Selectmen say if the purchase approved by voters, will save the Waterboro Water District more than twice the $275,000 purchase price of the land in costs associated with building a new water tower. As well, because it abuts property already owned by the town, proponents say it would come in handy for future municipal projects or could be available to lease.
If voters agree to buy the 37-acre parcel, the Waterboro Water District could save $500,000 to $750,000 over what it would have cost just to lay pipe to their original proposed tower location, said Selectman Dwayne Woodsome.
“This is a better piece of property,” Woodsome said. “In my mind, it’s a no brainer.”
Town administrator Gary Lamb said if voters agree to the proposal, the town could lease out or use the remainder of the property.
Selectman Tim Neill said the new water tower is important to firefighting efforts in the community.
The 37-acre property is, roughly, across Route 5 from a commercial complex that includes a bank, a coffee shop, sandwich shop and optometry office and is owned by John Malone of Massachusetts, who approached selectmen about the prospects of the town buying the property in January. He said a recent appraisal had put a $350,000 value on the parcel but that he was asking $275,000.
Lamb on Tuesday said the money to purchase the land, if approved, would come from unappropriated surplus and so would not have an impact on the tax rate. He said there is about $2 million currently in that account.
The March 27 vote is called a special town meeting but will be a secret ballot referendum vote. Polls will be open at the Town Hall 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. that day, and absentee voting will be available in the days leading up to the referendum.
Selectmen on Tuesday said they plan to schedule an informational meeting prior to the vote at a time and date to be announced.
— 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