DUDLEY — During the Dudley Board of Selectmen meeting on Monday, Jan. 12, 2026, the board debated how to proceed with long-running discussions over a possible PILOT (Payment In Lieu of Taxes) contribution from Nichols College.
Selectman Kerry Cyganiewicz said the town has not made any progress since the PILOT letter was discussed at the board’s July 14, 2025 meeting, when members drafted a letter to send to representatives of Nichols if they declined to attend a Board of Selectmen meeting.
“About six months ago, I had done some research on what other communities have done with pilot agreements and I put together a motion and it passed the board that day unanimously,” Cyganiewicz said. He added that he had not seen Nichols representatives appear on the board’s agenda since then. “So as that motion stated, I’d like to send the letter. We’ve got budget time coming up. I just want to put a bow on this. If they’re not going to participate in the pilot agreement, okay, we can’t make them. Have it out there that they’re not agreeing to it. That’s all.”
Board Chair Jana Deschenes said she attempted to initiate discussions with Nichols, but they strung her along.
“After that meeting, I did reach out to Nichols to try to get them to come to a meeting and they didn’t say no outright that they wouldn’t come to a meeting just that they wanted to to have a discussion about what exactly we would be looking for in a meeting, that kind of thing, what kind of information we’d be looking for them to bring,” Deschenes said. “And when we sat down, we talked about a lot of the other community impact that they do in that meeting. But again, we did not come to an agreement on a date, and as far as I know, we haven’t been able to get another meeting on the books with them.”
Cyganiewicz argued the town needs a clear yes-or-no from the college and said officials should not allow the conversation to drift on indefinitely.
“Things aren’t going to get easy going forward and we need to exhaust all sources of revenue in my opinion,” Cyganiewicz said. “And if they don’t want to, then they don’t want to. But I guess I don’t want to be strung along.”
Selectman Sullivan floated an alternative approach — restarting discussions in a smaller setting with a subcommittee of approximately two selectmen before any public meeting — and suggested testing the waters again.
“Would the board be amiable to trying that route again?” Sullivan said, offering to serve on the subcommittee and proposing a timeframe. Sullivan later added, “Meet with them twice in the next…month, six weeks. After two selectmen that are on that committee come back and say boy, we have to put somebody’s feet to the fire, we can always proceed with any other action the board wants.”
However, Cyganiewicz said the town should still send the letter as a formal starting point.
“We can do both. We can send the letter and you can have the discussion,” Cyganiewicz said. “The letter is a request. It’s not a bill with an invoice number on it. It’s a request, it’s a starting point…It’s researched. It’s genuine. It’s real. It is what other communities do. I think we should send the letter. It has been six months.”
During the discussion, Sullivan asked whether the draft letter proposed a specific contribution amount. Deschenes confirmed that it did.
“There is an amount listed in the letter and it’s 25% of the property tax value or $108,222.25 is what was listed in the letter originally,” Deschenes said.
Selectmen also referenced potential state-level action that could affect future PILOT requirements. Deschenes noted the letter referenced legislation that would mandate a PILOT program for certain tax-exempt entities, including private colleges.
“As I’m rereading this, in this letter it references…House Bill 3264,” Sullivan said, describing it as a proposal that “requires all tax exempt organizations on property valued over 15 million including private college mandatory pilot program.” Cyganiewicz responded: “It’s still in progress. There’s two bills, one in the Senate and one in the House, I believe.”
The board then became bogged down in procedure over whether the prior 3-2 vote obligated officials to send the PILOT letter and whether that vote could be reopened through a motion to reconsider. After further discussion, board members concluded the original motion still stood and said the letter would be updated with the correct date before being circulated.
Sullivan then offered to pursue a separate dialogue with Nichols College focused on community partnerships beyond the PILOT program. With the board’s support, Sullivan said he was willing to contact Nichols representatives and restart discussions in a smaller setting — potentially through a subcommittee of fewer than a majority of the board — to “create some kind of dialogue” and report back after meeting with representatives.
Deschenes said she would volunteer to sit on the subcommittee unless another board member wished to join Sullivan instead. However, the board did not take formal action to establish the subcommittee during the meeting, with one member requesting the matter be discussed further at a later date before moving forward.
