WINDHAM – Following a tense public hearing, the Windham Town Council voted 4-2 Tuesday night to put the $37.8 million sewer proposal on the November ballot.

The sewer, which would serve the commercial district in North Windham and schools complex in Windham Center and would cost more than $60 million with debt factored in, is being touted as a way to help improve business prospects in North Windham and allay pollution concerns in the underground aquifer as well as at the school campus, which employs an aging septic system. Proponents say it would also allow denser development in North Windham, which in turn would allow more of Windham to stay rural as development pressures grow.

The proposal has been protested by residents who have appeared at public hearings, and Tuesday night’s meeting was no different. Most comments revolved around the cost of the sewer system and how it would be funded.

Several speakers also said Windham isn’t ready to vote on the sewer proposal because many voters are ignorant of the issue and won’t be able to make an informed decision that would help guide councilors. The issue of voter education is doubly important since the council has said in the past that it will give up pursuit of a sewer if voters reject the referendum.

Carol Waig, a former councilor, said she was confused about the project, as she has heard rumors being spread around town.

“I think there are a lot of unknowns for the taxpayer. I think it’s pretty apparent that I’m a little confused on a few things,” she said. “So I think there’s not enough information out to the public, and if you guys are going to put this on the November ballot I think that it’s only fair that the public completely understands. I understand more than probably some folks, but I still don’t understand everything, and that’s not fair to the voters who have to make a decision.”

The four councilors who approved the referendum (Tommy Gleason and Dennis Welch were opposed due to cost impact on taxpayers) said they want to take advantage of what could be a huge voter turnout at the Nov. 6 election. They also don’t want to move ahead with the expensive next step of the process – a $400,000-$600,000 engineering survey of the underground pipe route – without gauging voter sentiment on the entire proposal.

“I personally can’t take that step if I don’t know the voters want it,” said Councilor David Nadeau, who then acknowledged public comment regarding voter ignorance. “The sad part here is I have to sit here and ask the voter to vote on something that they’re telling me they don’t know about, but at the same time I can’t move forward because it’s $400,000-$600,000. That’s my dilemma.”

Jarrod Maxfield, who suggested the council redirect the November referendum to ask voters if they want to proceed with the engineering survey rather than the entire project, also questioned why the council was pushing for a ballot question when so many residents aren’t informed. He urged the council to delay a vote until voters could get better informed.

“You guys have an opportunity to take the long, slow, smart road or force it down. And I think option No. 2 opens up a lot of pitfalls for this council and for this town,” Maxfield said. “I think this town needs more education … It may take a little longer but you’ll get there, if people know why and understand it.”

The argument that voters need more time to understand the proposal was met with skepticism by some councilors. Chairman Scott Hayman was especially offended and said the town hired a public relations firm expressly to educate voters and has spent more than two years debating and honing the sewer proposal, in full view of the public.

“Anybody that’s wished to be educated has had the opportunity over the last three years to become educated,” he said. “So to say we’re rushing this and cramming it down your throats, I personally don’t believe that … To sit here and tell us we haven’t made an attempt to educate, I take offense to it. I really do. We’ve tried. We’ve attempted. We’ve done our best.”

Hayman also said those residents who aren’t up to speed on the proposal have about two months to educate themselves on the project.

While Maxfield and Waig were opposed to going to an uneducated Windham public, other speakers, already knowledgeable about the project, were opposed to the sewer concept itself. Most lamented that the project would be funded mostly by increasing taxes and user fees.

Sewer users, councilors explained, would pay a base $685 a year if they hook up. Additional fees would be incurred if users, such as businesses, which unlike residents are required to hook up, exceed the average household use. Those residents with operating septic systems who live along the sewer route but choose not to hook up would pay $285 per year. Users would be required to pay for any connection costs, as well. Also, a one-time betterment fee would be imposed of $12.30 per frontage foot for those living along the sewer line. Farms would be exempt from the betterment fee, which for a 100-foot-wide property would be $1,230. Those living in areas not served by the sewer would help pay for the sewer through their property tax bill. Taxes would rise about $1 per $1,000 of valuation, meaning the owner of a $200,000 home would pay $200 more in taxes per year.

Nancy Murdoch said the additional cost burden would impact people already struggling financially.

“I don’t feel it’s fair for all the taxpayers” Murdoch said. “The last three years our house values have gone down but our taxes have gone up. These are hard economic times. I am on fixed income but I know working people are losing their jobs. To ask them to take on a burden like this that is not going to serve them, to me, is ludicrous.”

Bob Muir, a former councilor, said if voters approve the referendum, the council would be given a “blank check” since many of the costs are not yet known. He also alluded to the likely prospect of rising interest rates by the project’s forecasted completion date in May 2016.

“We already know how the sewer will be paid for. It will be paid for on the backs of the taxpayers,” Muir said. “Given the timeline of starting the project and the uncertainty of what you’re going to run into, I can see the total cost of this project increasing greatly. The connection fee can be increased. The betterment fee can be increased. This amounts to a blank check that voters will be giving to the town if this [proposal] is passed in November.”

Councilor Matt Noel took issue with Muir’s “blank check” comment, saying, “Bonds have a very fixed specific amount of money. It’s not a blank check.”

Total expenses for the project would also not be allowed to exceed what the $37.8 million specified in the referendum. While overall project costs could increase should interest rates rise, the council would not be able to spend more than the principal amount of $37.8 million on construction of the sewer. Noel also said potential cost overruns, a topic also discussed in previous public hearings with some saying the proposed route is filled with ledge, are included in that $37.8 million figure.

“There is an amount of money included in the $37.8 million to cover potential unknowns that [are] based on the body of work done to date. There are still those unknowns because of the limited scope of work,” Noel said.

By the end of the meeting, after the council voted 4-2 in favor of sending the referendum to voters, the several dozen people who showed up to put a halt to the process said they had wasted their time since the council wasn’t willing to change their minds based on their arguments.

“It’s apparent that you don’t care about our opinion and what the residents say, because of how you voted tonight,” Waig said before exiting the room.

“The people in this room are pretty fired up,” said Margaret Pinchbeck, who would be subject to a $10,000 betterment fee since she owns about 850 feet of frontage along the sewer route. “I know you don’t want to listen to us, we’re only 40 people. We don’t represent the whole town. But neither do you. You’re only one person. And I think we can get information out, too.”

Martin Shuer, independent candidate for District 12 Senate seat, followed up Pinchbeck’s comment saying, “Realistically, why do we even have council meetings that include public comment when you’re considering resolutions like this if you’re not going to take into account the opinions being expressed.”