WATERBORO — Voters in Waterboro elected two selectmen, approved a bond for a new salt shed and put their seal of approval of a new comprehensive plan in municipal
elections Tuesday.
Incumbent selectman Gordon Littlefield was returned to the board for his third three-year term, earning 416 votes. Challenger Dwayne Prescott earned 232 votes in the race, while Peter F. McHugh III earned 89 votes in unofficial totals released by the town clerk following the vote count Tuesday night.
Voters also elected another selectman, Dwayne Woodsome, to fill the two remaining years on an unexpired term formerly held by his uncle, Sen. David Woodsome, who resigned because of the work involved in his senate responsibilities. Dwayne Woodsome earned 408 votes. Candidate Tim Neill came in second in that race, with 200 votes and Theodore Doyle earned 170 votes.
Voters agreed to allow the town to bond up to $700,000 for a new salt and sand shed, 420 to 373. The town currently has no bonded debt. Proponents say the new salt and sand shed is needed because the current one leaks and has the capacity to hold only enough materials for two to three storms. Public Works Director Douglas Foglio has said the Department of Environmental Protection has endorsed a new shed because it would cap one site of an old lagoon built years ago to hold tannery wastes.
Voters approved a new comprehensive plan 449-296. The 20/20 Committee has been working on the new plan for three years. It is seen as a guidepost to the future, as to how the town might look and develop over the next several years.
Rebekah Roy was elected to the RSU 57 Board of Directors and incumbent David Benton was elected to the Waterboro Water District board of trustees.
— Senior Staff Writer Tammy Wells can be contacted at 324-4444 (local call in Sanford) or 282-1535, ext. 327 or twells@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less