[1:54] How's your ride?

[2:23] Stand

[2:40] I buy my 12. >> I hate my work.

[2:57] Yeah, I did see

[3:40] I forgot about that building. >> I don't got a brain. I just I didn't

[3:44] think there was bathroom.

[3:53] » Perfect.

[3:56] » Yeah, but I'm not going to bring the ambassador. I didn't I didn't go there.

[4:00] I was just being nice to him for first year, you know, try to get something

[4:04] together. So,

[4:10] » [clears throat] >> Well, first

[4:29] » I got tired of sitting at the house.

[4:47] It becomes bigger.

[5:08] at his office.

[5:12] » I just want to make sure

[5:18] » it has it own

[6:30] I am

[6:37] a second.

[6:48] I thought

[7:00] » Wait a second for our city manager.

[7:07] Oh, look at that.

[7:22] » Hello. All right, if everyone can turn on your

[7:26] microphone.

[7:34] I'd like to welcome everybody to the Monday, August 10th, city council

[7:37] meeting. Roll call. All counselors except councelor Kelly are present.

[7:41] Councelor Kelly is absent this evening. Would you like to do the invocation?

[7:47] » Absolutely, Madam Mayor. Uh if everybody could please join me and be in the

[7:51] attitude of prayer. We pray for our country at all times

[7:56] that all citizens are safe, healthy, and happy. We pray for wisdom for all those

[8:02] who guide and govern. Help this government body in every situation to

[8:07] know and do the things that are right and just with soundness

[8:13] of judgment in making vital decisions. We pray for the peacemakers that the

[8:19] holy lifegiven spirit may ever dwell in their hearts and the barriers of fear,

[8:26] suspicion, and hatred may fall. This we pray to the holy father. Amen.

[8:34] » All right, if you join us for the pledge of allegiance.

[8:41] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the

[8:46] republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[8:53] justice for all.

[8:58] » Item number four is the declaration of conflict of interest. Is there any

[9:02] counselor who would like to declare one at this time?

[9:07] Okay. Item number five is public forum. And before we start our public forum

[9:13] this evening, I just have a couple of comments to make. One will be that

[9:16] public forum is five minutes. So each person has five minutes to speak. Um the

[9:20] other thing I would say is if you're here to speak about the dog ordinance, I

[9:24] just ask you to save your comments for the public hearing, which is item number

[9:28] eight on the agenda. So I will open it up for public forum.

[9:40] Okay. >> There's an email for public forum.

[9:44] » Yeah. >> Oh, is there one that is not pertaining

[9:47] to the dog? Oh, I'm so sorry. Okay. >> This one's d This one's dated August

[9:52] 10th, 2026 to the mayor of Caribou, Caribou City Councilors, and City

[9:56] Manager. There um it's referencing traffic and safety concerns on Glenn

[10:02] Street. Dear mayor, city councilors, and city manager, my name is Larry Knight

[10:07] and I live at 36 Glenn Street in Caribou. I am writing because I believe

[10:11] something needs to be done to address a serious and growing safety concern on

[10:15] Glenn Street. Traffic is traveling down our street at speeds that are simply too

[10:20] fast for a residential neighborhood. Combined with the number of children,

[10:24] pedestrians, bicycles, ebikes, and scooters using the street, I am very

[10:29] concerned that we have an accident waiting to happen. My specific concerns

[10:34] include one, children riding bicycles and ebikes are frequently traveling at

[10:38] high speeds, sometimes in the middle of the roadway. With some ebikes capable of

[10:42] traveling at significant speeds, this creates a dangerous situation for both

[10:46] the children and motorists. Number two, children riding scooters. Sometimes with

[10:51] two or three children on a single scooter are also traveling at high

[10:54] speeds on the street. This creates a serious risk, particularly when they are

[10:58] sharing the roadway with moving vehicles. Number three, vehicles are

[11:02] traveling too fast on a Glenn Street throughout the day and evening. This is

[11:05] not a problem limited to a school arrival or dismissal times. It occurs

[11:10] morning, noon, evening, and at night. I am not particularly concerned that if

[11:15] something is not done, oop, my my apologies. I am particularly concerned

[11:20] that if something is not done, eventually a child, pedestrian, cyclist,

[11:24] or motorist is going to be seriously injured. Even people simply walking

[11:29] along Glenn Street are at risk, particularly at night when the vehicles

[11:32] are traveling at higher speeds and the visibility is reduced. I understand that

[11:37] increased police enforcement will seem like one possible solution, but I do not

[11:41] believe it is reasonable to expect the Caribou Police Department to

[11:45] continuously monitor one residential street. No police department can have

[11:49] eyes on this situation 24 hours a day. And as this problem extends well beyond

[11:54] school hours, I respectfully ask the city to give serious consideration to a

[11:59] more permanent traffic calming solution for Glenn Street. Speed bumps or other

[12:03] appropriate traffic calming measures could help reduce vehicle speeds and

[12:07] encourage drivers to recognize that this is a residential neighborhood where

[12:11] children and pedestrians are frequently present. I would much rather see the

[12:15] city take preventive action now than wait until a serious accident occurs and

[12:19] then ask if they could have done things differently.

[12:23] Please give this matter your serious consideration and consider having the

[12:27] appropriate city department review Glen Street to determine what south traffic

[12:31] calming and safety measures may be appropriate. Thank you for your time for

[12:35] taking these concerns under consideration. Sincerely, Larry Knight,

[12:39] 36 Glen Street. cure for me.

[12:44] » Thank you. >> Quick question about that, Penny. Um,

[12:49] when we built the school, was there some provision? I thought there was supposed

[12:53] to be something put in place like maybe where the crosswalks were. I thought

[12:56] there was some extra measure that was going to be put in place to slow traffic

[13:00] down around the school. Is that am I just remembering that wrong?

[13:04] » Maybe we should look back into that because I do think there was supposed to

[13:08] be something that was put in place. I believe correct.

[13:10] » Yeah, >> they also proposed a oneway street there

[13:13] too. They also proposed a one-way street.

[13:15] » Okay. >> Um to try to slow down traffic. There

[13:18] was a lot of conversation around. >> Yeah, I remember something. So maybe

[13:22] look into that >> because I was living there at the time

[13:24] and talking about it. >> Yeah.

[13:27] » Um is there anyone else from the public who wishes to speak?

[13:33] Okay. Um next item on our agenda are minutes from previous meetings. And we

[13:38] have minutes from May 11th, June 15th, June 29th, and July 20th on our agenda

[13:45] this evening. Has everyone had a chance to look those over? Yes. I'd like to

[13:49] make a motion to accept them pending some adjustments to or some amendments

[13:54] to those uh minutes. On page 17, um

[14:01] on page 17 at the top, it says motion made by councelor

[14:06] Eastston. It should be Watson. Um, page 18,

[14:12] it refers to July 120th. I think it should be July 20th.

[14:19] On page 32,

[14:24] uh, it talks about Chief Lejoy. Uh, and like halfway down the page, it says he

[14:32] explained that he received several vehicles back. I think it should be bids

[14:36] back. Um page

[14:41] where am I? 32. Page 34. Um under council agenda item number

[14:48] eight, there was a motion made uh but there was no vote recorded there. So I'm

[14:54] thinking there should be a vote recorded. And then on page 37

[15:00] uh at the bottom there's a roll call. And I believe that needs to be removed.

[15:14] » Could you repeat the last one, please? >> Sure. On page 37,

[15:19] uh there's a roll call that I believe needs to be removed at the bottom

[15:23] for G. >> Thank you.

[15:25] » Yep. >> If there's no other amendments, I would

[15:29] second this. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any

[15:32] further discussion? Baggley.

[15:36] » Hi, >> Nightfair.

[15:37] » I >> Lovewell

[15:38] » I >> Smith

[15:39] » I >> Watson

[15:41] » I >> I motion carries.

[15:44] Okay. Item number seven is bid openings, awards, and appointments. And this

[15:48] evening we have a bid opening for 103 Water Street um the old starch plant

[15:53] demolition. That's on page 40 of your packet.

[15:57] And Tim is here to talk with us about that. evening. Um, so on July 14th, uh,

[16:05] we opened

[16:08] or we issued a, uh, RFP for 103 for the demo of 103 Water Street on July 14th.

