Woolwich voters reduced their town budget by $36,000 after narrowly passing a pay-per-bag plan for trash disposal, one of 37 articles taken up at Wednesday night’s town meeting. The budget approved totaled a little over $1.5 million.

About 250 voters, twice the number that attended last year’s meeting, filled the gymnasium of the Woolwich Central School on May 13. Although scheduled to start at 6 p.m., the large turnout delayed the start until 6:45 p.m., as ballot clerks screened voters filing into the gym.

The articles for consideration of pay-per-bag and funding for the library brought the most passionate debate; both had been inserted by petition. Moderator John Chapman used his gavel sparingly in keeping order to the proceedings that didn’t conclude until after 9:30 p.m.

Pay-per-bag, a program to be administered by WasteZero will require residents to pay for disposal of their non-recyclable trash. The most hotly contested article of the night, it was debated for nearly an hour before voters narrowly passed the measure by written ballot 114 to 105.

Chapman had initially tried to move the question on a voice vote, then a show of hands before settling on a written ballot.

Following its approval, Selectmen’s Chairman David King Sr. motioned to reduce the amount sought for waste disposal by $36,000 from $266,550 to $230,550. The article passed overwhelmingly with the amended amount.

King told the audience the reduction was possible in anticipation of revenues the town will receive from sale of the trash bags. He added these savings would be used to offset the cost of “tipping fees,” the amount the town is charged for disposal of its trash.

The article’s passage means residential households will soon be charged for their non-recyclable trash at the rate of $2 per 30-gallon bag, and $1 per 15-gallon bag. WasteZero furnishes the bags for a percentage of the receipts. The idea of the program is to encourage people to recycle more and throw away less. Reducing the amount of non-recyclable trash will then lower the tipping fees.

King noted if the townspeople didn’t like the pay-per-bag program, they could consider opting out of it next year.

Residents defending the pay-per-bag plan said the program had worked in other communities, including Bath.

Not everyone agree the program would work. Some saw it as simply shifting the costs to individual households. Others warned of trash; old tires, computer monitors, broken appliances being dumped illegally to avoid paying for removal. One wondered whether the town might be better off eliminating curbside trash and recycling pickup altogether leaving residents to hire a private company.

Voters debated two options regarding funding for the Patten Free Library in Bath. After rejecting a petitioned article for making this a ballot question at the June election, voters passed the $49,203 article. This year’s appropriation reflected a 3 percent increase over 2014.

The vote was taken by written ballot following a motion from the floor; 168 were in favor of funding the library, 76 opposed.

Initiators of the petition wanted the library question on the November ballot to give the largest number of voters the opportunity to weigh-in on the question. Because of legalities, the town’s lack of a charter, the board of selectmen is obligated to consider a library-related ballot question on a year-to-year basis.

Opponents stressed they weren’t against funding the library per se, but objected to process voters were asked to consider question. One resident noted although Wednesday’s town meeting had a large turnout, the number was far less than for a general election.

Voters breezed through nearly all the others article, approving without discussion small cost of living raises for town officers including the town administrator, treasurer, town clerk, their deputies and code enforcement officer. The board noted it bases town officer salaries on merit, and raises are not automatic.

King told voters the board of selectmen did its best to keep its budget down saying most accounts and budget lines were “flat-funded” for the coming fiscal year.