At the June 10 elections, Standish voters largely opted to keep things the way they are.

In the council and school board elections, Standish voters re-elected as many incumbents as possible. They also rejected Question 1, a controversial $1.3 million bond package that bundled numerous projects together and would have provided matching funds toward a village sidewalk project that had been rejected twice before.

Incumbent Councilors Mike Blanck and John Sargent, as well as Wayne Newbegin, a councilor from 2008-2011, won seats on the council. Todd Delaney, the vice chairman of the School Administrative District 6 Board of Directors, defeated Robert Deakin in the race for an at-large seat on the school board.

Standish residents also approved the SAD 6 school budget, hiking the town’s property tax assessment by .9 percent.

Voters rejected Question 1 in a 540-711 vote. The failure of the referendum question represents the third consecutive defeat for a proposed $104,000 expenditure on matching funds for a 1.3-mile sidewalk project in the Village Center.

The proposed 8-foot-wide sidewalk, which would have extended from the Colonial Marketplace intersection to the George E. Jack School and the Standish House of Pizza, would have made use of $418,400 in federal funds. It was defeated by a 115-vote margin at the June 2012 referendum and a 26-vote margin at the June 2013 referendum.

In 2012 and 2013, the sidewalk project was presented as a stand-alone referendum question. This year, in a 5-1 vote, the selectmen approved a referendum question that rolled the matching fund request into a comprehensive bond package that would have funded a variety of public works and public safety capital expenditures, including fire hydrants, cardiac equipment, pavement maintenance, and parking lot repairs.

At the municipal building on Election Day, residents who planned to vote both for and against the referendum question criticized the “bundled” bond package.

“I didn’t like the bundling on Question 1,” said Barbara Jennings. “I voted no on it because there were some things in there that I liked and some that I didn’t, but you had no choice but to vote on the whole thing.”

Kit Schofield, who voted for Question 1, also criticized the bundling.

“I think it’s too bad to roll a lot of things onto one referendum,” Schofield said. “I think there are some parts that were much more important than other parts. I voted in favor because there were parts I felt we really needed.”

Dan Kasprzyk, a member of the SAD 6 Board of Directors, who built a website, www.stopthebundling.com, in order to campaign against the practice, said he felt mixed emotions about the vote, since many important items had failed. Yet town officials appear to have heard the anti-bundling sentiment loud and clear, he said.

“It failed,” Kasprzyk said. “It was an overwhelming vote. The good news is it’s really sending a message to the town, and the town’s listening.”

Kasprzyk said that he had spoken with Town Manager Gordon Billington about the failed referendum question. Billington said that the question’s failure appeared to show that voters did not approve of bundling.

“It appeared the town was uncomfortable with the bundling,” Billington said. “That’s one takeaway that I’ve heard from it.”

Newbegin, who publicly criticized the bundling prior to the June 10 elections, said he voted for Question 1. In the coming weeks, the council will have to deal with the aftermath of the failed bond package.

“I voted yes on No. 1,” Newbegin said. “Now we’re going to dig down and figure out how we’re going to take care of the items that were on that referendum, namely the road repair, and life-saving equipment for public safety.”