

With Saturday being the final meeting of its sort, there was speculation there would be a large turn out; there wasn’t. In all, 47 registered voters attended — far fewer than the number who had voted for the meeting tradition to continue just a few days before. In that vote, 365 people voted to abolish the traditional meeting, 256 voted to retain it.
“This is the last time we get together on a Saturday in June,” pointed out Board of Selectmen Chairman Dennis Abbott. “It is with mixed emotions I see this tradition go away. But there are 5,000 registered voters and the vote to abolish was carried by more people than who turn out.”
Among the voters in the audience on Saturday were residents Joel and Marsha Plourde. “We’re interested in what’s going on,” said Joel Plourde.
Voters soon got down to the business of the morning, acting on Waterboro’s $5.98 municipal budget for the year that begins July 1. Abbott pointed out that the budget is up is up $212,000 from the current year. The municipal budget is projected to increase the mil rate by about 8 cents. The figures do not include Waterboro’s contributions RSU 57.
“We continue to work to contain the budget as best we can,” said Abbott.
There were questions about the hiring of an assessor for two days a week at about the same rate as had been projected for a three -day per week assessor. Donna Berardi of the Budget Committee pointed out that having the assessing office staffed only two days a week would cause a backlog.
Town Administrator Gary Lamb said the individual contracted to do the work for two days a week works for 10 other towns. He said her experience with the software Waterboro uses would be beneficial and that she is a very experienced assessor. “She didn’t have three days to give us,” he said.
Town Meeting members handily passed the assessing portion of the budget.
Douglas Foglio, who retired a year ago from the part time public work’s director job, balked at making the job full time, pointing out that the town charter says the move to 40 hours a week is to happen when the public works director assumes leadership over the transfer station. He pointed out the transfer station has a director.
Lamb and Abbott both said the position needs to be full time. Lamb said public works is taking on more responsibilities with the town’s parks and playing fields, and the public works director meets with the transfer station director a couple times a week.
Lamb said the day-to-day operation of the transfer station comes under the director, but the public works director’s involvement will be an administrative role.
“The charter is going on six years old now,” said Selectman Dwayne Woodsome. “I’ts time to put a full time public works director in.”
After a lengthy debate, Robert Powers, who estimated he’s served as Town Meeting moderator for about 30 years, asked if there was further discussion.
“Seeing none, thank goodness,” he said to some mirth from the audience, the matter was put to a vote and the public works $1.28 million budget — with a full-time director, was approved.
Two people were recognized for their contributions to Waterboro during the session — Ruth Blake, who served a librarian for 24 years and who retired several months ago, and Jon Gale, who served as selectman for 12 years. Gale, who has also volunteered in various capacities in Waterboro for many years, decided not to seek re-election. Ted Doyle was elected on Tuesday and will take up his duties July 1.
With the abolishment of the traditional Town Meeting, selectmen and the town administrator said much work would have to be done to inform voters prior to the next June election, when the budget will be presented in a referendum form.
When the business was done, the meeting adjourned.
“A referendum will be good, but I will miss Town Meeting,” said Brenda Dyer, one of the 47 who attended. “Town Meeting was the voice of the people. (It was) their chance.”
— 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