[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?

Town Council 09/10/26

Transcript