WINDHAM – The Windham Town Council on Tuesday debuted and debated the language in the first draft of the sewer project referendum question that councilors plan to send to voters in November.

At the center of the debate is who will pay for the new sewer, and how much of that information will be spelled out in the question on the ballot. The council is also drafting an ordinance aimed at filling in any information left out of the referendum question.

The proposed referendum question states, “To see if a sum of money not to exceed $37,800,000 be appropriated by the town to cover costs of design and construction of a public sewer including waste-water collection and treatment, to serve North Windham and Windham Center, said amount to be financed from federal and/or state grants, and or by the issuance of general obligation bonds and/or notes in anticipation of such bonds of the Town here by authorized in a total principal amount of up to $37,800,00.”

“The way this is written, I’m not voting for this now,” said Councilor Tommy Gleason. “I want this to be honest and forthright on every little detail before we do this.”

Gleason’s biggest problem with the wording is that it is vague on the source of the funding.

“It says here about federal and state grants, I don’t know where this pie is coming from in the sky at this time,” said Gleason. “But also it doesn’t say anything right now about raising the mil rate almost a dollar. Why isn’t that there? It doesn’t explain where the money is going to come from.”

Town Manager Tony Plante explained the reason for the wording.

“There are certain legal restraints with what we can put on the ballot,” said Plante. “We don’t have unlimited freedom on how to phrase it. The question itself is pretty well established.”

Gleason disagreed.

“There’s no doubt we need a sewer system,” said Gleason. “The question is how we are going to pay for it in this economy. I want it to be transparent and clear, and right now it’s not.”

Council Chairman Scott Hayman agreed and offered a solution.

“That’s why we are here tonight to discuss an ordinance,” said Hayman. “We have a vision of what we think as a majority of how this should be paid for. Now we need to get this information to the people.”

The council hopes that by drafting a new ordinance, it can specifically spell out how it wants to structure the payment for the new sewer system.

In preparation for drafting the ordinance, the council spent close to three hours discussing the cost details and listening again to a budget breakdown from Barry Sheff, the town’s engineering consultant from Woodard & Curran.

Hayman reassured Gleason the ordinance would take care of the vague referendum wording and they would reword it until it was clear.

“I know the biggest question is how we are going to pay for it,” said Hayman. “But that’s the purpose of the ordinance. Don’t worry, we’re going to get another four or five bites at this apple.”

Councilors, who have voiced support for putting the item on the ballot, have a public hearing on the referendum scheduled for Sept.,11 and will need to draft an ordinance before that time. The council will have another workshop on Sept. 4 to debut and refine the ordinance draft.

By Heidi Hamblen

Contributing writer

The Windham Town Council on Tuesday debuted and debated the language in the first draft of the sewer project referendum question that councilors plan to send to voters in November.

At the center of the debate is who will pay for the new sewer, and how much of that information will be spelled out in the question on the ballot. The council is also drafting an ordinance aimed at filling in any information left out of the referendum question.

The proposed referendum question states, “To see if a sum of money not to exceed $37,800,000 be appropriated by the town to cover costs of design and construction of a public sewer including waste-water collection and treatment, to serve North Windham and Windham Center, said amount to be financed from federal and/or state grants, and or by the issuance of general obligation bonds and/or notes in anticipation of such bonds of the Town here by authorized in a total principal amount of up to $37,800,00.”

“The way this is written, I’m not voting for this now,” said Councilor Tommy Gleason. “I want this to be honest and forthright on every little detail before we do this.”

Gleason’s biggest problem with the wording is that it is vague on the source of the funding.

“It says here about federal and state grants, I don’t know where this pie is coming from in the sky at this time,” said Gleason. “But also it doesn’t say anything right now about raising the mil rate almost a dollar. Why isn’t that there? It doesn’t explain where the money is going to come from.”

Town Manager Tony Plante explained the reason for the wording.

“There are certain legal restraints with what we can put on the ballot,” said Plante. “We don’t have unlimited freedom on how to phrase it. The question itself is pretty well established.”

Gleason disagreed.

“There’s no doubt we need a sewer system,” said Gleason. “The question is how we are going to pay for it in this economy. I want it to be transparent and clear, and right now it’s not.”

Council Chairman Scott Hayman agreed and offered a solution.

“That’s why we are here tonight to discuss an ordinance,” said Hayman. “We have a vision of what we think as a majority of how this should be paid for. Now we need to get this information to the people.”

The council hopes that by drafting a new ordinance, it can specifically spell out how it wants to structure the payment for the new sewer system.

In preparation for drafting the ordinance, the council spent close to three hours discussing the cost details and listening again to a budget breakdown from Barry Sheff, the town’s engineering consultant from Woodard & Curran.

Hayman reassured Gleason the ordinance would take care of the vague referendum wording and they would reword it until it was clear.

“I know the biggest question is how we are going to pay for it,” said Hayman. “But that’s the purpose of the ordinance. Don’t worry, we’re going to get another four or five bites at this apple.”

Councilors, who have voiced support for putting the item on the ballot, have a public hearing on the referendum scheduled for Sept.,11 and will need to draft an ordinance before that time. The council will have another workshop on Sept. 4 to debut and refine the ordinance draft.