[0:00] moratorum and I'll let councelor Harris
start off. She had some things to add.
[0:05] » Yeah. Um and so I had to write this down
because obviously data centers are not
[0:09] my area of expertise, but I just wanted
to thank the committee for um putting
[0:13] this on the agenda and taking this
conversation up. So, I asked for this to
[0:18] be on tonight's agenda because I think
um I think it'd be helpful for Bucksport
[0:21] to get ahead of the question of how we
would review a large data center
[0:26] proposal or any other uh major energy um
intensive project if one were proposed
[0:32] here. I do want to be clear that I'm not
raising this um because there's a
[0:37] specific proposal on the table. I'm not
aware of one and I'm not trying to close
[0:41] the door on responsible economic
development. But what I'm asking is that
[0:46] the c as is that the committee consider
this moratorium move to council um a
[0:52] temporary moratorium so the town has
time to put the right local standards
[0:55] and regulations in place before we're
trying to answer these questions under
[1:00] pressure when there's a proposal on the
table and the reason I say that is
[1:04] because Bucksport's different than many
of the communities um we have a former
[1:08] mill site we have existing energy
infrastructure a long history of being
[1:12] shaped by large industrial
um users and so that creates a real
[1:17] opportunity but it also means that we
have good reason to be thoughtful,
[1:21] proactive and careful about what comes
next. Um I know some people may feel we
[1:26] should wait for the state's um climate I
mean data center advisory council report
[1:32] in January. I think that report will be
helpful, but Bucksport still has to
[1:36] carry its own water and have local
questions and we need to think through
[1:40] ourselves, including water,
infrastructure, rateayers, land use, um,
[1:45] and state guidance can help inform our
work, but it shouldn't take the place of
[1:50] our due diligence and local planning.
And the reason to do this before there's
[1:54] a proposal on the table, I've said, is
it's pretty straightforward. So once an
[1:58] application is in front of us if there
is one we may have le less time less
[2:04] flexibility to ask the bigger questions
and so a temporary pause would give us
[2:08] room to build a bucket of regulation
around this um conversation that current
[2:14] code isn't written for. We have great
code enforcement regulations and our
[2:17] code enforcement officer does a
wonderful job. We don't currently have a
[2:21] vessel um discussing this type of
infrastructure which is growing around
[2:27] um the country and the technologies
here. So I think it would be in
[2:31] Bucksport's best interest to build some
regulation around that. Um and also it
[2:36] would um give residents time to
understand and and councils who don't
[2:42] tend to have the expertise in this type
of thing um to discern what what
[2:47] regulation would make sense. So for me,
it's not about being anti- business,
[2:51] anti-development. It's not about saying
no or yes to the infrastructure. It's
[2:57] just that we can welcome new investment,
but we can also be cautious and careful
[3:02] and um that um large local projects
should meet local standards. We don't
[3:08] have any local standards for this. And
so my hope tonight is that the council
[3:13] uh I mean that the regulatory review
committee would agree to move um a
[3:18] moratorum on data centers. I don't have
a particular time frame in mind. Um my
[3:23] thought would be to uh implement uh a 30
to 90day moratorum. Um or perhaps the
[3:30] committee could discuss up until January
when the state releases its report. Um,
[3:35] but essentially we uh if I were um in
the business of putting energy
[3:40] infrastructure in a town, a welcoming
town such as ours, Boxport would be a
[3:44] good choice because we have all the
infrastructure in place and I don't want
[3:47] us to be caught off guard thinking about
this in a rush when there's a proposal
[3:51] on the table and as we learned from the
landfill, we didn't have decommissioning
[3:55] regulation and we we we had to sort of
backfill our knowledge on that. So this
[4:00] is really an effort just to um
[clears throat] let's and it doesn't
[4:04] harm anyone to put a moratorum on the
table at this point. There are no people
[4:08] who have put proposals here. So who's it
going to hurt?
[4:11] » Um it will only build our um muscle
around the um the technology that's
[4:18] here. Um so that's that's those are my
thoughts. I um if you have questions,
[4:24] why now? If there's no proposal, why
act? I think I've kind of answered
[4:28] those.
um and why Buckport's different. I think
[4:32] we've answered those two. U I've
answered those in this. So, I'm happy to
[4:36] answer questions. I'm not an expert. Um
but I do um see what we have what what
[4:42] resource we have here. Um so, that's why
I brought it up. Uh thanks to Ralph
[4:46] Chapman for sort of initiating that
conversation at public comment, but I I
[4:51] um that's why I wanted it on the agenda
for consideration.
[4:55] » Do you have something to add on? Uh oh,
sorry. I was confused. Please. Is there
[5:00] an opportunity for a small public
comment?
[5:02] » There will be.
Mr. We'll just
[5:05] » Is that all right?
>> I guess we could do it now. Sure.
[5:08] » Sure.
>> It's It's teeny but worthy. Tom Muxport.
[5:14] Um, another consideration to add to your
list of things to think about along with
[5:19] those regulations is maybe, and this is
not accusatory, but again in the in uh
[5:27] the country at large and Maine and
certain counties, non-disclosure
[5:32] agreements pre-signed
have arisen as a a blocking point and
[5:40] to to have the public be aware of what's
going on
[5:44] in my case very important. So consider
that. That's all. Okay. Thank you.
[5:50] » Did you want to go? Go ahead.
>> Oh, no, no, no. Please go.
[5:54] » I I agree with uh councelor Hair and I
think we are uh the 90 days is not
[6:01] enough. Uh you included a document to us
that I think maybe code enforcement
[6:07] should begin to tweak. Um
the um there are issues around heat,
[6:15] noise, water uh dumping into the
Ponobscot uh health ba healthbased
[6:21] standards as you
are lacking right now focusing around
[6:27] this. So I'd like to
again go forward with that. But I don't
[6:33] think the 90 I think I' I've seen on the
local news that people are going for six
[6:38] month um rather than the nine and have a
chance to deal with it. I I think also
[6:45] on a just on a a smaller level but part
of the thing we're looking at here is
[6:50] water and things are changing now with
our our water supply. A year ago, the
[6:56] president of Maidwater came into this
room and spoke to us and he said his
[6:59] three cons three concerns are uh public
safety, drinking water and fire
[7:05] suppression. And uh now we're looking at
our our drinking water and maintaining
[7:11] proper levels and getting water over to
the power plant. I mean there's a whole
[7:16] set of dynamics that are
>> entering into the equation. So I totally
[7:21] support a moratorum right now.
>> I did have a Luke, could you come up and
[7:27] just answer a few questions about what
we have in place?
[7:30] » Thanks. So it's clear we don't have a
decommissioning ordinance. Correct.
[7:34] » We do not we don't have a
decommissioning ordinance for a lot of
[7:37] things,
>> right? And you know for something like
[7:39] this, we also don't have a public safety
consideration in the ordinance either,
[7:43] do we? where if these entities brought
in, you know, whether it be batteries or
[7:48] other things that require specialized
equipment and plans for that
[7:52] development, do we have an ordinance
that would bring public safety into that
[7:56] conversation?
>> Yes.
[7:58] » Okay.
>> Uh fire is required to sign off and uh
[8:02] comment on any application that comes
before planning board before it could go
[8:06] forward. So, we're protected there. and
and batteries are not something that's
[8:11] typically associated with with the data
side.
[8:14] » I know, but if we're talking about an
industrial site, it seems like any
[8:17] development should have a consideration
of what public safety is going to need
[8:22] to do the job. And if they need
specialized equipment, it should be the
[8:26] responsibility of the developer
to provide that.
[8:30] » I I don't disagree. I'm just making the
point that batteries and battery storage
[8:35] are not what we're talking about right
this minute. Okay.
[8:39] » Um
>> Okay.
