Town operations · staffing & service levels
Look at the service level before eliminating the service.
Reading's own FY28 plan already shows that choices exist between funding every current cost and eliminating services outright. Before deciding that $6.5 million is the minimum necessary override, examine whether there are additional Town-side efficiencies worth pursuing.
The Town has already concluded that staffing efficiencies are possible.
Even under the $6.5 million override scenario, the Town says it plans to maximize staffing efficiencies by cutting 3–5 Town-side positions.
That matters. Looking for staffing efficiencies is not an alternative invented by opponents of the override. It is already part of the Town's own plan.
The reasonable next question is whether the review should go further. As additional vacancies occur, could some positions be consolidated, reorganized, delayed or left unfilled without materially reducing the services residents value?
If examining 3–5 positions makes sense after approving a $6.5 million override, examining additional opportunities makes sense before deciding that $6.5 million is the minimum necessary.
A natural decision point
Examine the work when a position becomes vacant.
Attrition creates an opportunity to review a position without laying off the person currently doing the job. When a vacancy occurs, ask what work remains, whether demand has changed, whether duties can be reorganized or shared, and whether replacement must happen immediately.
This does not mean every vacancy should remain unfilled. Some positions will be fully justified by workload and service requirements. Maybe we need the position. Maybe we don't. That's why we need to see the workload.
A real example
Reading is already changing a service level to control costs.
The Town reports that its new five-year trash and recycling contract increased FY27 costs by 39.5%. For FY28, the Town projects those costs will decline 8% after removing weekly recycling.
Both the YES and NO scenarios move recycling from weekly to biweekly. The service remains. The service level changes.
This is what prioritization can look like.
Instead of choosing between preserving a service exactly as it exists and eliminating it, identify different service levels, cost the alternatives and show residents the tradeoffs.
Reading is already doing that with recycling. The question is where else the same approach may make sense.
Look between the endpoints
Cost the choices between “keep everything” and “cut the service.”
Recycling frequency is one example. ReCAL operating hours are another. Similar questions can be asked throughout Town operations: Can schedules change? Can work be consolidated? Can a planned expansion be phased in? Can a vacancy be held open while demand is measured?
Some ideas 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.
The practical budget question
How many more reasonable choices are between $6.5 million and the most severe cuts?
The Town's own YES scenario contains staffing efficiencies, and both scenarios contain a recycling service-level change. Those are concrete examples of choices between the two endpoints presented to voters.
Examine them. Cost them. Show us the tradeoffs.
Sources & notes
The record
The figures and descriptions on this page come from the Town's FY28 Proposition 2½ override materials.
November 3, 2026
SHOW US THE TOWN-SIDE CHOICES.
Show the staffing. Show the service levels. Show the savings. Then decide how much additional revenue Reading truly needs.
Back to priorities