BIDDEFORD — On Tuesday, the city council voted to table the controversial interlocal agreement proposal between Biddeford and Saco that deals with how to manage public safety on the Saco River.
The measure is to be taken up by a newly formed Joint Biddeford-Saco Council Committee.
Last year, the Saco City Council approved the agreement, which would spell out how the fire and police departments of both cities, as well as each communities’ lifeguards, could manage the river together. But the Biddeford council had reservations.
One bone of contention for Biddeford council members was a fire-rescue boat that Saco intended to purchase to replace the boat that sank last year during a storm.
Despite assurances that the interlocal agreement was separate from the boat issue, some Biddeford council members were concerned that signing the agreement would require the city to pay half the $127,000 cost of rescue boat Saco planned to purchase.
After several weeks of delay, on Monday, Saco voted to purchase the rescue boat on its own.
During a joint meeting between the two councils on Jan. 21, Biddeford City Councilor Michael Ready said he thought the interlocal agreement document wasn’t complete and need more work.
One result of that January meeting was that both councils agreed they would like to meet together more regularly to see if there are ways the twin cities could work together to be more efficient and save costs for both.
Reworking the interlocal agreement would be one of the first chores of the joint committee.
On Tuesday, the Biddeford council confirmed Mayor Alan Casavant’s appointment to the Joint Biddeford-Saco Council Committee, which also includes Ready and fellow Councilors Michael Swanton and Roger Hurtubise.
The Saco City Council has not yet made appointments to the committee.
— Staff Writer Dina Mendros can be contacted at 282-1535, ext. 324 or [email protected].
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