[8:40] » And as far as water usage,
uh [clears throat]
[8:45] the majority of these systems now are
closed loop systems. You fill them, they
[8:51] reuse the water over and over with the
exception of they go through a cooling
[8:56] tower. So there's some evaporation
process that happens in the cooling
[9:00] tower. So you might lose about 5% a week
of your
[9:05] 2 million 3 million gallons in your
system. I think we're getting into some
[9:08] of the technical elements. I I tend to
agree with you on some of it. There are
[9:12] other applications though that reported,
you know, waters being dumped out at
[9:16] 105° that that kills fish that grows
algae. I think there's just in general
[9:22] there are
>> technical impact as well as healthbased
[9:27] standards that have to be looked at
across the across the board.
[9:31] » You know, I don't disagree. I I guess my
question to you, Luke, is how long do
[9:36] you think it would take to
[clears throat] draft an ordinance to to
[9:40] uh you know, handle some of this?
>> It depends what you're looking for. if
[9:43] you're looking for some common sense
noise restrictions, uh, wattage
[9:49] restrictions, you know, if you wanted to
limit it to, you know, 75 megawatts or
[9:54] 100 megawws or something like that, uh,
if you wanted to have, you know, nothing
[9:59] louder than 55 dB at the property lines,
um, things like that. I mean, that would
[10:05] be easy to write. I could write that and
have it ready for the next planning
[10:07] board meeting.
>> Mr. Chair,
[10:09] » yeah,
>> I think we're kind of missing my point.
[10:12] We don't have the expertise to know what
we need for an ordinance. We would need
[10:16] to bring in some technical guidance on
what an ordinance would look like. This
[10:19] is these aren't these are new
infrastructure. And we we I think it
[10:25] would be
>> I don't think it would be
[10:30] wise of us to think that we know what an
ordinance would entail to entail. So I I
[10:35] just would be careful of us sort of
assuming that it's just about noise and
[10:38] order levels. there's just so much in it
that we don't have the expertise as a
[10:43] council or in our current regulation to
even know. Um, so I would hope that an
[10:48] ordinance would be a little bit more
than proposing a tweak to something or I
[10:54] think
>> Yeah. Yeah.
[11:00] » Um,
it's an interesting conversation. I
[11:04] think, you know, as councelor Harris
stated and how she's framed it up, um,
[11:10] I'm not going to sit here and repeat it
except I will say that I like that
[11:15] approach.
I think this council's responsibility in
[11:20] a way is to hear proposals
and
[11:25] judge them on their own merit. I am not
comparing a data center to a landfill,
[11:30] but what I will say is the conversation
that we have had over the last couple
[11:35] years about the landfill um that is now
about you know that we're work is
[11:41] working to be closed started when the
company that that president owns the
[11:46] landfill came to us and looked at
expansion and we agreed to have a
[11:51] conversation about that. And then as we
garnered facts and learned what was
[11:56] happening and what hadn't happened at
that landfill, we made the appropriate
[12:00] decision from that point forward.
I say all that to say that I think when
[12:06] we have a conversation about data
centers, it's really easy to have a
[12:10] conversation about them in the context
of what's happening at a larger level. I
[12:15] would want a conversation about data
centers to be based on the facts at hand
[12:20] and hear proposals and and then have
that [clears throat] conversation from
[12:25] that point. Now, if we step that back
for a moment, the other thing that I
[12:29] would say then is what I think council
her has also done is point out that we
[12:33] are not there yet. We are not in a place
to to make that type of judgment or make
[12:41] that the type of decision that I think
we would owe the citizens of the town of
[12:45] Bucksport. So if I were to be in favor
of a moratorum, it would be for the
[12:50] reasons that councelor Hair has outlined
and I would not be in favor of a
[12:55] moratorum that in any way conveys that
there is a blanket statement that we are
[13:00] just dead set against data centers. We
may be dead set against every proposal
[13:05] that's that's be coming to us, but I'm
just saying I want to hear proposals on
[13:09] their own merit and decide on them from
there. And I think that's what we're
[13:13] elected to do. Um, and that's just where
I am on that.
[13:18] » I tend to agree with you, Mr. there. And
I I think
[13:22] it's
if someone's going to bring us a
[13:27] proposal, couldn't we argue that we'd
need to know what we're looking at to
[13:32] give them due diligence?
>> Yep.
[13:36] » Yeah. But to you said earlier, councelor
hair, this is not in any way to be anti-
[13:42] business, anti- anything or or pro
anything. It's
[13:46] » and that's exactly where I am as well.
It's I just want to make sure that we're
[13:50] in a position to make the best decision
possible based on the proposals that are
[13:54] in front of us at any given time um and
so that we can have the appropriate
[13:59] conversation with the citizens of the
[cough] town. [clears throat] I imagine
[14:02] just this meeting is going to prompt
further conversation amongst the
[14:06] citizens of the town of Bucksport and so
we we'll go from there.
[14:10] » Um
but yeah, that's that's my
[14:14] » Yeah, I was intentional in not asking
for a ban. Um it's really just to build
[14:19] regulation around something that is here
and that Bucksport um is is um aligned
[14:27] with what they would need to to put
proposals on our on our um council
[14:31] changes. Um so it's really
>> I would just say that
[14:38] you can do that. Um
four or five years ago I stood in the
[14:44] same spot and was told that we had to
have a solar ordinance or we were going
[14:48] to be in huge trouble and we now have
two solar farms in town. We don't have a
[14:52] solar ordinance and everything's hunky
dory fine. So I I just worry that we're
[15:00] going to scare off somebody and and and
an investor comes in here wanting to do
[15:06] one of these. You're talking not
millions, you're talking billions of
[15:10] dollars of investment.
>> You're talking about property tax,
[15:16] you know, that's been our huge thing for
the last 3 years is how we get our
[15:19] property taxes down. This is one way.
And I don't want somebody to go, well,
[15:26] Bucksport doesn't want us. We'll look at
these other towns that do.
[15:30] » Frankly, if an investor with billions of
dollars said, Bucksport doesn't want us.
[15:33] We're bailing because they don't have
they have regulation. we wouldn't want
[15:36] them anyway.
>> Regulation's fine, but a moratorum,
[15:40] long-term moratorum,
waiting for experts to come in and I
[15:45] just don't I just don't think that's
needed. I mean, I've read through the
[15:50] the stuff that the state's already
proposed or released from their
[15:53] findings. Um, and there's really not a
lot there. Um,
[16:00] there's nothing there that really
concerns me. I I think there are some
[16:03] things we could put in our land use
ordinance that would protect us, but
[16:08] » and these are fluid things. They're
going to change over time for sure.
[16:11] » They're going to we're going to have to
I don't think we're going to make an
[16:14] ordinance that's going to last for 50
years or anything.
[16:16] » The counselor here is attached to our
email. It's kind of a a generalist
[16:21] thing. We don't get into how many
megawatts, how many square feet or or
[16:26] whatever.
>> You're saying we shouldn't or we don't.
[16:28] » No, I I don't think we need it at this
time. the moratorum. You know, there
[16:32] there were lots of things when this
thing if if we were to have one in town,
[16:36] this thing will turn on and it will not
shut off for 10 years. Okay. The sound
[16:41] that is going to be out there in the
decibel levels, some of that sound is
[16:45] going to carry for 10 miles. This is
going to be like the power plant down
[16:49] here. A lot of technical elements to be
looked at. Not tonight. I'm just saying
[16:53] that you know there's all kinds of
things to be included and to be in in a
[17:00] general mode right now for the moratorum
if it's only for 90 days or 6 months
[17:05] it's I guess we
>> is the goal of the mortorium for an
[17:08] ordinance
>> purpose of a moratorum is to put a pause
[17:12] on a specific set of circumstances
to allow a municipality to establish
[17:18] legislation that addresses that set of
circumstances. ES by state law it can
[17:25] moratorum can last initially for 180
days and the community can extend it for
[17:32] another 180 days if they are not in a
place where their legislation
[17:39] uh has been passed. So, um I don't know
if I would spend a lot of time trying to
[17:47] decide how long you want the moratorum
for because you know whether it takes a
[17:55] week to come up with an ordinance or it
takes 6 months to come up with an
[17:59] ordinance. Once you have one, that
moratorum is essentially repealed and
[18:05] the or the legislation that you have
passed is what uh takes place.