[16:15] Last Friday, we opened the bids. Uh, we received a bid from Sardar Construction

[16:19] for 68 thou $68,350. Um, and would suggest awarding the bid

[16:27] to such. That was the low bidder. um other bids that came in at 141 and then

[16:32] 350,000. So we did have three bids on it um from

[16:36] different contractors. >> Could you say those amounts one more

[16:38] time? I'm sorry. >> 141. So it was 141,000. Y

[16:42] » uh and then the final bid was 350. >> Okay. Okay. What are the wishes or does

[16:47] anyone have any questions I guess for [clears throat]

[16:50] » so excuse the so the the final bid from which is low bidder was Carl or or

[16:56] Serber construction excuse me >> and they were uh at what

[17:00] » 68,350 >> 68,000

[17:07] » y looking on here

[17:10] » I'm just sharing here >> okay and this is taking into all the

[17:14] environmental Riverside, all the all the other

[17:18] impacts. >> So, we did point out that they're going

[17:21] to need soil and um soil and sedimentation fencing and stuff. This

[17:26] actually falls just outside of a shoreland zone. Um which should make

[17:30] things slightly easier. Um my understanding when we put the RFP out is

[17:36] that environmental studies had already been done and the site was clear. So

[17:40] unless something crops up unexpectedly, there's not a whole lot there other than

[17:45] some concrete and some steel right now. >> Right.

[17:48] » So >> awesome. And is that fencing going to

[17:51] remain up? >> Uh for the moment it will, but that

[17:55] whole area is going to be removed and then graded at a 2:1 slope. So it'll

[18:01] have a downhill slope. I guess my only concern is the the access for maybe

[18:05] maybe kids or passers by to go through that that location down kind of over

[18:11] that that hill. >> So once it's once it's all graded like

[18:15] when it's final it'll just have a a slope

[18:19] » like a standard down slope. >> I gotcha. Okay.

[18:21] » So they can somebody still fall down a hill? Yes. But not any different than

[18:25] any other hill. >> Okay. That's great. [clears throat]

[18:29] So this is at 103 water street, not 7. >> Okay.

[18:35] Yeah. After it. So that you were thinking that.

[18:38] » Yeah, I got it. I got it. >> All the way at the end of the road.

[18:40] » Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> There's fencing on the deck. That's why

[18:44] I >> Yeah.

[18:45] » So >> perfect. Any other questions or

[18:49] comments? >> Okay. What are the wishes of council? I

[18:54] move to award Solderberg Construction Company the contract to demolish 103

[18:58] Water Street. >> I second it. Motion and a second. Any

[19:02] further discussion? >> Baggley.

[19:06] » I. >> Nightfair.

[19:07] » I. >> Lovewell.

[19:07] » Hi. >> Smith.

[19:09] » Yes. >> Watson.

[19:11] » I. >> I. Motion carries.

[19:16] » Item number 7B is a facade improvement grant summer application period

[19:20] committee recommendations. Those start on page 41 of your packet. Has everyone

[19:26] had a chance to take a look at those.

[19:30] Open up the floor to any discussion. >> It was a wonderful uh we were able to uh

[19:36] or were recommending I should say the committee is recommending we have uh

[19:46] approximately I think 35,000. Is that what

[19:50] » 35,675 >> as we have this we what we're

[19:55] recommending is that we take the 20 because we do 20 in the fall and 20 in

[20:01] the spring that we move we fund all these projects

[20:06] and uh uh and and bring that forth. Um the money's there. It's one of the few

[20:13] things we can do um to help with these with the some there's some good projects

[20:20] here if if everybody's looked at it. I mean, we spent 3 hours

[20:25] a week or so ago uh with a great group. So, I'm just uh I I'll recommend that we

[20:31] do that and then we use the 20 that'll leave us approximately

[20:36] and I think Dave Dave was here as well. So that we uh representing the planning

[20:42] board and Craig Staples um good group. So, uh I'm I'll I will make a motion

[20:48] that we uh

[20:57] » exactly okay to allocate 2026 funds for facade

[21:02] improvement grant pursuant to the review committee's recommendation in the amount

[21:07] of 35,675.80.

[21:12] » I'll second that. We have a motion and a second. Further discussion.

[21:17] » I just want to say that I'm really happy to see so many applicants. This is a

[21:21] really good turnout. So that's excellent.

[21:23] » I was going to say I think you know seven applicants and for us to be able

[21:26] to help seven projects and it's really great.

[21:29] » We we also a couple of things we could talk about to bringing the uh we have

[21:34] $40,000 a year on on the spring and the fall

[21:40] program. uh we didn't have anybody or or very few

[21:46] in the spring program. So, >> right,

[21:48] » we we'll bring that forth and and that'll still leave us around uh

[21:53] 5,000 uh for the fall, which is going to be

[21:59] Ben Ben can speak to that more of that, but so it's it's a great program. It's

[22:03] one of my favorites. >> All right,

[22:06] » so I'll just I'll leave it at that. >> Further discussion?

[22:09] » No. Egley >> I

[22:11] » Mike Fair I >> Lovewell I

[22:13] » Smith >> absolutely

[22:15] » Watson >> I

[22:16] » I motion carries >> Peter just brought up um the packet from

[22:22] the police department is every does everyone else have a

[22:27] » Thank you. Item number eight is public hearings and

[22:32] possible action items. And we do have a public hearing as you all know on the

[22:36] agenda this evening and that is ordinance six of the 2026 series and it

[22:40] is an animal control ordinance. This is on page 44 of your packet.

[22:46] » Mhm.

[22:54] » Okay. So, I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing at 6:16

[23:00] p.m.

[23:04] And Eric, did you want to come up and just kind of present what you have

[23:08] before we open up the floor to comments and questions?

[23:11] » Sure.

[23:17] » Uh, good evening everybody. Uh, members of the council, um, manager Thompson,

[23:22] uh, my name is Eric Sanderson. I'm the economic and community development

[23:25] specialist for the city of Caribou. Um over the winter and spring months, uh I

[23:30] was able to work with the planning board uh to update these animal control

[23:34] standards from about uh a page to um something a little bit more

[23:37] comprehensive um related to animal welfare unsanitary conditions and noise.

[23:42] Um this was looked at in conjunction with both the planning board and the

[23:46] police department as the city's animal control officers. Um everything drafted

[23:51] to date has been for uh public health, safety, and the welfare of uh caribou

[23:55] residents um and their beloved uh four-legged animals. Um the current

[24:00] draft was modeled after other municipalities in Maine uh that have

[24:04] similar standards. uh many of the figures and limits in the standards were

[24:09] um added in as a item of discussion um which was uh further clarified by the

[24:14] council um to change that a little bit. Um after the city council introduced the

[24:19] ordinance and amendments at its July 20th meeting um the public hearing was

[24:23] set and that's kind of where we are tonight. Um so with that I'm happy to

[24:28] answer questions and listen to public comment. Thank you.

[24:30] » Okay. Thank you. Okay. Are there any members of the

[24:35] public who wish to speak? >> Okay. Um,

[24:39] » come on up and state your name. And well, first we have to allow the public

[24:43] to speak and then the council can speak. >> Uh, good evening. I'm Laura Bishop. I

[24:47] live at 684 Sween Street in Caribou. Um, this is pertaining to the ordinance.

[24:54] So, I'm speaking tonight because I strongly oppose the proposed changes of

[24:57] to the Caribou dog ordinance, particularly the decision to place a

[25:01] blanket limit on the number of dogs a resident may own. My biggest concern is

[25:05] that this ordinance appears to single up dog owners rather than address the

[25:09] actual problem, irresponsible animal ownership, and nuisance behavior. If the

[25:14] concern is excessive noise, animals running at large, unsanitary conditions,

[25:18] neglect or disturbances to neighboring properties, then those behaviors should

[25:23] be addressed directly and consistently. They are not problems exclusive to dogs.

[25:28] A responsible person owning six dogs should not automatically be treated as

[25:32] more of a problem than somebody owning five dogs, 10 cats, or multiple animals.

[25:37] A dog does not suddenly become a nuisance simply because it is the sixth

[25:41] dog living on a property. Meanwhile, other domesticated animals

[25:45] can create noise, roam onto neighboring properties, damage property, create

[25:49] sanitation issues, and become legitimate nuisances as well. That is why I

[25:54] question why dogs are being singled out. If the city believes that there is a

[25:58] legitimate animal nuisance problem in the in caribou, then I would encourage

[26:03] the council to create an ordinance based on behavior conditions and responsible

[26:07] ownership rather than arbitrary number attached to one species of animal.

[26:13] Enforcing excessive barking. Enforce animals running at large. Enforce

[26:18] neglect and unsanitary conditions. Enforce situations where someone's

[26:21] animals are genuinely interfering with their neighbors ability to peacefully

[26:26] enjoy their property. Those are reasonable standards because they

[26:29] address the actual problem. But simply owning more than five dogs does not

[26:35] prove that someone is irresponsible or that their animals are a nuisance. I'm

[26:39] also concerned about the precedent this creates. If this justification is that

[26:43] having more than a certain number of dogs might create a nuisance, then why

[26:47] wouldn't that same reasoning be applied to cats and other domesticated animals?

