SACO — Residents may vote in November whether to approve up to $2.3 million in energy and infrastructure projects.
The City Council met Monday night to discuss, in a workshop, three referendum questions proposed for the city council by public works staff.
The first suggested question would ask voters whether to approve $870,000 for transfer station and recreational infrastructure improvements. This would fund the relocation of the transfer station away from recreational fields, improvements on city tennis courts, and drainage improvements to recreational fields.
The second suggested question would ask voters whether to approve $450,000 for energy upgrades to city and school facilities. This would replace the police department HVAC system with a more energy efficient system, replace steam boilers at Saco Middle School and Burns School with energy efficient hot water systems, and convert selected municipal and school lighting systems to LED lighting.
Councilor Eric Cote said the city should make known to the public payback periods for the proposed energy efficiency projects.
“We’re not spending money here, we’re saving money. These old furnaces are on their last legs,” said Cote.
A third suggested question would ask voters whether to approve $995,000 for a Lincoln Street reconstruction project that would make sidewalk, drainage and roadway improvements.
The Council discussed in a workshop Monday night whether to keep the suggested projects as three separate questions or to bundle them up as one question.
“They should run on their own merits, all three of them,” said Councilor Arthur Tardif.
“Ultimately, it’s up to the voters to decide what projects here they like,” said Councilor Nathan Johnston, and thought it should be divided in the three sections.
The council will vote at a later date whether to put these items on the November ballot. A public hearing is scheduled on Aug. 3.
— Staff Writer Liz Gotthelf can be contacted at 282-1535, ext. 325 or egotthelf@journaltribunecom.
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