[18:12] » So I I don't think it's unreasonable to
want to put a pause and allow the town
[18:17] time to
look at our ordinance to see what we
[18:22] have in place and see if there are any
tweaks that that need to be made. And I
[18:27] think that that really is what the um
what your initial request was.
[18:32] » I did speak with a Bucks resident um not
not the person who brought it up at
[18:36] public comment, a different person who
he built a paper mill out in Utah
[18:42] » and has some experience with um this
type of thing and is willing to sort of
[18:47] um give a second set of expertise um to
this discussion if the town would want
[18:52] it. I I haven't responded to him. Uh but
he said he's offered himself some
[18:56] assistance. Um he was part of um anyway
I can't speak intelligently about it. So
[19:03] but just if if if um the committee
decides to move this moratorum forward,
[19:09] I'm happy to connect council with a
person who has the expertise in this
[19:14] type of um infrastructure.
Um he built his own paper mill and had
[19:19] sort of exposure to some of this
conversation. Um he's happy to provide
[19:24] some guidance as well. [cough]
[clears throat]
[19:27] » Anyone else on the council? Go ahead.
>> Um
[19:33] I know you the the purpose of this is
not to scare away business and to say
[19:38] no. But moratoriums in general do make
businesses think that we're going to be
[19:46] fought whether it's data centers or
anything. If they see towns fight every
[19:49] issue,
they're reluctant to enter this area.
[19:55] And Maine's property taxes are some of
the highest in the nation. Our electric
[20:00] bills are some of the highest in the
nation, especially on the coast, which
[20:04] we are considered a wealthy coastal
community. Heating oil right now is like
[20:09] 580 average a gallon.
budget process. Most people I talk to
[20:17] want to deal with inflation because
everything is going up so fast
[20:22] with business industry revenue rather
than cuts to services. That's the
[20:27] consensus of most everybody I talked to.
I think we should move forward
[20:32] immediately with a a common sense
ordinance, but
[20:37] I I don't want to do a moratorum and I I
don't think it's puts bucks forward in a
[20:43] good light towards business when we
desperately need it.
[20:47] » Anyone else?
Anyone from the public? Come on up.
[20:52] We'll come
[20:59] Don White, Tom Farmer of Foxport, Maine.
Data centers are a big deal. This is
[21:06] they're they're monster monster
proposals. They can be um they can
[21:12] employ many people in construction
phases.
[21:16] They tend not to employ people after
construction but there's issues around
[21:21] them that need the as you know the
country right now is struggling with
[21:26] data centers that that some people are
some many towns are undergoing the same
[21:33] same conversation whether a moratorum or
not. They can come fast and they can
[21:38] come in secrecy that happens many it
happens with me happens with many
[21:44] developments.
um they have been studied. The
[21:47] University of Michigan has done a study
out there and you could take a look at
[21:51] that. Uh but I think the issues that uh
councelor Rabs uh pointed out there are
[21:58] they tend to be incredibly noisy and the
the the water systems can go many ways,
[22:05] but they they can use an incredible
amount of water. They also can use a
[22:10] tremendous amount of electricity, an
amazing amount of electricity. and
[22:14] electricity rates around data centers
tend to go up for residential users.
[22:19] That's that's at least that's the
studies I've seen, Ed. I mean, I
[22:23] understand that. But I I I just I think
it's a good idea to step back and take
[22:28] some time and really take a look at this
because this is not this would not be
[22:32] just some small proposal. This would be
a huge proposal. Thank you for your
[22:37] time.
[22:42] Hi. Uh, Brena Youngblood, I live on
London Mill Road. Um, I've attended a
[22:47] few meetings, never spoken. I came
tonight because I saw your moratorum on
[22:51] the um, agenda and I just came to tell
you I could not agree more that we do
[22:55] need to have this. Like, as a resident,
I don't want to live near a data center.
[22:58] If we have a data center, I will
consider moving away because the general
[23:01] consensus of residents who live near
data centers is it's awful. Their
[23:05] electricity bills skyrocket. The noise
is atrocious. Their water quality drops
[23:10] tremendously. And I think that I just
agree entirely that we need to look at
[23:14] it and put a moratorium on it before
somebody does move in and decimate our
[23:19] community.
[23:27] » Russell Palmer, I'm Route 46. Um, I
would rise to say that I would prefer
[23:34] there not be a moratorum, but I don't
have a problem with us being prepared,
[23:38] but I don't see why we have to say no in
advance. Not this time. I agree with Mr.
[23:45] Ranken. It sends a negative message to
the market. These people when they come
[23:51] to build these things spend a tremendous
amount of money in advance preparing to
[23:55] do this. And if they have any inkling
that they're going to get a really hard
[23:59] time, they're not going to come. And the
town, from what I've seen, needs some
[24:05] business, more business activity than it
has now to help support our expenses.
[24:10] Um, Senator Kennedy from, I think,
Louisiana was on TV the other night and
[24:15] he listed off 10 points that were very
good points and that might be worth
[24:19] researching about you can negotiate in
advance that these data centers provide
[24:24] their own power. They build their own
plants. They do a lot of different
[24:27] things and he had a whole list of very
good points and I would say that maybe
[24:32] we could start there.
>> Um the other thing is do we have the
[24:36] expertise in the town to write this type
of code?
[24:40] » I mean I would defer that to the code
enforcement officer. I mean there's lots
[24:43] of codes out there but ultimately I def
I would hate to see us spend money on
[24:47] like if we end up there on a consultant
to write a code for something we don't
[24:50] even have a proposal for.
>> So thank you. Thank you.
[24:55] » Go ahead.
>> Um, just a couple more things. This site
[25:01] has been identified by the state and
other organizations as being ideal for a
[25:06] data data center because it's already an
industrial site. You've got the the
[25:12] power plant right there, which if they
worked out a deal, they don't pull from
[25:17] the grid and it helps the power plant.
[25:24] This
[25:27] » is like an ideal spot for a data center
or industry in general because it's it's
[25:34] all ready to go.
I just I I don't want to see us
[25:40] shoot ourselves in the foot before it
ever happens. I because I want to hear
[25:43] proposals, good or bad, we can take them
as they come, but I want to hear
[25:48] proposals, not scare it away.
>> I get that.
[25:52] » Yeah. You think the big question for me
is why does regulation and a moratorum
[25:58] to make regulation scare a company away
in the first place? If like any company,
[26:04] if you suspect you're going to be fought
and then two communities over says yes,
[26:10] we'll welcome you.
>> Why would you go through the fight?
[26:15] » Like Brunswick framing of regulation as
a fight. Big companies are used to big
[26:21] regulations and having to deal with
that.
[26:24] » Like Brunswick has been there 15 years
and it's been very successful.
[26:30] How did the paper mill deal with the
noise in
[26:33] » It was noisy.
>> It was a conveyor belt that we'd hear
[26:36] all through town, but but we don't
necessarily want to go back to that
[26:39] either. I mean,
>> well, this that was before me before I
[26:42] came here, so I
>> it was just a big conveyor belt that
[26:44] primarily what you'd hear.
>> Anyone else in the public?
[26:54] » A George Maximic River Road in Bucksport
here. Um, I would agree that uh a
[26:59] moratorium would send the wrong message.
I think it's premature. I don't even
[27:02] know if we can define a data center.