[26:52] If six dogs are automatically considered too many, what makes six, eight, or 10

[26:58] cats acceptable? Where does that where is the objective standard? Ordinances

[27:03] should be based on demonstrable problems and applied fairly not written in a way

[27:08] that dis dispositorly apologies on that impacts one group of

[27:13] responsible animal owners because of the type of animal they choose to own. There

[27:18] there is an important difference between regulating irresponsible ownership and

[27:22] regulating responsible people simply because they own more animals than

[27:26] someone else believes they should. I'm asking the council to reconsider

[27:32] this ordinance and instead of focus on regulations that apply to actual

[27:35] nuisance behavior regardless of whether the animal involved is a dog, cat, or

[27:40] other domesticated animal. Responsible dog owners should not be punished for

[27:44] their actions of irresponsible ones. If there is a nuisance, address the

[27:48] nuisance. If there is neglect, address the neglect. If an animal is creating a

[27:53] legitimate public safety issue, address that issue. But please do not assume

[27:57] that the number of dogs someone owns automatically determines whether they

[28:01] are a responsible member of this community. I urge the council to reject

[28:05] this ordinance as currently written and develop something that is fair,

[28:09] consistent, and focused on actual behavior causing the problem rather than

[28:13] unfairly singling out dog owners. >> Thank you.

[28:17] » Thank you. >> Thank you.

[28:24] » You can save this one. I have on my computer.

[28:27] » Yeah. >> All right. Is there anyone else who

[28:30] wishes to speak? Pat, come on up.

[28:35] » I didn't time myself. So, if I go over five minutes, please just

[28:40] wave me off. >> Oh, we'll we'll get the hook.

[28:43] » Okay. [laughter] And and before I start, I just want to preface my remarks just

[28:47] with a couple of things. Um first of all, I am a dog lover. Um uh I'm a dog

[28:53] person. I have lived with dogs most of my life. However, having stated that, I

[28:58] want to thank all the people uh who dedicated time to research, to consider,

[29:04] to consult, and to converse and uh to bring these uh suggested ordinances to

[29:10] us. And I also thank you for reminding us that citizenship is not just a matter

[29:16] of racking up rights, but it is a matter of embracing responsibility and

[29:21] accepting compromise when needed. So in section 3-104,

[29:28] » did you say your name? >> Oh, um it's um officially it's Mary Pn

[29:34] and Pat. Okay.

[29:39] um uh not to create a nuisance. I would

[29:43] also ask that you address the issue of animals because I I'm please tell me if

[29:48] I'm I'm mistaken in this. Um who while on their own property, not just public

[29:54] property. Um and who do not bite a person but in a chronic matter are

[30:01] allowed to charge on tethers that sometimes hold and sometimes do not

[30:07] hold. I suggest also the inclusion of dogs on their own property who are not

[30:12] constrained but charge. It is if one is distracted by a char a charging dog and

[30:18] has to remove the focus from let's say an early spring melt or an icy or

[30:24] slushcovered winter sidewalk in order to discern um the dog state of containment.

[30:30] Bad things can happen. People can be injured. dogs can be killed and people

[30:36] should be able to stroll with family, dogs and friends without making chronic

[30:42] assessments about charging dogs. Um, and please know I don't include in um in

[30:48] this those dogs who are alert passers by and then cease or are corrected by their

[30:53] own people. Um, you also note that a leash shall not be more than eight feet

[30:59] long. Um this is a bit um tongue andcheek but um please require testing

[31:04] for all people with retractable leashes to prove that they are able to discern

[31:09] what is 8 ft long. Okay, with those lovely retractable leashes in section 3

[31:16] uh-501 animal waste and other disturbances

[31:19] um I hope your considerations will encourage those who don't to do um but I

[31:25] do say good luck to all of us there. Um, I ask, however, that you consider a

[31:31] compromise regarding birds.

[31:35] Um, I I know that cities not far from us are having really serious rodent

[31:41] problems. Um, and I don't mean little chipmunks, I mean the big guys. And uh,

[31:46] the decis of feeding is an important issue and it can be an annoyance.

[31:52] But however, for some people, birding, feeding birds, caring for them, watching

[31:58] them, enjoying them, it really is an avocation,

[32:04] a real avocation and an important one. I would suggest that feed uh feeding be

[32:10] permitted late fall um all winter and early spring with no repercussions. But

[32:17] the understanding must be immediately as the snow is receding the feeding areas

[32:23] must be scrupulously clean and they have to remain so. Um ladies and gentlemen,

[32:29] living in a city it requires compromise. Um

[32:34] uh I can't deny people lawn ornaments that I despise. Um and those flashing

[32:39] lights I'm sure can cause seizures. U I'm sure of it. and um floating spores

[32:45] of weeds coming onto my property and and so on and so on and so on. Um but please

[32:52] allow those burers that joy and perhaps even their sustenance. Okay. Um finally,

[33:00] I know this will never fly, but mercy. Okay. I ask that in cases of harmful,

[33:07] annoying, or even deadly behavior that if possible, consideration be given

[33:14] to a dog's rehabilitation after perhaps being placed with another

[33:18] family or even an entity. Um, please give a dog whose essence has been

[33:25] crippled by our species a chance to live, maybe even to thrive.

[33:32] And I would love to see all those signs that read beware of the dog or the dogs

[33:37] removed and forced to read instead beware of the people

[33:43] again. And I know that will be a long shot um but any mercy that's possible.

[33:49] Thank you again for all this work and for reminding us once again that

[33:53] citizenship is not just rights but also responsibility and the ability to

[33:58] compromise when we are asked to realize that we are a we and not an I. And I

[34:06] thank all of you okay so very much. Thank you.

[34:09] » Thank you. >> Thank you.

[34:10] » Thank you

[34:16] [clears throat] because I live with a dog. I have to go home and take care of

[34:19] them. [laughter] Um,

[34:22] do you need my name on you? Good. >> Okay. Thank you so much for Thank you

[34:26] everybody. >> Thank you.

[34:28] » Is there anyone else from the public who wishes to speak? Yep. Come on up. State

[34:32] your name and address. >> My name is Ken Powers. I live at 33

[34:36] Pioneer Avenue. I don't have a prepared statement and I'm not a polished speaker

[34:41] like the two people that went before me, but I really am appreciative of that you

[34:48] folks have taken this thing about uh dog ownership a little more seriously than

[34:53] what you have been throughout the years. I was born and raised in this town and I

[35:00] remember as a kid uh maybe two or three dogs in a neighborhood. Now, there's at

[35:06] least 30 dogs with an earshot in my residence. And sometimes I feel like I'm

[35:12] living at a dog count. I had a neighbor that moved in behind

[35:17] me. She's got six dogs, if not more, and she seems to be pretty irresponsible

[35:24] because she just lets them bark. Uh

[35:29] if you think that five dogs is enough, uh living in a close residential

[35:35] neighborhood to where I live and in other parts of

[35:39] town, five dogs is a lot of dogs for one person when you have neighbors right

[35:44] next to you. And it just seems like there seems to be a lot of irresponsible

[35:50] people. I know. I can hear some some of these dogs barking for most of the

[35:56] afternoon. It's crazy. And if you think that 15

[36:01] minutes is allowable, 5 minutes of listening to someone else's

[36:06] dog bark for five continuous minutes is a long time, let alone 15 minutes.

[36:14] It's It's a long time. It disturbs my peace. I can't even sit on my back deck

[36:20] for 10 minutes at a time without having to listen to someone's dogs bark.

[36:25] They're not barking at me. They're barking at everything that moves, any

[36:29] sound that they hear. You know, not everybody is irresponsible

[36:34] like that. That I do know. But there are irresponsible folks. Uh my backyard

[36:41] neighbor, she seems that barking dogs is music to her ears.

[36:47] I personally sat on my back deck at around 10:30 at night and she will just

[36:53] start those dogs up. They're in her house and she has a regular concert

[36:58] going on there with dogs barking and how she encourages it.

[37:04] This is crazy, folks. I really don't even want to live in this

[37:09] town if I have to keep listening to all these dogs barking. You know, if it's

[37:14] not dogs, it's crows in the morning. You know, Caribou does have a crow issue.

[37:20] Also, we got people feeding it, throwing bread

[37:25] out on the lawns, encouraging these birds that keep coming back. You know,

[37:29] the crows, the raccoons, and everything else that comes around at night time.

