RANGELEY — Voters failed to pass the Police Department portion of the proposed 2025-26 fiscal year budget at Tuesday’s annual town meeting. The vote was 176-166.
The proposed amount to fund the department was $704,944, which was part of the $12 million municipal budget. All other budget articles passed.
Town Manager Joe Roach said Wednesday the department would not go unfunded.
By a vote of 253-76, voters authorized the Board of Selectmen to spend an amount not to exceed three-twelfths of a department’s current budget if voters rejected a proposed department budget, which would allow for continued funding of the department while selectmen deal with the issue.
Roach said the Police Department’s current budget, which ends June 30, is $473,450, so the town could spend up to $118,363 in the new fiscal year while considering next steps.
The board will address the issue during its next regular meeting Monday at 5 p.m. at the Town Office.
In other matters, the Oquossoc ATV club requested a $2,000 donation from the town. The article failed with a tie vote of 167-167.
Elected to three-year terms on the Budget Committee were incumbent Shelly Lowell with 203 votes and Piper Alexander with 178. Committee member Colin Madrid received 176 votes in the three-way race for the two seats.
Selectmen Ethan Shaffer and Sam White were reelected with 248 and 223 votes, respectively. There were 89 write-in votes.
A nonbinding straw poll at the exit asked voters if they would prefer town meetings to be held by secret ballot or include an open meeting for business articles. The poll was conducted after a petition seeking to change the format of town meetings was rejected by selectmen. There were 218 in favor of continuing with the secret ballot format and 119 in favor of including an open meeting for business articles.
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