Hanover Advisory Committee Split on Budget

As Hanover prepares for its upcoming Town Meeting, the Advisory Committee remains divided on what financial plan to put before voters. Members are weighing the need for infrastructure improvements against concerns over tax increases, with some advocating for an override to expand services while others stress fiscal restraint. The ongoing discussions reflect the challenge of finding a balanced solution that meets community needs while remaining financially sustainable.

A Divide on Infrastructure Funding

Public Works Director Victor Diniak detailed the growing risks associated with deferred maintenance, warning that the town’s roads, water system, and public buildings are at a critical juncture. “We are putting out fires instead of getting ahead,” Diniak told the committee. “Some years we do good, some years we have trouble.”

Despite this warning, committee members were split on whether to prioritize infrastructure spending in the upcoming budget. Sandra Hayes, one of the committee members advocating for cautious spending, questioned whether residents could afford additional tax increases. “We have to find a balance between necessary upgrades and what our residents can reasonably afford,” Hayes said. “There has to be a structured plan to ensure sustainability without overwhelming taxpayers.”

On the other side, Thomas Raab pushed for a more aggressive approach to infrastructure improvements, arguing that delaying necessary repairs would ultimately cost the town more. “If we don’t address these issues now, we’re only going to be dealing with bigger problems later,” Raab said. “Kicking the can down the road isn’t an option.”

Committee member Nancy Clinton emphasized the need for transparency in decision-making, stating, “Residents need to know exactly what they are paying for. If we don’t clearly communicate the necessity of these projects, it’s going to be hard to justify any additional spending.”

Budget Constraints and Taxpayer Concerns

One of the primary sticking points in the discussion was whether the town should pursue an override to increase the tax levy in order to fund critical services and infrastructure projects. Lynne Hash raised concerns about the political feasibility of such a move, pointing to last year’s failed override. “The last override lost by 700 votes,” Hash said. “We need to be realistic about what taxpayers are willing to support.”

The debate also touched on the use of special funds, such as the opioid settlement money and other restricted funding sources. Hanover Town Manager Joseph Colangelo noted that additional funding—from special funds or through financing—would require a vote from Town Meeting, adding another layer of complexity to the decision-making process.

Committee member Mike Cianciola expressed concerns about the potential for funding misallocations, saying, “I want to make sure every dollar is accounted for and used efficiently. We can’t afford to waste money on projects that don’t directly benefit the majority of residents.”

What’s Next?

As discussions continue, committee member David Fobert urged a more collaborative approach, stating, “We need to put aside personal preferences and focus on the town’s best interests. If we don’t work together, we risk losing public trust in the process.”

With budget deliberations ongoing, the Advisory Committee must reach a consensus before making final recommendations ahead of Town Meeting. The discussions are expected to intensify as members work through competing priorities, fiscal limitations, and public expectations.

As the deadline for finalizing the budget nears, residents will be watching closely to see if the committee can bridge its divisions and present a unified plan. Whether they will succeed in balancing immediate needs with long-term financial responsibility remains to be seen.

“The stakes are high,” Raab said. “And we need to get this right.”