[37:34] You know, we live in an urban jungle here. There's animals all over this

[37:39] township at nighttime. you know, uh, that's basically all I

[37:45] have to say. I just wanted to give my two cents and I really thank you folks

[37:49] for bringing this to issue and and try to get serious about it, but listen, 15

[37:56] minutes of continuous parking is a long time.

[38:00] » Thank you. I don't have a clear statement to give to anybody, but

[38:05] » thank you. >> Is there anyone else from the public who

[38:10] wishes to speak?

[38:14] State your name and address. >> My name is Gloria Lere. I live at 489

[38:17] Access Highway. I think it's good that you're bringing up new rules and

[38:21] regulations and people should be responsible for the pets and clean up

[38:24] after them. But we should all get together with dog owners and everything

[38:29] and come up with what is going to fit into this town of people. And I think

[38:33] that's a good idea. Yes, five minutes barking dogs. Yes, I understand that.

[38:39] But there's also black crawlers. There's also address the problem. Go and educate

[38:45] people what is out there to have us all live together because it is a

[38:50] responsibility when you own so many. But the number of dogs, if you can afford

[38:55] it, that is fine. If you can't, that should be addressed. I just wanted to

[38:59] bring that forward and say thank you. We should have new laws and regulations,

[39:03] but pet owners should be involved in it, I would think. And I would like to say

[39:07] thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you.

[39:09] » Thank you. >> Yes.

[39:12] » Okay. >> Is there anyone else from the public who

[39:15] wishes to speak?

[39:20] » Okay. Yep. We can go ahead and read the letters that have come in. I believe we

[39:23] have two letters from citizens. So, yep, you can go ahead. Um, this is a letter

[39:30] from Scott Fair uh at on Sweden Street in Caribou and he says his the subject

[39:38] [clears throat] is titled proposed amendment chapter 3 article 1. While I

[39:42] understand the proposal, I would point out the wording. Changing the wording

[39:47] from constable or officer to caribou official creates a scenario where

[39:54] enforcement can be delegated or carried out by persons with no law enforcement

[40:00] background or training. This could place the city in an untenable situation if a

[40:05] situation arises around fourth amendment issues of search and seizure where a

[40:11] person without the appropriate training and knowledge violates a citizen's

[40:14] rights. The term city official is far too broad and needs to be narrowed to

[40:21] prevent issues.

[40:26] » Thank you. >> I believe you have one as well.

[40:28] » I do as well from Alexander Weekes and the subject is proposed dog ordinance.

[40:34] Dear Miss Brazette and members of the city council, thank you for your service

[40:38] and looking at ways to protect animals from abusive and neglectful situations.

[40:42] I appreciate the work that has gone into updating the city's animal control

[40:46] ordinance and I support the goal of keeping the public safe and ensuring

[40:50] that dogs are under appropriate control in public places.

[40:55] I understand that the provision limiting leashes to no more than 8 ft is not new

[40:59] language but rather language from the existing ordinance that is being carried

[41:03] forward into the proposed ordinance. Since the ordinance is currently being

[41:07] reviewed and updated, however, I would ask the city to consider whether that

[41:11] particular restriction is still necessary. Rather than setting an

[41:15] arbitrary maximum leash length, I believe the ordinance should focus on

[41:19] what actually matters, whether the owner or handler has immediate and effective

[41:23] control of the animal. There are many situations where a responsible owner may

[41:28] appropriately use a longer lead while walking, training, or exercising a dog

[41:32] in an open public area. A dog on a 10 or 15t lead may be in excellent control

[41:40] under excellent control while a dog on a 6ft leash may not be. The le length of

[41:44] the leash itself does not necessarily determine whether an animal is being

[41:48] responsibly controlled. I would suggest replacing the eight-foot restriction

[41:52] with language such as the leasher lead shall be of a length and used in a

[41:57] manner that allows the handler to maintain immediate and effective control

[42:01] of the animal and prevent the animal from creating a hazard or interfering

[42:05] with other persons, animals, vehicles or property. This would preserve the intent

[42:10] of the existing ordinance and still give the law enforcement or animal control

[42:14] the ability to address situations where an animal is not being properly

[42:18] restrained without unnecessarily restricting responsible owners who use

[42:22] longer leads appropriately. Since this is since this provision is already being

[42:26] revisited as part of the larger ordinance update, I hope the city will

[42:30] consider modernizing this section as well. Thank you for your consideration.

[42:34] Sincerely, Andrew Week Alexandra Weeks.

[42:40] Thank you. >> Is there any other member of the public

[42:44] who wishes to speak?

[42:48] » Okay. I would move the conversation to the council. Councelor Watson. Yep.

[42:52] » Have you had something you wanted to share?

[42:54] » Yes, I do. Um I agree with most everything here that was said. I also

[42:59] went back and reread this and I've been having conversations with Eric.

[43:04] There you are. And um some of the things that have been already noted that I

[43:10] would agree with um obviously appointing who does what to who for how many jelly

[43:15] beans. Um, we already outlined that in section 3-107

[43:21] of who's to be considered. And I agree that the first reading that says any

[43:26] caribou official or officer, but it does clarify that in section 3-107,

[43:32] which would clarify who is going to be able to actually say something and do

[43:36] something. My next concern goes down to the limitation of dogs.

[43:44] My concern there is not so much on the number of dogs,

[43:49] but of the capacity to care for the dogs and their ability to act responsibly

[43:54] within the community. If we say that we're going to chase anybody with five

[43:59] dogs, I can understand that concept. But in the same respect, if all you've got

[44:03] is one dog and it's a holy terror for the entire neighborhood to try to

[44:06] tolerate, then I think that's just big a concern as having five dogs. In the same

[44:11] respect, if you have five well-mannered dogs, I don't think that has any place

[44:16] to play. What I do suspect that is more of a I shouldn't say suspect. What I do

[44:22] fear is that the way we're heading down the road with this is that by focusing

[44:29] on certain things, and it's outlined here in the ordinance rather well on the

[44:34] life liberty of the animal and what they're capable of doing. I would much

[44:39] rather see us focus on taking care of the animals as opposed to having someone

[44:45] having just one animal that's violent, mean, and chained outside 365. I think

[44:52] that needs to be addressed. Um, having said that, the barking and howling dogs

[44:58] under section 3-41,

[45:03] I understand 15 minutes is a long time, but I also understand this is caribou

[45:09] and you outlined it so perfectly that we have many wild animals in the community

[45:14] and we also have people wandering through our community that are either a

[45:19] homeless or under the influence of substances.

[45:23] And a dog alerting on that type of stuff is not going to be pulled into control

[45:30] no matter how well trained they are because they're protecting their home,

[45:33] their family, their territory. 15 minutes is not enough. What I want to

[45:38] see it though is I want to see the control that goes with that piece. I

[45:42] want to see the owner being responsible. To just simply turn up your TV louder

[45:48] and allow the dog to bark outside is unacceptable. I want to see that

[45:52] intervention. I think that's where that needs to be focused there. So I think

[45:57] that needs to be addressed in this. Um I think during the day the problem is we

[46:03] have people who are ill responsible and they leave for work and they're gone for

[46:09] 8 hours and that dog's outside. I think that's that needs to be addressed and

[46:14] these can all be addressed as noise nuisances and handled appropriately by

[46:18] law enforcement. Um, but I think during the day when everybody's up and quote at

[46:24] work, I think an hour is an acceptable time limit to handle because that if I'm

[46:31] if I ran downtown to get something from the store and I'm coming back, my dog's

[46:36] barking and I, you know, I handle the dog in a responsible manner as soon as I

[46:40] get back. That's a time issue that I had no clue. You know, someone walked

[46:45] through my backyard, the dog alerted. you know, these things. I think we need

[46:48] to think a little bit better on that down in section D of 3-41.

[46:55] Um, we've kind of mentioned this and it's

[46:59] not being stressed enough. This ordinance is primarily within the DOT

[47:04] compact zone. Okay? When you're on when you're in R3

[47:08] or you're outside the DOT compact zone, there's a little more room and there's

[47:12] need for a little more leniency. Um last two pieces last yeah

[47:19] the last one here and I think that's something we need to

[47:24] discuss as a group what we consider when to and how to surrender an animal and I

[47:29] don't want to get into that because I want to keep this fairly short. My last

[47:31] one last two is section 3-71 rabies. Has anybody really read this?

[47:40] Because this is crazy. This says that during a an outbreak of rabies within

[47:45] the community, we will quarantine every animal inside the home. So, if I own an

[47:53] apartment, an apartment or I rent an apartment, I'm on the second floor. I

[47:58] can't take my dog outside to go to the bathroom. I'm locked. I

[48:04] mean, that's what it says. And it says the mayor has within their power to, you

[48:08] know, do this for the entire community. dogs still got to go outside. Dogs still

[48:13] got to go to the bathroom. Um, so I think that needs to be revisited. And

[48:18] then the last thing I want to say, there's a thing that we talk about in

[48:23] section 3-81, when dogs may be killed.

