Hatfield’s annual election on Tuesday includes a ballot Question 1 that asks, “Shall the Town … be allowed to exempt from the provisions of Proposition 2½, so called, the amounts required to pay for the bond issued in order to fund the Rt. 5 Sewer and Water Infrastructure project?”

In other words, do you approve increasing property taxes in excess of the legal levy limit (an override) to pay for the principal and interest on the project’s $1.6 million loan for the next 20 years?

For several years, I have repeatedly advocated to town leaders that Hatfield refinance its existing debt, which totals approximately $6-7 million and costs the town some $600,000 a year in principal and interest. By taking advantage of today’s record low interest rates and the assistance of the state’s Department of Revenue Local Services Office, Hatfield could potentially reduce this amount by more than $100,000 per year. ($1 million over 10 years)

Another option is to borrow a total of $9-10 million at today’s low interest rates, pay off all existing debt, plus fund our share of the new Route 5 infrastructure project ($1.6 million), complete the new water main to town center ($2.5 million), fund costly improvements to the aging sewage treatment plant, and pay the same $600,000 debt service we’re paying now. In other words, it may be possible to do all of these priority projects, without having to increase taxes.

The fiscal 2021 budget proposed by the Select Board and the Finance Committee at last Tuesday’s annual Town Meeting already shows a 5% increase in total receipts from the property tax levy. This means, all other things being equal, in this economic climate, we taxpayers can expect that kind of increase in 2021 property taxes. Question 1 asks us for even more; future taxes “over and above” for the Route 5 sewer and water project.

Regarding the project itself, I am 100% for it. The town’s share qualifies us for a state $2 million grant and makes it a no-brainer. The combined $3.6 million project should facilitate economic growth on our Route 5/10 corridor. It’s just that the annual cost of our share should (and can) be paid from within the confines of our existing levy limit, if we refinance our debt.

Let’s send a message to town leaders. We want to do this project. But without an override. Vote no on Question 1.

Mike Cahill

Hatfield