Asking to spend money is a taboo request for small towns to make these days, it seems. All around York County in voting this spring, the small inland communities, which have long prided themselves on low taxes and self-sufficiency, have rejected expenditures ”“ and the beat goes on.
Waterboro is now looking to pull surplus funds from the 2011 budget after voters shot down approval for $66,000 already spent in excess of the 2010 budget. The voters’ message is clear: We only OK’d so much for the annual budget, and you should have stayed within your means, just like we have to at home.
Although the economy feels like it’s turned around for some, it’s clear that a great many people are not feeling comfortable financially right now. Kennebunk is an exception, approving an investment of $20,000 in spending for a new smartphone application that will direct visitors to its attractions and businesses, even as nearby towns have cut back hours and services. The town’s expenditure of the tax increment financing funds did not have to go before voters, but it’s likely a townwide vote would have seen the proposal shot down.
That’s what has happened throughout most of the rest of York County recently. Buxton and Hollis voters rejected the Hanson School and the former Hollis High School buildings, respectively, finding the expense of taking on another building to be more than they were willing to spend, both in the short and longterm.
Just last week, an impressive turnout of 200 Alfred voters gave a resounding “no” vote to spending money ”“ that was already set aside ”“ for proposed traffic control measures in the village area of Route 202. It seems most of them showed up just to make sure the plan didn’t go through, since it’s rare to see anywhere near that many people for a regular Town Meeting.
We felt that the study group had presented a strong plan to help decrease the speeding problem in that part of town, which is a dangerous intersection in an area that’s meant to be a walkable village center.
With the safety considerations in mind, it must have been the price tag of $100,000 that deterred them, even though the money for such improvements is already in hand, in the town’s Capital Improvement Fund, for just such a purpose. Some complained that road improvements were needed elsewhere in town. Maybe it was the $5,000 per year in maintenance that raised so much opposition to the village center plan. Who can say?
It’s easy to see how this might not be the best time for towns to go spending their money on road improvements that aren’t strictly necessary, and while we feel the traffic calming effort could be expected to prevent accidents and improve business in the village, we also understand voters’ hesitation as they contemplate shelling out cash that they think could be better used elsewhere.
Alfred selectmen would do well to heed the will of the voters for now and put off the traffic calming plans until a majority of residents can support it. In the meantime, the town has a much more pressing matter to which it must attend, and one much more worthy of the Capital Improvement funding: Replacement of the Hay Brook bridge.
The bridge, constructed in 1940, was found to be in need of replacement by the Department of Transportation. Back in 2009, the DOT gave the bridge three to five years before they would condemn it. Now Alfred and the Town of Sanford, which lies on the other side of the bridge, are contemplating an estimated price tag of $125,000 each to make the bridge safely passable.
It seems to us that this is a much more worthy cause than the village plan. Without it, both roads will have to be closed, turnarounds built at an unknown expense, and the fire department will want a dry hydrant installed to increase fire protection on the dead ends.
At this point, the fire department can’t use the bridge, since it won’t support modern firefighting equipment, so this replacement project is an opportunity to improve public safety in that area by making it passable for fire trucks and ambulances of today. Even if it is only replaced to its current weight capacity, Alfred Fire Chief David Lord said having the bridge open at least gives locals another way to escape if a natural or man made disaster or emergency were to occur.
Though times are indeed tough for many taxpayers, $125,000 spread out among a town full of people will not amount to much on their tax bills ”“ and that’s if the money is even raised through taxes. In Alfred’s case, the funds intended for the traffic calming plan could be redirected to this project.
Plus, the bridge can probably be done more cheaply than estimated, particularly given the slow times in the construction trades, caused by the same weak economy that is giving these towns pause as to the bridge’s future.
With 166 vehicles using the bridge each day, it seems ridiculous to even discuss its closure. We would urge the leaders of both towns to stand up for all those who use the bridge and promote the project for funding. Alfred voters will hopefully realize the need to maintain their roads, even if they don’t want to travel on them more slowly.
Ӣ Ӣ Ӣ
Questions? Comments? Contact Managing Editor Kristen Schulze Muszynski by calling 282-1535, Ext. 322, or via e-mail at kristenm@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