[48:28] I'm I'm scared of the wording that says or caused an abrasion of the skin of any

[48:34] person.

[48:38] The best way to explain it is to show you an example. I don't like you. You

[48:43] have a dog.

[48:47] Your animal just came and got me. That's why when I worked in emergency

[48:52] rooms and in other communities, we always use the phrase broke skin because

[48:58] at that point, it's a true representation of the aggressive labeler

[49:02] label of the dog. I think that needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, because of

[49:07] all these uh items, I do not feel comfortable in voting for this

[49:12] ordinance. I agree that it needs to be worked on further. I think at that point

[49:18] when all this is addressed, however we decide to do it, it'll be a much better

[49:23] ordinance. I can go to Daniel. And um I think that's where we need to

[49:29] be. So, that's my input on that. Anyone else from the council wish to speak?

[49:35] » I do. Um, I just want to say I I do think that in 371, just to to Paul's

[49:40] point, that it's just saying you can't take your dog into the streets. I don't

[49:44] I don't think that the intention is that you can't take them into your own yard.

[49:48] I could be wrong on how I'm reading that, but um I've had more feedback on

[49:53] this than any other item ever on council. And so this is a very hot issue

[49:58] for our our citizens and the people in this community. Um, and there I think

[50:04] there are some concerns. I think there's some legitimate concerns. Uh, that being

[50:08] said, I think it's um important to give our law enforcement and people who are

[50:13] in charge with keeping us safe some teeth, so to speak, on um, you know,

[50:21] rules or ordinances that can um, keep people safe and keep pe keep these

[50:26] animals healthy and safe because that's a huge issue. Um, I'm not sure that

[50:31] we're having a lot of aggressive dogs attacking people necessarily, but I do

[50:36] think that there are um maybe more animals that are being neglected or

[50:42] abused or um not attended to that this would fall under just kind of looking at

[50:48] some of the numbers, but that that again could be wrong. I just feel like we need

[50:52] to to continue to look at it as well. Um because I definitely I I see and I hear

[50:58] the citizens that are voicing their concerns and I want to make sure we get

[51:02] it right. So

[51:07] » anyone else on council? Deputy mayor. >> Yeah. I uh I was growing up on a as a

[51:13] young man on a farm. I understand animals u understand we're doing this

[51:19] but I don't know why this regulation

[51:24] maybe uh maybe not necessary I mean if you're

[51:28] responsible owner of animals and uh and that then

[51:35] everything should be good if you're not well then you we can't regulate that.

[51:39] So, uh, before I really,

[51:45] uh, I agree with some of these things on here,

[51:49] uh, and I think you you just mentioned, Tamara, that, uh, you know, this this is

[51:55] regulated as dogs maybe just necessarily, but we could be we can be

[52:00] looking at other other animals as well. So,

[52:05] I'll stop there.

[52:09] Anyone else?

[52:13] » Oh, did you want to have some public input? Um, yes. Yeah, that's fine. You

[52:17] just need to come up and state your name and address.

[52:22] » My address is where I live. >> Wayne Ayes, 19 Montgomery Avenue.

[52:28] Um, I just came because I heard rumors today about some of the stuff that

[52:32] people were adding stuff together um about the timeline and coming on the

[52:36] property and taking the dog out of the can. I'm a canine handler with Border

[52:40] Patrol, so that kind of I was like, I don't know what if they come on my

[52:43] property. Um, the only, so just going off of what everybody said and what

[52:49] y'all have said, the only problems that I'm see that that caribou official

[52:54] thing, I really agree with that, that very much needs to be changed. That's

[52:58] given too much power to just anybody that doesn't have a law enforcement

[53:02] background. Um, and then the other thing about

[53:08] having the dog on the leash or at heel beside them,

[53:14] I I think you're given if if you want to make an ordinance, you you need to make

[53:18] an ordinance like it either needs to be leash or no leash because you're going

[53:22] to every every dog owner thinks their dog is the best behaved dog in the world

[53:27] and they're going to listen to them, right? So, if you're going to have a

[53:30] leash law or leash ordinance, whatever you want to call it, it needs to be

[53:34] leash or no leash. You can't you can't have both cuz then you can't enforce it,

[53:39] right? Um and then the the barking thing, I get

[53:46] that mine's outside during the summer. Um he

[53:52] barks when I'm when I'm getting ready for work. So, I hope it's not more for

[53:55] more than five minutes. But um yeah, that's it. Just I mean

[54:01] everything you're obviously going to have to work on it, right? But those are

[54:04] the only things that I see. >> Thank you.

[54:11] » Sure. [clears throat]

[54:14] » Troy Haney, 236 Van Bureau. Just a quick something to consider too if it gets

[54:19] looked at is um wireless leashes. Like my dog has a collar. We have an

[54:24] underground. So somebody would drive by and think that dog's not on a leash, but

[54:28] I can guarantee I put a t-bone steak on the outside of the shock line and she

[54:32] ain't going there. But so it's just something that may may be unobvious for

[54:36] a lot of people. So and the other question I guess I would have is, you

[54:39] know, obviously we go in we live in a rural community in some shops and my dog

[54:43] isn't in my shop personally, but there's plenty of shops where they have dogs

[54:47] that are part of their environment at the store and they're loose and things

[54:51] like that. So how would that be handled in this ordinance? It's just something

[54:54] to consider because for some places that's uh part of the culture of the

[54:57] store and people I've had my own dogs in my store before. Carone I do have isn't

[55:02] but uh people came just to see the dog sometimes. So I think more than maybe

[55:06] some just things to consider. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you.

[55:11] » Anyone else?

[55:14] I do think that we probably need to again I think we need to pull this back,

[55:20] rework it, but I think we also need to have an ordinance for livestock in our

[55:24] community and you know that type of stuff. We're going to do this. Let's do

[55:29] this right. Let's do every section. Let's break it down. Let's cover it all.

[55:32] » I mean, I will say I was happy to see some of the dog verbiage come out. Um,

[55:38] and I know I was kind of the past couple of meetings talking about that

[55:42] light-heartedly, mind you, but I, you know, did feel like it was very heavily

[55:47] leaning toward dogs. So, I was happy to see some of that language change. But I

[55:51] do think we still have a lot of work to do on this. And I agree that we should

[55:54] have some livestock provisions or look at that a little bit more.

[55:57] » Y >> um, before we finalize this. So, I would

[56:01] agree that it has has a little work to left to do on it.

[56:05] I think we should add in mini Highland cows allowed in the city, but I haven't

[56:09] found one. >> I love that idea.

[56:11] » Thanks. >> What? I didn't quite hear that.

[56:13] [laughter] >> Highland cows.

[56:15] » Oh, yes. She would like a little husband.

[56:18] » You can make me a motion, would you? >> I'll second it. Um, you'll have to come

[56:22] up and state your name and address. >> I just want to refer to this livestock

[56:27] issue. Uh, I read the uh abstract from when my parents bought my piece of

[56:34] property from Samuel Collins and stipulated it stipulated uh back then

[56:39] back in the late 40s early 50s uh no farm animals, no chickens, no pigs, no

[56:47] goats, you know, and I don't know if that was

[56:51] an ordinance or just a stipulation from the folks that were buying up uh

[56:57] properties way back then. I just wanted to add that in there. And another thing

[57:02] is since you're going to be discussing this dog thing a little more before it

[57:06] comes to a final vote, will you be holding another public hearing

[57:11] » after you get some of the things ironed out so the public can

[57:15] » I think we would need to if we make amendments to the ordinance, we would

[57:19] have to to have another public hearing. >> We'd have to uh

[57:23] » Yeah. >> Would we have to have another public

[57:24] hearing? We just amen. >> Yeah. If we

[57:27] » No, I think if it's >> we just amend this.

[57:30] » No, you still have to have a public hearing.

[57:32] » They still have to have public hearing >> cuz we're going to do we're going to do

[57:36] pen and ink changes, not just, you know, clarification for spelling and grammar.

[57:40] So, that means another public hearing. >> Okay. Anything further?

[57:43] » No. >> Okay. I'm going to come out of the

[57:46] public hearing at 6:50 p.m. And I guess we would want a motion or

[57:53] direction from the council. >> Sure. I'll make a motion. I make a

[57:56] motion that we pull this ordinance. Ordinance. What's the name of this one?

[58:00] Six. Ordinance six. >> Six. 2026.