What is a data center? How would you
[27:06] build a a code around something that you
I don't know if we can define if a
[27:11] company wanted to come to town and build
a a server bank for an internet service
[27:15] provider? Is that an internet? I mean,
is that a data center? is um uh if a if
[27:22] a bank wanted to locate a headquarters
here with with servers is that a service
[27:28] you know is that a data center I don't
know if we can't define I mean can can
[27:33] anyone define what this moratorum would
actually cover is it a blanket data
[27:38] center or is it do you actually define
it as something and how can you build a
[27:43] regulation around that and and I do I
think I agree with council rank it sends
[27:49] wrong message. Our website says
community history and opportunity and we
[27:54] need to be looking for opportunity to
expand our tax base and preserve our
[27:59] services to our citizens and and doing
this is it's the wrong message to send.
[28:05] We're going to shut the door to to
opportunities that may come along. We we
[28:10] don't have code in place for a lot of
different kind of businesses. Do we did
[28:15] we have one for a fish farm or you know
a salmon farm before we started talking
[28:20] to them or
>> I I agree with you sir. Those are really
[28:25] good points and it's because we don't
know that I think we should do it.
[28:29] » But but how do you how do you build a
set of regulations around something that
[28:34] you can't define?
>> Well, I think I mean Luke, you can speak
[28:37] to this. There's you know there's
ordinances across the country for these.
[28:41] I mean they've been drafted. I mean, not
all of them have worked, but there's
[28:44] examples of ordinances in this in the
state,
[28:47] » right?
>> Yeah.
[28:48] » But until you have a proposal on the
table,
[28:51] » that's too late, though, because then
there's no rules.
[28:56] » There needs to be some rules, right?
>> Well, there could be, but what I'm
[28:58] saying is we could you could form a
committee and and and explore rules and
[29:03] and and code without having a moratorum.
>> I mean, I personally would be in favor
[29:08] of a shorter stay. you know, I
personally wouldn't be in for six
[29:12] months, but if if our code enforcement
officer says it can be done quicker, you
[29:17] know, that's one thing. Um,
>> but if if nobody's knocking on the door
[29:22] yet,
>> but if they knock if they if we have an
[29:24] application, then we have no ability to
to, you know, to
[29:28] » really we wouldn't you as a council
wouldn't be able to
[29:31] » if there's no rules in place, we would
have no rules. There has to be some
[29:34] rules.
>> There would be no permitting process.
[29:36] No,
>> I mean, but the particulars of of this
[29:39] wouldn't have any
>> any rules to them. You know, whether it
[29:43] be public safety, as I brought up, I
mean, if this center needed specific
[29:47] public safety equipment, there's no
ordinance that would require them to do
[29:50] it. If there's no noise ordinance, there
would be no requirement for them to do
[29:54] it in industrial noise when and same
with light pollution. You know, we could
[29:59] look at should there be a buffer zone
between the village, you know, could we
[30:02] designate a buffer zone to keep things
quieter or if it's going to be noisier,
[30:06] dictate it on the back end or, you know,
put the the area back there. I mean,
[30:10] there's some different things we could
do, but if we don't have an ordinance,
[30:12] we would have no no ability to to tell
them no. outside of what we have.
[30:19] » You couldn't pass one or
>> I mean as a proposal
[30:22] » be rushed. I mean I would rather have
more time to know what I'm looking at
[30:27] when a proposal comes. Um rather than
like if the proposal's on the table,
[30:31] we're sort of reviewing it while the
clock is already ticking. We've got a
[30:35] business that's already put the effort
in, put the proposal in. I'd rather have
[30:39] sort of a guardrails in place. So when
businesses do that, it's a smoother
[30:43] process for for the applicant and a
smoother process for whichever council
[30:48] seats that proposal and for residents to
have enough public information for
[30:52] input. It would just give us some guard
rails for a technology that is new to
[30:56] many small towns in Maine and there's a
lot of there is a lot of ordinance in
[30:59] Maine that's been drafted by attorneys
by usually by the town's attorneys have
[31:03] looked them over.
>> I I still think it may close the door.
[31:08] We we we're at risk closing the door to
opportunity. So,
[31:11] » but if we get something and we don't,
you know, there's things there that we
[31:14] really dislike, are we going to have is
that going to be a good proposal?
[31:19] » You know, noise light or
>> Good question. I don't know. I I don't I
[31:25] against data centers. I just think that,
you know, the tax base and the and the
[31:30] potential, you know, um whatever else it
might bring to the town would be
[31:34] beneficial. You you you make it like we
don't have we have a huge site plan
[31:39] review ordinance and and application
process that covers light, covers sound,
[31:44] covers environmental issues, covers all
this stuff. I mean, it's not like we
[31:48] don't have anything. It isn't specific
to this, but we have all these
[31:54] regulations in there that the planning
board has to review these things. We did
[31:57] it with whole oceans and we went through
all of those.
[32:01] » So, you don't feel there's any
considerations with the data center or
[32:04] There's a few little tweaks. Like I was
saying, we could put a few things in
[32:07] there if you wanted to put limits at
property lines for decibb. That's one
[32:11] thing. We don't have a specific
a specific line item or that kind of
[32:16] thing. But I just don't see the need for
a whole new, you know, full chapter,
[32:22] redo the whole land. I mean, it's we
we've got an ordinance that's quite
[32:27] quite strict.
just not an issue that typically we see.
[32:34] But
>> um like like he said, we didn't have
[32:38] anything set aside for aquaarmms
and
[32:43] we still went through the whole process
and we're going to let them build. Um
[32:47] and we didn't have decommissioning for
that either. So,
[32:50] » and we might learn from that, I think.
And the decommissioning might be learned
[32:54] from the landfill and all the dealing
that there
[32:56] » suppose, but I feel like a landfill is a
whole different ballgame from
[33:00] » unless somebody walked away from a data
center 15 years down the road.
[33:03] » But it's the same as solar, same as
windmill.
[33:06] » I mean, I think that I think and I I'll
drop it here, but I think that my point
[33:10] is that
>> our ordinance isn't designed for this
[33:14] technology because this technology
didn't exist when our ordinance was
[33:18] created and when many ordinances were
created. And so we don't know what we
[33:21] don't know. I mean, we're talking about
things we know that need regulation, but
[33:25] there's other pieces and components to
largecale data centers that have um
[33:30] regulatory elements that most towns
haven't addressed in code um because
[33:35] they've this is new technology. And so I
that's but I I can I can drop it there
[33:40] and leave it to the committee to to do
what they want to do. But um that was
[33:44] just my point. It's not at all this
making our current code less have less
[33:48] teeth but it's not built for new
technology and that's what
[33:53] » anybody else from the public
>> let's mention like that there was
[33:56] nothing for whole ocean yet
>> there was no no regulation surrounding
[34:02] the fishing up here the whole oceans
farm and stuff unless it hasn't turned
[34:06] out well right they haven't
>> well I mean there was to Luke's point
[34:09] there was regulation
>> but like
[34:11] » but that can't make them we need to hold
these people accountable You can't make
[34:14] somebody build something.
>> No, no, you absolutely can't. But what?
[34:18] You sold that lot for a dollar. Nobody
did anything. So now we need to do
[34:21] something, right? Like this kind of
thing. Like if you're going to buy all
[34:24] of this, we're going to do regulation.
You need to do something beneficial for
[34:28] the town. A data center. It'll employ
construction people to put up the
[34:31] building. When they're done, they employ
what? 8 to 10 people total. That's not
[34:35] beneficial for us. That's not going to
help.
[34:38] » We don't know. The people who live in
these communities do know though.
[34:43] They're living through it. They're
experiencing it. They're against it who
[34:45] live by them.
>> Well, I mean, I do think there's
[34:48] different regulatory structures in
Texas. You know, if there's electrical
[34:51] grids that are different, I mean,
there's some
[34:54] » Not everything's apples to apples here
cuz the site is different.
[34:57] » So, like a moratorium would make the
most sense. So, we could pull back.
[35:00] There are no proposals on the table. So,
we do know what we're doing. We do know
[35:04] what we're talking about. We do know
what we're taking on here. I think it's
[35:09] not fair.
Go ahead. I'd
[35:12] » like to make a motion, Mr. Chair. Sure.
