Share This Article
By Janie Dretler, Member, Sudbury Select Board – I am writing this as an individual member of the Sudbury Select Board. These views are my own.
Article 54 — a citizen petition to cut Sudbury’s Community Preservation Act (CPA) surcharge from 3% to 1.5% — is not just misguided. It is shortsighted, reckless, and undermines the very investments that have made Sudbury stronger over the past two decades.
Thanks to the CPA, Sudbury has preserved open space, protected historic buildings, expanded recreational opportunities, and supported affordable housing for seniors, veterans, and young families. These aren’t luxuries – they’re essential to our town’s character and quality of life.
Since adopting the CPA, Sudbury has received over $15 million in state matching funds. This funding stretches every local dollar further. Cutting the surcharge in half would slash those matches and reduce our ability to fund meaningful projects that benefit all residents.
Let’s be clear: Article 54 is not a fiscally responsible move. It reflects a misunderstanding of how sound municipal investment works. Just as the Town prepares to receive a comprehensive town-wide facilities assessment to guide long-term capital planning, this proposal would gut one of the very few funding sources that comes with recurring state support. Article 54 is not prudent — it’s financially irresponsible.
Despite what some may claim, Article 54 is not a true tax cut – it’s a loss in value. It sacrifices state funds and could push the Town to rely more on one-time tax increases, such as debt or capital exclusions, which cost residents more over time due to interest payments. At a time when household budgets are already stretched, Article 54 would make it harder to get the most out of every tax dollar.
Most importantly, it limits our ability to act on future opportunities. When Sudbury adopted the CPA more than 20 years ago, no one could have predicted it would have helped fund the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail — a transformative project for our town. Reducing the surcharge now would limit our flexibility for decades to come.
Sudbury made a forward-thinking decision in adopting the CPA. Article 54 would undo that progress and constrain our future. Article 54 has been reviewed and rejected by the Select Board, Finance Committee, and Community Preservation Committee — a clear sign of widespread concern.
I urge residents to vote No on Article 54 at Annual Town Meeting. Town meeting begins on May 5 at 7:30p at Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School. Let’s protect what makes Sudbury special — and continue investing in our future.