[58:06] » Thank you. Whispers. [laughter]

[58:09] Ordinance six. Uh 2026 series animal control ordinance public hearing that it

[58:15] be brought back into the fold of the council, reworked, and then represented

[58:20] at a later date with all the inputs that's been provided here.

[58:24] » I second that. Can I just make a quick a well I maybe amendment to that is I

[58:29] think it would kind of go back to the folks that were working on initially not

[58:33] necessarily the council but >> do you want to go back all the way to

[58:35] the planning board? >> Well that's where

[58:38] » I think Eric's been working on this with members of the planning board.

[58:41] » Yeah. Okay. Then we'll go that far back. >> So that's that was my question. So

[58:46] you're bringing >> I mean that's what I would just suggest.

[58:49] I didn't mean to take over your motion. I

[58:51] » No, no. Fine. Amend it. Let's roll. I mean, that's the best way to do

[58:54] business. Let's do it. >> Second that.

[58:57] » You do have a clarifying question. So, you're not passing or failing?

[59:01] » No. >> You're just stopping and restarting,

[59:03] » right? >> Correct.

[59:04] » So, he's not going it won't be reintroduced.

[59:11] It's just getting reworked. But you still want to do a public hearing.

[59:14] » Yes. >> Yes.

[59:19] » Is that the proper way to do that? >> Not really.

[59:23] Okay, that was just my question. >> Well, normally if if it's going to start

[59:28] over and it's going to go back to public hearing, then it would be a fully work

[59:31] once again. So, it would be ordinance seven in order.

[59:35] » Maybe we do need to I just making a motion to

[59:38] » I'm concerned that we I think that the public is very interested in having

[59:43] input on this. So, however, we need to do that. If we have to make it a whole

[59:48] new ordinance, then so be it. And it's not just an amendment here and there.

[59:52] » We make a motion to reject it. >> Reject this.

[59:55] » Yeah. We're never have to reject it. >> And then and then start again

[59:59] » and then make no one accept public hearing

[1:00:04] » in planning board that gives people the input. Then we have a public hearing

[1:00:07] here. It would just start the whole process again. It would be much cleaner.

[1:00:10] I make a request to amend my motion to state that we

[1:00:17] » reject >> reject this motion, ordinance six,

[1:00:22] right? Yep. Ordinance six. And that we send it back to the planning board to

[1:00:28] start over again. Is that the correct way that it needs to be phrased?

[1:00:33] » I think that's better. >> Okie dokie. That'll work for us.

[1:00:36] » So that this this this is all just going back to the drawing board.

[1:00:39] » Yep. Back to the planning board. >> Yep.

[1:00:41] » Okay. I like that. Thank you. >> You want a second? Okay. Motion in a

[1:00:46] second. Oh, she beat it. >> Whatever.

[1:00:48] » Any further discussion? >> Baggley.

[1:00:52] » I fair. >> Lovewell.

[1:00:54] » Hi. >> Smith.

[1:00:55] » Uh, yes, ma'am. >> Watson.

[1:00:57] » Oh, heck yeah. >> I motion carries. All right.

[1:01:02] [clears throat] Okay. Item number nine is the city

[1:01:05] manager report. I'm sure you have all had a chance to take a look at that.

[1:01:08] Does anyone have questions for Manager Thompson?

[1:01:18] Manager Thompson, anything you needed to add to this or?

[1:01:21] » Uh, the only thing I wanted to add was back with the facade improvement grant.

[1:01:25] So, one of the things um that the committee spoke about was

[1:01:31] the fact that we will have um that many funds for the fall uh award time. So,

[1:01:39] what we are doing is following up with people who have had faced facade

[1:01:45] improvement grants but haven't drawn down those funds because they have 18

[1:01:49] months from the award to do so. So, Hannah's reaching out to them now. So

[1:01:54] before that grant process starts, we'll have a

[1:01:59] report for the council how many what we'll have available for funds at that

[1:02:02] time. So >> perfect.

[1:02:03] » That was something discussed there. >> Um to Mr. P's point about the deed.

[1:02:10] » There are a lot of subdivisions in town who have restrictive covenants in the

[1:02:15] deed that's related to the subdivision. So that's probably uh where that comes

[1:02:19] from in your deed about livestock. uh in that subdivision.

[1:02:23] » Yeah, exactly. A restrictive covenant, which would be different than an

[1:02:27] ordinance. Um, one of the things that we talked about during budget time was that

[1:02:34] we're not waiting until the last minute to talk about things. So, I said as soon

[1:02:40] as we set the tax rate, I wanted to start talking about the 27 budget. So I

[1:02:44] have uh starting on page 84 in the packet

[1:02:49] I have a discussion here about the components of the municipal tax bill the

[1:02:55] things that are under the purview of the city council and those items which are

[1:03:00] not controlled by the city council. This is available on the website. You don't

[1:03:05] have to go through the whole city council packet. You can go to

[1:03:08] carbomain.org/taxbill org/tax billill and there is a lot of information there

[1:03:12] including telephone numbers where you can call all three parts of the tax bill

[1:03:19] if you have questions. So in 2026 for every $1,000 that you have for a tax

[1:03:26] bill $420 comes to the city. So out of that $420

[1:03:32] of each thousand that's paying for public works, your public safety, uh

[1:03:40] fire, ambulance, police, general government, the rec department, the

[1:03:46] library, the museum, parks, all of those services in our community is funded with

[1:03:52] $420 of every $1,000 of your tax bill. the Arate County portion, which funds

[1:03:59] things uh like the registry of deeds, the court system, the jails, that is

[1:04:06] $110 of your tax bill, every $1,000 of your tax bill. And in 2026, uh that

[1:04:13] $1,000, $470 goes to fund the school department.

[1:04:19] So, I want everyone to know that the city council does not control

[1:04:24] what we have to pay for the Arusta County portion and the RSU portion.

[1:04:30] Those the body has no control over. They have control over the $420

[1:04:37] and not the remainder. So, um I have information in here. I'm

[1:04:42] not going to go over all of it for people who don't want to do math at 7:00

[1:04:46] p.m., but there's information in here about how we get get those calculations

[1:04:53] for the municipal tax bill, for RSU, for the county, how we calculate it, what it

[1:04:59] is when we talk about a mill, what that actually means, how we figure out what a

[1:05:04] mill is worth every year. uh on pa the the following page it has you know where

[1:05:12] you can find out this information for yourself. So if if you want to look

[1:05:17] online there the ED 279s for the school every school in the state of Maine they

[1:05:25] have uh exactly on on line and this is where you would find the information

[1:05:31] that we use when we're uh talking about those bills.

[1:05:37] And on the final page, um, this is, uh, what we use to, because our years are

[1:05:43] different, we have to use half and half. The other thing that you hear me talk a

[1:05:48] lot about is when you're looking at the budget.

[1:05:53] So, state statute determines exactly how the school budget is laid out, what is

[1:05:59] contained in every article that's presented to the voters.

[1:06:04] And two articles that are raise most of the money from your taxes are it's

[1:06:11] articles 12 through 17. But the ones to really pay attention to are 12 and 14.

[1:06:17] Article 12 is the information that we get from the 279 here and we have to

[1:06:23] take half from each year because our year is different. And the other article

[1:06:27] is article 14. And article 14 is the sum that they raise over and above what the

[1:06:34] state requires. So to get the state funding for our schools, we have to

[1:06:40] raise what is in the number for article 12. When you look at the school budget,

[1:06:46] article 14, the reason why it says that it's a secret ballot to vote on it is

[1:06:53] because that is what the school is raising and appropriates in additional

[1:06:58] local funds over and above what the state of Maine's essential programs and

[1:07:04] services funding says that they need. I just want to make sure that we're clear

[1:07:10] when we talk about, you know, maybe looking at cuts. We're not saying

[1:07:16] cutting article 12, which is what we need to leverage the state's funding.

[1:07:20] What we're what I'm saying, I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth.

[1:07:25] What I'm saying with article 14 is that that one, as you can see from different

[1:07:30] graphics we have online, that one is going up and up every year and at this

[1:07:34] point exceeds what we're raising in article 12.

[1:07:38] And I want people to to understand that. And if you have questions about what the

[1:07:44] the um additional local funds which exceed

[1:07:48] the state's essential program and services

[1:07:53] funding, that's a question for the school. This

[1:07:56] board here does not set that. They have no control. The school hands us a bill

[1:08:02] after our voters go and vote on it, and we have to pay that bill. And that's

[1:08:07] $470 of every thousand dollars we collect.

[1:08:12] So that is our little TED talk today on the 2027 budget.

[1:08:18] Thank you. Welcome, Benny. >> No, thank you.

[1:08:22] » Okay. Item 10 is unfinished business. We don't have anything to talk about there.