Uh before I make that motion, I would
[35:16] just say that it seems like there's a
varying opinion in the room, but
[35:21] particularly on the council as well. Uh
so I I think it would behoove the
[35:25] council to to move this to council for
the for the sake of having a
[35:29] conversation amongst the entire group,
especially where we have someone um
[35:33] absent this evening. So I won't add any
further editorialization
[35:38] about my opinion on this um to that
motion except to say I just want to move
[35:42] it to council so that the entire council
has an opportunity to discuss that. And
[35:47] if in the meantime before our next
meeting if there is an ordinance drafted
[35:51] and we're at a place where we're
comfortable with that great but I'm just
[35:55] I'm just saying I'm I'm offering a
motion and a rational as to why I think
[36:00] the entire council should have a go at
this. Council R.
[36:06] » Second.
>> Okay, we have a motion and a second. All
[36:08] in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Uh,
need a motion for number four, I think.
[36:16] » Motion to adjourn.
>> Second.
[36:18] » All in favor?
[36:24] » Okay, that
[36:30] services committee meeting. All right.
Call to order.
[36:34] Council the not here. Mayor Besinette
will be
[36:40] councelor Dodie
>> here.
[36:41] » And then council ranking here.
Uh item C, selecting three members of
[36:48] the town council to serve as the fair
hearing authority for general assistance
[36:52] to satisfy resolve 2027-21.
Can we get some clarification?
[36:58] » Yes, Mr. Chair. Uh this is
[clears throat] a an item that's
[37:02] required under our general assistance
ordinance. Uh we actually should be
[37:06] doing this on a yearly basis. Um fair
hearings are something that occur that
[37:11] an applicant can occur when the town
denies them from general assistance. Uh
[37:16] the last fair hearing that the town had
was in 2011.
[37:21] So that tells you that this doesn't
happen very often, which is why I think
[37:25] that uh there hasn't been a lot of of of
um emphasis on appointing members on a
[37:31] yearly basis. Uh we recently had a case
where it was a possibility of a fair
[37:36] hearing, which is what kind of sparked
this conversation. So um that's all that
[37:40] this is. What we would do is these three
individuals would act as the hearing
[37:47] until the end of December until a new
council's sworn in and then it the fair
[37:52] hearing authority would become a part of
your annual uh council committee
[37:58] appointments when you appoint your
services and infrastructure and and
[38:02] those this would just be another
committee on that list. So
[38:07] » So do you want to
I mean everybody's here tonight. Do you
[38:11] want to select now or do you want to
just move this to council in 15 minutes?
[38:18] » I think the easiest thing to do is if
there are volunteers
[38:22] who are willing to serve, it might be
easy just to identify them uh and you
[38:27] could make that recommendation to the
council.
[38:30] » I'll volunteer.
[38:35] » I'll do it.
>> I'll I'll do it, too.
[38:38] » Okay. All right. We have uh
Deputy Mayor Eastman, Council Dodie,
[38:44] Council Ranken.
Do I have a motion to suggest that to
[38:48] council?
>> Anybody other than me?
[38:51] » Uh, so moved.
>> Do I have a second?
[38:57] » Second.
>> Well, you can.
[39:00] » It's fine.
>> Okay.
[39:01] » I have a motion and a second. All in
favor?
[39:05] All right. Have a motion to adjurnn.
So moved.
[39:10] » Motion and a second. All in favor.
[39:16] Moving right along. Good evening
everyone. Uh call a regular council
[39:20] meeting to order for September the 10th.
Uh just a couple of housekeeping things
[39:24] that I tend to do, but we have a full
room, so I'll add one to that. Uh if you
[39:28] do plan to speak, as you've observed in
committee, uh please come to the podium,
[39:33] state your name and address. Uh if your
cell phone is on, this would be a great
[39:36] time to s uh put it on silent or vibrate
or whatever you need to do. Um and there
[39:41] are microphones all throughout the room.
So if you whisper something to the
[39:44] person next to you, there's a very good
chance it will be heard on YouTube. I
[39:48] just want to make sure everyone's aware
of the status of the room. All right.
[39:53] Uh roll call. Lindsay
>> Mayor Eastman
[39:56] » here. Councilman here. Councelor Hair
>> here. Mayor
[40:00] » here. Councelor Raz
>> here. Councelor Dodie
[40:02] » here. Council
>> here. Thank you. Council Tarian is
[40:06] excused. Yep. Thank you. Uh
presentations and town council
[40:10] recognitions. We do not have it in this
evening. Uh consideration of minutes of
[40:16] our previous meetings. Uh we have one
and that's from our uh last meeting on
[40:20] August the 27th. That was included in
your packet.
[40:23] » Motion to approve.
>> Second.
[40:24] » Questions or comments?
All those in favor?
[40:29] you
[40:32] uh reports, documents and
correspondents. We have your monthly uh
[40:35] departmental reports uh that were
included in your packet. Any
[40:39] conversation uh comments or conversation
I guess on those?
[40:45] Uh as well, we have uh the uh report
from the Verona Island Police Call on
[40:50] August the 29th this year. Any
questions?
[40:56] Right.
[40:59] We don't have any discussion items.
We don't have any public hearings.
[41:05] We do not have any new ordinances to
consider. We do have agenda items,
[41:08] however. Uh the first is resolve 2027-
17 approving a memorandum of
[41:14] understanding between the town of
Bucksport and Teamsters Local Union
[41:17] number 340 regarding the public works
seasonal schedule. Jacob.
[41:23] » Yes. This is a an item that extends the
public works department's 4-day schedule
[41:30] um until the the 1st of November. Um
staff, we don't have any issues with
[41:37] this. We kind of view this as a positive
tool for employee recruitment and
[41:41] employee retention. So,
[41:47] » no further details in everyone's packet,
but any questions?
[41:51] » Motion to approve. Second.
>> Second. All those in favor opposed. You
[41:59] » resolve 2027-18
authorizing the sale of surplus highway
[42:03] equipment to the highest biders.
The council like to proceed.
[42:09] » Motion to approve.
>> Second.
[42:11] » Move and second. Any questions or
comments?
[42:14] » You're good with this.
>> Okay.
[42:18] » Any other questions or comments or
thumbs up?
[42:22] All those in favor opposed. Thank you.
Uh resolve 2027-9
[42:30] accepting the resignation of Linda P
from the conservation committee.
[42:34] » Motion to accept.
>> Second
[42:37] move and second. Any questions or
comments?
[42:40] Certainly wanted do want to thank for
her service on that committee.
[42:46] » There are no other comments. All those
in favor? Thank you.
[42:53] And what a great number I know of you
are here for. Uh, resolve 2027-20
[42:58] confirming the town manager's
appointment of David Winchester as
[43:01] public safety director effective
September the 10th, 2026.
[43:05] » Motion to confirm.
>> Second.
[43:07] » Second. Comments.
I would just add it's uh a privilege of
[43:13] mine to make this recommendation and on
deputy chief Winchester's appointment.
[43:18] Uh David's in his 26 year of employment
with the town. He's spent the last seven
[43:23] uh leading our police department. Uh and
there's no question in my mind that he
[43:28] is the the right person for the job. So
[43:34] » comments
we do have a motion in a second. All
[43:37] those in favor
you
[43:50] and even though I thank you for
reminding me because even though I wrote
[43:53] yes I wrote big letters next to this
agenda items. We're swearing in. So
[43:58] we're going to be swearing in our new
public safety director.
[44:04] » Okay. I state your hand. I, David
Winchester,
[44:07] » do solemnly swear
>> do solemnly swear
[44:09] » that I will support the Constitution
>> and I will support the Constitution
[44:12] » and will obey the laws
>> and obey the laws
[44:14] » of the United States
>> of the United States
[44:16] » and of the state of Maine
>> and of the state of Maine
[44:18] » and that I will
>> and I will
[44:20] » in all respects
>> in all respects
[44:21] » observe the provisions
>> observe the provisions
[44:23] » of the charters and ordinances
>> of the charters and ordinances
[44:26] » of the town of Oxport
>> of the town of Oxport
[44:28] » and will faithfully discharge
>> faithfully discharge
[44:31] » the duties of the office
>> the duties of the office
[44:33] » of public safety director
>> public safety director This hand box
[44:44] [applause]
[44:55] [applause]
[45:02] » and no blood was drawn.
