how we get there.
We believe that when we ask our neighbors to permanently pay more, the conversation about priorities should come first. We should understand the choices, examine reasonable alternatives, decide together what matters most, and then determine what additional revenue is necessary to support those priorities.
People supporting Yes for Reading or Yes for CPA may reach a different conclusion. That's okay. Good neighbors can look at the same community, care about the same things, and disagree about the best path forward.
Our hope is that when the election is over, we're still neighbors, still friends, and still working together for a better Reading.
That's ultimately what this campaign is about: not winning an argument, but having the conversation about priorities that we believe Reading needs.
Read the documents
Whenever possible, this site should point voters to the underlying Town, school, and local reporting rather than asking them to take campaign claims on faith.
November 3, 2026
Vote NO in November. Then let's get to YES on the right plan in April.
Back to top