[1:08:28] Item 11, new business ordinances and resolutions. 11 A is execution of a

[1:08:33] quick claim deed for taxes paid. And that's on page 87. Carl's not here.

[1:08:39] Penny, did you just want to give us a quick

[1:08:42] » quickly on that? >> Sure. So,

[1:08:46] at different times when someone pays off their taxes and the lean is released on

[1:08:52] a piece of property, it gets forgotten. It doesn't get recorded. And this is

[1:08:56] something from like 2014 that didn't get recorded. did the quick claim deed

[1:09:02] releasing the city's interest after taxes were paid and the law office has

[1:09:08] asked for the city to release their ownership because the taxes have been

[1:09:13] paid. >> Gota that's all this is and it's a quick

[1:09:16] claim deed. You're not even certifying that you have any interest. Just that if

[1:09:20] you do have, you are relinquishing it. Aren't these the same people who are

[1:09:25] suing the city and the federal credit union and lawyers offices and anybody

[1:09:32] that they can sue for wrongful deeds that the city did? Is this is this

[1:09:38] tangled up in that mess? >> You are correct. this this party who

[1:09:45] owns the property that this quick claim deed is associated with does have a

[1:09:50] legal matter against the city. However, that doesn't really matter in this case.

[1:09:56] The taxes are paid. So, there's no reason not to sign a quick claim deed.

[1:10:01] We can't penalize people because the things they're doing outside of the

[1:10:06] scope of what we can control that they're doing that. So to be clear, they

[1:10:11] paid the taxes. This was a long time ago >> and it was just forgotten.

[1:10:15] » Correct. It's my understanding that our software program is supposed to spit out

[1:10:20] and I don't know cuz I don't work in tax collection and I never have. But there

[1:10:25] the system is supposed to print out when you need one signed, but sometimes it

[1:10:30] doesn't happen, you know, >> cuz we get these occasionally. Yeah, we

[1:10:33] do. sometimes after the meeting and I don't know what I'm signing

[1:10:37] wanted to ask >> if that is somehow, you know, part of a

[1:10:41] settlement or something along those lines. It's purely taxes paid.

[1:10:45] » It's it's just taxes paid. And like I said, I think it's like 2014,

[1:10:51] » well before any of that. Well, I don't know. That's been going on a long time.

[1:10:54] It could have been going >> and they let that stand for 12 years

[1:10:57] without saying anything. it it's not normally noticed unless an

[1:11:02] ownership changes and that's what's happening right now

[1:11:05] » when they're doing a title search is when it will come up.

[1:11:08] » Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you very much.

[1:11:10] » Question on that because >> when we uh when you can pay a a quit

[1:11:16] claim deed a quit claim deed that doesn't u you have to still go to the

[1:11:23] registry of dreads. Am I correct on that to

[1:11:26] » Yeah. That's just we sign off. seven of us, boom, game over. But if you want to

[1:11:34] go borrow against that or whatever you need to do, you still got to go get that

[1:11:38] registered, right? >> Not part of our process.

[1:11:40] » Not part of our process. We just sign off and say, "Hey, quickly."

[1:11:43] » Yeah. >> The taxes are paid. That's just our part

[1:11:46] here is that the city put a lean on the property because the taxes weren't paid

[1:11:52] before those leans were put on the property.

[1:11:55] » They were paid and so now we need to release the lean. We just

[1:11:58] » and these a as our city clerk said it comes up when people do a title search.

[1:12:04] » So they do the title search which when you only have a quick claim deed it it

[1:12:08] doesn't work cuz you don't have it's not registered. Correct.

[1:12:12] » Yeah. It goes to the registry and it does excuse me. How many years until the

[1:12:17] city can take care of that? because I believe this person um had a lot of

[1:12:22] years and by law in the state of Maine if I'm not mistaken is three years and

[1:12:27] the city can take over that not 12 not six not five

[1:12:32] » yeah this this is a yeah this is a whole different thing this is just because a

[1:12:36] lean was created in 2014 >> not talking about

[1:12:42] » yeah totally different subject not related to this agenda item

[1:12:45] » but I want to talk about >> but we can't in the middle of a meeting

[1:12:48] because but You can call our tax collector.

[1:12:51] » I call a couple of times your phone number regarding a lot of abandoned

[1:12:54] properties here for new businesses >> and I've never received a call back.

[1:12:59] » Um, leave your number with Danielle and she'll give it to

[1:13:02] » that before. Okay. >> And with you on the front, the only

[1:13:06] person that has reached out is Eric. >> Okay. So, Eric now that everybody's

[1:13:10] here. >> Yeah. Not not part of this though. So,

[1:13:14] um, that's what this is about. The reason why it's on the agenda is because

[1:13:18] as councelor Bagley stated, he was uncomfortable with the idea of just

[1:13:23] being handed a quick claim deed to sign at the end of the meeting. So now it's

[1:13:27] become an agenda meeting. I mean an agenda item so that if you have any

[1:13:32] questions, you can ask them and we'll answer them for you. But if I'm not

[1:13:35] mistaken, it's not something we need to vote on. All right, perfect. Everyone

[1:13:40] all set with that? >> Mhm.

[1:13:41] » Okay. So, we'll sign that at the end of the

[1:13:45] meeting, Daniel. Okay. Item number 11B is a discussion of the Brook Street

[1:13:52] Housing proposal and Eric, I think you're speaking tonight on behalf of the

[1:13:57] Caribou Development Committee. >> Hello again, Mayor Bulma, members of the

[1:14:02] city council, Manager Thompson. Um, again, my name is Eric Sanderson. I'm a

[1:14:06] the economic and community development specialist for the city of Caribou. Um

[1:14:10] [clears throat] over the last several months, the uh Caribou Development

[1:14:13] Committee and staff have been really hard at work um looking at ways that we

[1:14:17] can support Caribou and our business community. Um after a lot of

[1:14:21] deliberation and some discussions with the city council, the most uh

[1:14:25] uh viable project to move forward with at this point uh and thus the current

[1:14:30] proposal is creation of additional housing units in Caribou to assist uh

[1:14:34] with the um national housing crisis. Um the current proposal from the committee

[1:14:38] is twofold. First to ask if the city council supports uh housing creation on

[1:14:43] this property and second uh to allocate funding to procure professional services

[1:14:48] for a boundary survey pinning and existing conditions analysis.

[1:14:53] During the process of preparing this proposal, the development committee

[1:14:55] worked to identify utility connections, zoning, and potential phasing so staff

[1:15:00] get as much detail as possible on what developing additional housing at the

[1:15:03] property might look like. This is further supported by the city's

[1:15:08] uh recently completed housing action plan in which residents indicated uh

[1:15:13] strong support for more diverse affordable types of housing. Further,

[1:15:16] the plan calls for marketing caribou properties um that are supported by um

[1:15:24] uh and have access to utility connections as well as local amenities.

[1:15:28] uh the excerpts from the plan um as well as the uh development committee proposal

[1:15:32] is attached to the uh city council's agenda for your review. Um as is noted

[1:15:37] in the scope of work, the current request is for survey existing

[1:15:40] conditions and pin setting only. Uh any development of this site would need to

[1:15:44] be thoroughly vetted through a public process. Um any development of this site

[1:15:49] um would need to happen after any boundary survey is uh is done. Um and

[1:15:55] staff anticipates any next steps would be creation of an RFB or an RFP to

[1:15:59] procure that professional service. The development committee is prepared to

[1:16:04] draft development agreements, consider buildout alternatives and work with the

[1:16:07] many stakeholders that will have a vested interest in this project. Uh the

[1:16:11] committee believes that this proposal reflects consistency with the

[1:16:14] comprehensive plan h the housing action plan city council goals and it gives the

[1:16:19] city the opportunity to take the lead on the nation's housing shortage.

[1:16:23] Not only will this diversify and increase Caribou's aging and outdated

[1:16:26] housing stock, but it will tell employers that Caribou is open for

[1:16:29] business and ready to house the employees that businesses need and

[1:16:32] support our residents. Um, many members of the development committee are here

[1:16:36] tonight. So, thank you all for coming and um they're also here for any

[1:16:40] questions or follow clarifications, but I'm also happy to provide those if the

[1:16:44] council wishes. >> I think this is pretty clear.

[1:16:48] » Yep. >> I think we just make the motion to move

[1:16:52] You absolutely. >> Okay, then.

[1:16:57] Okay. I make a motion to allocate. Got

[1:17:01] » it. >> Which one are you? I'm No, I'm looking

[1:17:05] at this one here on 89. >> Yeah. All right.

[1:17:08] » Someone on 89. >> I jumped over.