[45:07] Yeah, I will give everyone a moment. I
know a lot of you are here for that.
[45:12] I'll give everyone a couple minutes. If
you would like to leave, it's certainly
[45:17] can with no harm, no foul. You're also
more than welcome to stay.
[45:50] Thank you everyone. Uh resolve 2027-21
appointing three members of the town
[45:55] council to serve as the fair hearing
authority for general assistance. The
[45:59] names that were forwarded from the
committee were uh councelor Rankin,
[46:02] councelor Dhoni, and deputy mayor
Eastman. How the council like to
[46:06] proceed?
>> Motion to approve.
[46:10] » Second move. Second. Questions,
comments? All those in favor?
[46:16] You
>> resolve 2027-22
[46:20] approving the liquor license renewal for
the Alamo Theater.
[46:24] » Motion to approve.
>> Second.
[46:25] » Questions or comments?
All those in favor
[46:30] you
[46:34] result 2027-23
approving a festival/public
[46:38] entertainment license for the 11th
annual parade of lights and fireworks
[46:42] sponsored by Seabard Federal Credit
Union and Buckports Wednesdays on
[46:46] demand.
>> Motion to approve.
[46:49] » Second and second. Any questions or
comments on that?
[46:54] Wonderful news and thank you to the
credit union as well as Wednesday. So
[46:58] made
there are no additional comments. How uh
[47:02] we have a motion to second. All those in
favor you
[47:08] uh resolve 2027-24
authorizing the town manager to execute
[47:12] agreements with Maine Water Company and
Bugsport Generation LLC pending a town
[47:17] referendum.
>> How would the council like to proceed?
[47:22] » Motion to approve. Second.
>> Motion is a second. I will turn it over
[47:27] to you.
>> Uh yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh Town
[47:30] Attorney Dave Battell is on the call uh
this evening. Um this agenda item is the
[47:37] result of many months of work uh as uh
by Mr. Latell and and others. So, he's
[47:45] here tonight to give uh just a brief
overview of uh what this agenda item
[47:49] entails and to uh answer any questions
that the council of the public has. So,
[47:55] David,
[47:59] » thank you, Town Manager Gran and uh
members of the council. I um we've
[48:04] reviewed because these are interests in
real estate. We've reviewed them already
[48:08] in executive session, but happy to
answer any questions and I'll give a
[48:12] brief brief overview for the members of
the public here and others um that will
[48:17] help orient them. Um as was noted in the
introduction of the resolution, this
[48:22] this resolution would authorize a town
manager to enter into these agreements
[48:27] or accept these agreements um only after
a town vote. So, they're contingent.
[48:32] This isn't final. This is contingent on
a town vote. And the three um agreements
[48:38] [clears throat] are a revised water
easement, which right now is structured
[48:42] to be entered into between Bucksport
Mill and Bucksport Generation. It's a
[48:47] very complex long document about 70
pages because it was created when the
[48:54] when the bug sport generation facility
was sold off and there's a lot in it
[48:58] that needed to be updated to reflect the
current reality of the situation and
[49:02] frankly to put in a position where we
could recommend as your town attorneys
[49:08] that you accept the dam property subject
to the requirements in that easement.
[49:14] um because easements are interested and
property. So unlike contracts, if you
[49:18] accept the property, you accept the
obligations that you get um that go
[49:23] along with the property. So that is the
document with Bugport generation, but
[49:28] the after a transfer were to occur from
the current dam owners to the town, then
[49:33] that easement would bind the town. Um
second document is similar. It's a
[49:38] revision of what's called the the
indenture. Um the indentured is a
[49:43] 100year-old dock and it more or less was
entered into the 1930s when the um dam
[49:50] arrangement was set up with the then
Bucksport Water Company which is now
[49:54] owned with and is a division of the main
water company. And that also updates the
[49:59] indenture terms to be something that we
can recommend that you enter into. And
[50:03] and like the other document, it would
bind the town once the town accepts
[50:08] ownership of the dam. And the third
document is an operations contract which
[50:14] is broadly speaking the um what the
water company has agreed to do
[50:20] voluntarily um in for routine services
at no charge to the town in
[50:27] consideration for the town being willing
to take over the dam and operate it
[50:32] [clears throat]
and own it. So those are the three
[50:34] documents. Happy to answer any questions
on them. Um, and the other issue I'd
[50:39] just touch on is that since um since the
last sort of meetings and updates, we
[50:45] haven't heard anything from Bucksport
Mill. Um, so no further negotiations
[50:50] have occurred. The main D, which is
still considering the pending petition
[50:55] to abandon these dams, has issued a
revised letter giving the owner of all
[51:02] three dams uh an opportunity to finish
the conveyances of the other two dams to
[51:08] the watershed districts that have been
set up. Those dams are outside the town
[51:11] of Bucksport. Um and ask for a final
report by the beginning of November for
[51:16] it to make its decision on what it will
do on the petition. So that's where the
[51:20] overall matter sits.
[51:26] » Questions from the council
[51:30] » public.
I think the important thing to note here
[51:34] is this is the last four words of this
um resolve or pending a town um
[51:41] referendum.
[51:47] But regardless, we do have a motion and
a second. I want to make sure. Any
[51:50] questions for Mr. Lutell before we
[51:54] » No. Thank you. Thank you.
>> Thank you, David, for all your work on
[51:58] this.
>> Oh, I
[52:00] » Thank you. Hang on. Sorry.
Yes, ma'am.
[52:07] » Because a lot of this
>> feedback um
[52:13] » appropriate 70
squelch me somewhere.
[52:18] I'm getting echalleia. Um,
>> at some point will there be a dumbed
[52:24] down 70page document for us to get a
feel for
[52:30] all the implications of all this? I'm
hoping.
[52:33] » Yes.
>> Yes.
[52:34] » Okay.
>> Yeah.
[52:35] » That was my question.
>> Okay. Good.
[52:40] » Anything else?
[52:47] Uh Nancy Minet, I live in Luxport. Um I
didn't really understand anything that
[52:53] he spoke of. So those last four words
that it would be pending a town
[52:57] referendum is quite scary to me because
I would have no idea unless it could be
[53:03] put in lay people's terms like what
where. So I would really encourage
[53:08] something that is in a language that you
know the population
[53:13] » except for all you wise folks um could
understand
[53:17] » and that would be more for when
everything comes to conclusion. Correct.
[53:23] » It won't be November. Correct. I mean
that's correct.
[53:26] » Okay.
>> Thank you.
[53:29] » Thanks
>> David. Maybe if you took just a minute
[53:34] in in your capacity and explained what
the purpose of this resolve is this
[53:39] evening, what we're accomplishing by um
taking action on this resolve tonight.
[53:45] » Thank you. And yeah, I should have said,
don't hesitate to slow me down or ask me
[53:50] to explain anything in more detail.
We've spent months
[53:55] with these documents and um they're they
you know there's a lot there. They're
[54:01] complex. So, please don't hesitate and
I'll try to do better in in putting
[54:06] these things into like non-legal ease.
Um, the purpose of this resolve is
[54:11] really to make it clear to all parties
that we've reached fundamental agreement
[54:16] on the documents with the other two
parties
[54:20] who we would be left with after
Bucksport Mill abandons the dams. And
[54:25] the other two parties in Bxport for
Silver Lake Dam would be Bucksport
[54:29] Generation and Main Water Company
together with the town. These are the
[54:34] three company the three entities two
companies and the town that have an
[54:39] interest in continuing to manage the dam
to ensure that there's water supply and
[54:45] that the hazard posed by the the dam
which is a high considered a high hazard
[54:49] dam by the main emergency management
agency continues to be maintained and
[54:55] operated. Um and the you know other
important part of this is that there's
[55:00] there's money involved because it's a
substantial obligation that would be
[55:04] taken on. So we had an agreement from a
verbal agreement that um the current dam
[55:10] owner would provide funding for
operations and maintenance for a certain
[55:15] number of years. That agreement hasn't
been nailed down yet. And that's one of
[55:19] the reasons why we've gone to pains to
say that this is um in other words we we
[55:26] said current dam owner please sign on
the dotted line and they have not done
[55:30] so. So that's one of the reasons we're
emphasizing that this would be subject
[55:34] to a further town vote is that we're not
ready, I I think to recommend that the
[55:40] town enter into these documents until we
get a commitment on the financial
[55:44] resources that'll be there for the town
to manage the dam. So with that sort of
[55:50] background that we're not ready. The
purpose of this vote and making it
[55:54] contingent on a further town vote is to
make it clear to the other two parties
[56:01] [snorts] that have spent a lot of time
negotiating these documents with us as
[56:06] well as current dam owners that we we're
we're in agreement. We're ready to go.
[56:11] We've spent the better part of the
summer negotiating these documents and
[56:15] we're ready to go. But also the sort of
the subscript, if you will, of that is
[56:21] that we hope to have it on the ballot
this this November, but we've run out of
[56:25] time. So now we're hoping to have it on
the ballot next November, and we need
[56:29] all of these parties to work together to
make that happen.
[56:34] Um, town manager Grant, do you have
anything else? You've been
[56:38] » sort of directing us if I forgot
important.
[56:42] » No, I think you've summarized it well.
[56:51] I'm resisting the urge to say too much.
except I I will say this and Nancy your
[56:58] point is an extremely valid one and what
I would say is this action tonight
[57:02] another thing that it conveys and David
please feel free to correct me if I get
[57:07] this incorrect um which is totally not
out of the realm of possibility but it's
[57:12] showing that there are parties that are
for lack of a better word playing ball
[57:16] here and perhaps others that aren't and
so by taking this action it basically is
[57:22] saying we're playing ball with parties
>> and that there are other parties that
[57:28] perhaps aren't
at that point right now. And so that's
[57:33] that's another reason why we're doing
this this evening. But
[57:36] » and that was helpful. His summary right
then y
[57:39] » was helpful.
>> Yep. But in order obviously um and I
[57:44] don't mean that because your question is
a great is a great one and and it's this
[57:48] would need to be boiled down into lay
person's terms so that the average
[57:52] taxpayer knows all right what are we
getting ourselves into here and what
[57:56] what what's the good the bad the ugly y
[clears throat]
[58:02] » I mean these are hard negotiations the
the valuable parts of a mill property
[58:08] have been sold off right so this is a
liability ility. So
[58:14] they're hard and I would say if it's
fair to say not between us but between
[58:17] some of the parties they've been
downright hostile. So we do need all of
[58:21] the parties to cooperate and getting us
across the finish line. We can't do this
[58:27] without all four parties including the
current DA owner cooperating and
[58:31] honoring their verbal obligations. So we
hope they come back to the table and
[58:36] play ball to use the chairman's terms.
Any
[58:42] other questions or comments? Mr. M.
>> Thank you.
[58:46] » I'm going to make you come up here
again. [laughter]
[58:50] » I just going to say another qu
clarification that was important was to
[58:56] know that the slippage is such that this
won't make this November, which was part
[59:00] of my concern.
>> Y
[59:02] » and we hope it'll make it by next
November.
[59:04] » Correct. Yep.
>> Thank you.
[59:06] » Absolutely.
[59:12] We do have a motion to second. All those
in favor opposed. Thank you.
[59:17] » Thank you, David.
>> Thank you, David.
[59:19] » Thank you.
>> Thank you all.
[59:23] » Uh and our last agenda item this evening
or last result for consideration is
[59:27] result 2027-25
authorizing the sale of surplus
[59:31] ambulance equipment.
>> Most to approve.
[59:34] » Second. any commentary there or
>> I was hoping it would be more but we're
[59:39] good
[59:42] proceed.
[59:46] » Can I just ask the chief? I thought we
were one of the considerations we had
[59:50] was to take the box off of this one and
keep it towards moving with a new
[59:56] chassis when the next ambulance came
about or is that
[59:58] » correct? Just not the ideas. Pardon me.
>> That was one of the ideas. Okay. So but
[1:00:06] » okay thanks
>> at this point it say
[1:00:11] it and proceed with sale
>> more money be made it
[1:00:18] that way
>> no
[1:00:23] » no
more money no I don't believe so
[1:00:28] any other questions or comments all in
favor opposed
[1:00:34] you.
The town manager report.
[1:00:38] » Uh the town has formally notified
Greenhead Greenhead lobster of ongoing
[1:00:43] sewer ordinance violations
uh that uh regarding excessive
[1:00:48] biochemical oxygen demand and total
suspended solids in their discharge. Um
[1:00:54] because their effluent is currently
consuming at times up to 70% of the of
[1:00:58] the treatment plant's total loading
capacity, um the town will be issuing a
[1:01:03] special agreement with them this fall.
And that agreement will mandate that
[1:01:07] Greenhead implement uh pre-treatment
improvements and conduct weekly testing
[1:01:11] um prior to the start of uh the spring
2027 season.
[1:01:17] The town did not receive any bids for
the sale of 206 Upper Long Pond Road. Uh
[1:01:22] staff will bring this item back to an
upcoming council agenda along with a
[1:01:26] recommendation for next steps. Uh just
another reminder, I said it last
[1:01:30] meeting, but I'll say it again that the
transfer station's operating hours will
[1:01:33] change effective October 3rd. Uh the
transfer station will be open Saturday
[1:01:38] through Tuesday from 7:00 to 5:00 and
will be closed Wednesday through Friday.
[1:01:43] Uh and along those lines, we have
started advertising for a uh PDM as
[1:01:48] needed attendant uh that's intended to
provide coverage uh during vacant
[1:01:53] shifts. And finally, the filing deadline
for the town council and school board uh
[1:01:58] nomination papers passed last week. Five
candidates will appear on the November
[1:02:02] ballot. Uh that is Ralph Chapman, Mark
Eastman, and John Goss for town council
[1:02:07] for two open seats on the council and
Abigail Foster, and Jamie Grandmason for
[1:02:12] two open uh school board seats. Uh and
I've reached out to a couple local
[1:02:18] nonprofits regarding scheduling a
candidates forum. Uh and that is in the
[1:02:23] works and we should have more details on
that in the coming weeks. That's all
[1:02:28] that I have. Jacob, any questions or
comments for the town?
[1:02:37] Yes, Mr. Palmer, I believe.
[1:02:42] » Um, again, as I stated before, I have a
property on Route 46, uh, that happens
[1:02:47] to share two roads. One is the upper
Long Pond Road, and obviously Route 46
[1:02:52] is where I enter my property. Um,
neighbors with Anthony and some other
[1:02:58] folks up there. Um, Mr. Rotella, I
believe, had was mentioned in an article
[1:03:04] that I I rarely read articles all the
way through. Um, but I was interested in
[1:03:09] the sale of the 206 property, which I
understand didn't happen. U, but at the
[1:03:13] very end of the article, there was a
recommendation that he has put in to
[1:03:17] stop maintaining Upper Long Pond Road,
the town, the portion that it does
[1:03:21] maintain, which is roughly 1.2 miles.
the rest of the road, which is roughly
[1:03:26] another mile, and Anthony could talk
about that, is being maintained almost
[1:03:29] solely by him. Um, we have people live
on that road. Anthony is one of them.
[1:03:34] Um, and there's some other people that
live on that road. Uh, I have 800 ft on
[1:03:39] that road. Um,
I had in years past, my wife and I have
[1:03:45] been here for almost 10 years. Um, this
is my first year here full-time. So, I
[1:03:51] apologize. And also I want to start by
thanking all of you for your service
[1:03:54] here as well because I I did go through
this in a past life.
[1:03:58] » Um and I I know what it takes out of
here. Um and it's a thankless job at
[1:04:03] times and I get it. Um but the prior tax
assessor when I was having um vigorous
[1:04:09] conversations with him about my
assessment wanted to point out to me
[1:04:13] that my back land which is I guess what
they call that piece that's up the hill
[1:04:17] um
uh is privately owned gravel road but
[1:04:22] has a public easement right away which
is seasonably accessible
[1:04:27] um and ripe for development
uh because of the power there is power
[1:04:33] that crosses through there and
everything else and he was trying to
[1:04:36] shut me down in an argument that that
land should be valued like everybody
[1:04:39] else's land up there. Ultimately, we
went a different course with the tree
[1:04:42] growth program. Didn't help a tremendous
amount, but it helped a little bit. Um,
[1:04:46] I would be opposed to the idea of the
town failing to maintain that road. I
[1:04:52] think it would negatively impact the
value of the properties up there. Uh, it
[1:04:57] would clearly impact the residents who
live there. uh it doesn't impact me
[1:05:01] personally in a sense that I don't the
only reason the only way I can get to
[1:05:05] that property up there. I can't drive up
there through my property to get to that
[1:05:08] to the upper what they call the back
lot. Okay. Um the only way I can get
[1:05:13] there is through the upper Long Pond
Road. Um I have an obligation to
[1:05:16] maintain that property up there. I have
tree growth, so I have obligations to
[1:05:20] cut, you know, to keep it trimmed and do
other things like that.
[1:05:24] So [sighs]
getting back to my notes so I don't get
[1:05:27] lost. Chapman Farms is up there, the
they're the nonprofit. They have the
[1:05:31] farm and they have a couple of other
lots, I believe. Um, there are people
[1:05:35] that go there all the time and then they
advertise that as a place to go visit.
[1:05:39] Uh, hunters use that all the time. The
road, as I mentioned before, has a
[1:05:43] public easement.
Um, does that go away if the town
[1:05:47] decides to stop supporting the road? Um,
do we put a gate at the end up along
[1:05:52] Palm Road? I we'll let Luke speak to it
there, but no, we had another situation
[1:05:55] like this a couple years ago and it
doesn't close off the road.
[1:05:59] » Um I would prefer there's a snowmobile
trail goes through there, which I use.
[1:06:03] Um so I'll let Anthony speak more about
how this is going to personally impact
[1:06:08] him and the people that actually live on
the road. Um you know, all that, but I
[1:06:13] just did some quick math and I went
through some of the tax assessments for
[1:06:16] fiscal 26. There's 38 roughly 38 parcels
that are taxed on that road from uh the
[1:06:22] beginning of Moosehorn Drive all the way
down to the Stonehouse Road. Well, not
[1:06:27] quite to the Stonehouse Road because
they don't really connect at a certain
[1:06:30] point. Um the town collected or charged
I don't know if you collected it, but
[1:06:35] you charged $41,731
to the people that own property along
[1:06:40] that road. All right. In fiscal 26, I'm
sure it's quite more in fiscal 27.
[1:06:47] Um, so I would like to think that the
town would consider it a worthwhile
[1:06:51] investment to keep that road viable
um, and give it a place where people can
[1:06:56] still potentially develop, eventually
run power down that road and, you know,
[1:07:00] add value to the town. I do though that
if that town if that road goes the way
[1:07:05] that the upper half of the road has
gone, which again Anony's done yman's
[1:07:09] work keeping that open, it's almost
impassible when you get down to the f
[1:07:13] the bottom end, right? That's what's
going to happen to the other end if
[1:07:17] nobody's going to maintain it. If the
town is not going to maintain it. So I
[1:07:22] encourage you to not go that route to
not take that recommendation. Okay.
[1:07:26] Thank you.
>> Just as a a point of just want to make
[1:07:32] sure everyone's aware that there is no
active proposal to actually do that. It
[1:07:37] has been discussed uh as Mr. Palmer
stated, but I just wanted to make it
[1:07:40] clear for the record that there's that
there is no proposal and that there's a
[1:07:45] process
somewhat lengthy process that goes along
[1:07:49] with that. So, this wouldn't occur uh
overnight.
[1:07:53] » Sure.
>> Uh if that was something that the town
[1:07:56] wanted to do.
>> Hey, generally appreciate the uh
[1:08:00] clarification on that. It was going to
be one of my first questions. Not a lot
[1:08:04] of good communication goes on sometimes.
I reached out to you last week. no
[1:08:07] return call. Genuinely would have that
could have saved me the time and having
[1:08:11] to come down here. Um, a couple of
council members remember me from coming
[1:08:15] in having to fight what I would consider
my right seat and stay on my property
[1:08:21] and I shouldn't have to to live on my
own property to survive or to being a
[1:08:27] camber. Uh, this gentleman it's been
great. Your previous uh town code
[1:08:31] enforcement officer was not the best
dealing with. Um, but the hassle of
[1:08:38] having to maintain it myself, I I put
over $8,000 into I'm sorry,
[1:08:43] » it's okay.
>> into a mile that road myself
[1:08:49] and it's hard. So to consider just to
hear someone's putting their
[1:08:53] recommendation out there or it's on the
table or being considered is frustrating
[1:08:59] beyond belief. My taxes have doubled,
tripled over the last few years. I'm
[1:09:05] sure everyone is familiar with that
themselves, but it's a lot harder. I
[1:09:09] live completely off- grid and am
surviving and doing well considering,
[1:09:14] but I don't want to get too far off
track. So, I would be adamantly opposed
[1:09:18] to it. Um, I know that it's just a
recommendation, but if it's on the
[1:09:22] table, it's considered. And I know you
all are trying to save money where you
[1:09:26] can and whatnot, but I don't know that
that's all I have is is it's been a
[1:09:30] struggle and uh I'm not getting a lot of
services from the town. So to consider
[1:09:34] you guys are up in taxes then still
removing other things is frustrating. I
[1:09:39] know you're trying to balance your
budgets and get back on track, but so
[1:09:42] frustrating. Also would have loved to
have known more about the the dump thing
[1:09:46] where you guys are charging more to get
a new compactor or something like that
[1:09:49] or it's $20 a year. Something that used
to be covered that's no longer covered.
[1:09:53] Whatever. I unfortunately missed that
meeting. Um that's all I have. Do you
[1:09:57] guys have any questions for me? I
apologize.
[1:10:00] » All right. Thank you.
>> Oh, thank you.
[1:10:07] Uh, we can move right into discussion of
items not on the agenda or public. Um,
[1:10:12] any other anyone else from the public
have anything to discuss this even?
[1:10:20] Okay, council.
[1:10:24] Okay, good discussion folks. Thank you.
Uh, committee assignments and
[1:10:31] scheduling. Um, I was going to ask if,
and I meant to mention this when I was
[1:10:36] talking with you before the meeting. I
knew I was forgetting something. Um, but
[1:10:40] we had discussed a couple meetings ago
about taking a look at some of the
[1:10:43] committee rules now that we're meeting
prior to and and not and not allowing a
[1:10:49] committee to bind the council to
anything. Um, is that that's regulatory
[1:10:53] review? Yep. So if we could have a
regulatory review uh committee meeting
[1:10:58] uh it could be either next time or or
the time after but um
[1:11:03] depending on how much time will be
needed to review that. Um any other
[1:11:07] committees
[1:11:14] regulatory review?
>> Yep.
[1:11:15] » Yeah.
[1:11:18] If there's nothing else, Sher will
entertain a motion to adjurnn.
[1:11:21] » Motion to adjourn.
>> Second. All those in favor?