[1:17:11] » Hey, no problem. Um, make motion to allocate up to 20,000 from account

[1:17:15] number G5-473-00

[1:17:19] for surveying existing conditions analysis and pin setting for the

[1:17:24] cityowned Brook Street property. Further identified as tax map 10, lot 0001-

[1:17:31] C to support development of housing on the property.

[1:17:37] » So, I have a question. And I just want to clarify that this is going to be

[1:17:40] surveying the entire property. >> Yes.

[1:17:42] » And then we'll we'll get some feedback and people will come forward with kind

[1:17:47] of their ideas of the highest and best use based on the housing study that we

[1:17:50] did >> just to set the four corner things of

[1:17:53] the area that's going to be developed. So what is the area 10 acres? So, uh,

[1:17:58] when we talked with, um, the, uh, some professionals that could do this work,

[1:18:04] um, they indicated that in order to do any smaller phase of the work, uh,

[1:18:09] whether it's, um, five, six acres, um, or any other amount, um, we would need

[1:18:15] to survey the entire property first. So, um,

[1:18:20] » okay, that's what I read, too. And I just wanted to clarify that that is

[1:18:22] accurate. >> Yeah.

[1:18:23] » Okay.

[1:18:29] There's a motion on the table. I will I will second it.

[1:18:32] » We have a motion. Yeah. Sorry about that.

[1:18:36] » Just a quick clarifying comment as as developing chair. Just want to make sure

[1:18:40] council understands what we're asking is obviously to invest money. But the first

[1:18:44] part is the first question is really basically that it's supporting that as

[1:18:49] we move forward. uh because we certainly wouldn't want to spend the money unless

[1:18:52] we're able to move forward on the project after it's been identified. So,

[1:18:56] it's kind of a twofold twofold question. One is is council supportive of the

[1:19:01] project as a whole moving forward and then part two is can we support with the

[1:19:06] proper funding to get a boundary surv? >> I think so. I think that's the reason

[1:19:11] why we're going to vote here to see where we're we're moving. So, I think

[1:19:15] that's >> and I think the answer to the second

[1:19:17] question answers the first question as well. Mhm.

[1:19:20] » I want to be clear. >> Yeah, we're clear.

[1:19:24] » Any further discussion from council? >> Nope.

[1:19:28] » Begley, >> I.

[1:19:29] » Nightfair. >> Hi.

[1:19:30] » Lovewell. >> Hi.

[1:19:31] » Smith. >> No.

[1:19:33] » Watson. >> Hi.

[1:19:34] » Hi. Motion carries.

[1:19:42] Item number 11 C is a consideration of local CDBG at the uh CB. I can never say

[1:19:49] that. All these years I still can't say it. C DBG application process. There we

[1:19:55] go. That's on page 102 of your packet. And guess what? You're be hearing from

[1:20:03] Eric again. >> We should just stay standing.

[1:20:08] » We don't want to. >> No, we don't.

[1:20:10] » No, we don't want to. So, as we've uh developed more

[1:20:17] thoroughly our um economic development program and uh further business outreach

[1:20:21] here in Caribou, um one of the tools that we have at our disposal is uh an

[1:20:26] incredible uh opportunity with uh the community development block grant

[1:20:30] program provided through the Federal Housing and Urban Development

[1:20:32] Administration. Um Department of Housing and Urban Development, excuse me. Um, so

[1:20:37] that program is specifically intended to benefit low to moderate income jobs or

[1:20:41] low to moderate income communities. Um, and uh, Caribou is allowed one uh, CDBG

[1:20:47] uh, application per program area per year. Um, this current proposal that's

[1:20:53] in front of the council right now is for a to establish a formal application

[1:20:57] process for the economic development subprogram area of the CDBG um, uh,

[1:21:03] programming. Um it's uh really in the name of uh transparency, um fairness,

[1:21:09] and giving everybody the opportunity to be able to apply for this. Now, we have

[1:21:13] many, many businesses that are interested that I've talked to to apply

[1:21:16] for economic development program funding through the community development block

[1:21:19] grant program. Um and this would establish a clear process um identify a

[1:21:24] review committee um and then the city would be able to then choose um which

[1:21:29] application or business to move forward with um and uh and start the process

[1:21:34] through with our partners at Northern Main Development Commission. So um I've

[1:21:37] provided a um a proposed uh program statement and application uh for the

[1:21:43] city council's review and happy to answer any questions. So is this just in

[1:21:47] lie of have we just had like first come first serve somebody comes and ask us in

[1:21:51] the past and we just we apply on their behalf and this will be more like a

[1:21:55] competitive type project or process. Is that correct? Okay.

[1:21:59] » Consistent, repeatable. >> Yeah, I like that.

[1:22:01] » Fair. >> I like it a lot.

[1:22:03] » Transparent. >> Also how like how you so fluidly say

[1:22:07] CDBG. You just said it. I had to look when I

[1:22:11] said it. He said it without even looking.

[1:22:14] » I'm going to accept it. Any other questions from the council?

[1:22:20] No. >> What are the wishes of the council?

[1:22:23] We'll make a motion to approve the city of Caribou program statement,

[1:22:26] application process, and scoring criteria for the state of Maine. And

[1:22:30] that I think needs to be corrected. 2026 CDBG economic development grant program.

[1:22:36] » Second motion and second. Any further discussion?

[1:22:40] Second. >> Oh, get given Paul. Well, I don't care.

[1:22:46] Flip cord. >> All right. Baggley.

[1:22:49] » Hi. >> Nightfair.

[1:22:50] » Hi. >> Lovewell.

[1:22:51] » Hi. >> Smith.

[1:22:53] » Hi. >> Hi.

[1:22:54] » Watson. >> Hi.

[1:22:55] » I. Motion carries.

[1:23:00] All right. Item 11D is a referendum question on the fire department ladder

[1:23:04] truck on page 116 of your packet. Chief, did you have anything you wanted

[1:23:11] to share with us? questions

[1:23:15] had a chance to look this over

[1:23:20] » I guess well >> sure

[1:23:23] » I just a question so I I read it here so this is how this will be proposed on the

[1:23:27] referendum question >> Mhm. And we're looking at the ladder

[1:23:31] truck. Um I know this has been a big issue for us. I mean, we're talking

[1:23:38] two north of $2 million purchase. Uh so this we're just going to the plan with

[1:23:44] this. I understand we're going to send this to the the voters cuz it's over

[1:23:48] $500,000 and then we can council can move from there. How how we

[1:23:55] fund it. if we do it in November, if uh we can get into some of that maybe uh

[1:24:05] main municipal bond funding. There's there's there's a lot of options there.

[1:24:09] » Yep. We looked at leasing so far and >> leasing leasing. You you showed us uh

[1:24:13] » just touched on the on the bond part of it, but I this come up before I put any

[1:24:19] more effort into >> Yeah, but we need

[1:24:21] » but this covers all of it, which is good. Yeah,

[1:24:23] » we need to know. We need to know what this

[1:24:25] » the municipal uh attorney has reviewed it, has said it's good. [clears throat]

[1:24:30] » Um the 2.9 million is the maximum amount uh that we would need for that we would

[1:24:38] spend. Doesn't necessarily mean that we're going to spend that much, but it

[1:24:41] just gives us some leeway >> for the cost increase of the truck as

[1:24:45] time goes on. You know, so far we haven't had any increases on the

[1:24:50] estimates I've been given so far, but you know, we're still early in the game

[1:24:54] here. So, >> we had we had some pretty good

[1:24:56] estimates. We talked about about a couple of months ago. So, I mean,

[1:25:00] they're not going to be much more than that. I can't imagine.

[1:25:04] » Oh, hopefully not. >> And once you get that back, you can lock

[1:25:07] it in, right? Is that what we discussed? >> Yeah. Well, we just got to get the

[1:25:10] approval from or or potential approval from the

[1:25:14] » citizens >> some of the citizens.

[1:25:16] » So, I really like how this is written because it talks in terms of expense,

[1:25:20] you know, what we're going to expend and it gives us all of the options to

[1:25:25] finance it. So, congratulations to St. I mean very well written and I think and I

[1:25:31] think this gives us the options that we need

[1:25:33] » going forward and I I personally support you know doing this. Will the voters

[1:25:39] support it? Don't know, but let's put it out to referendum and let the voters

[1:25:43] decide. >> Yeah, it's just it's a very important

[1:25:46] piece of equipment for the city. So, >> it is

[1:25:50] very expensive, but we we need it. Yeah. >> Thank you.

[1:25:55] » Y'll make a motion that we u

[1:26:04] put this on the referendum for in the November ballot.

[1:26:08] Do >> you need something better than that?

[1:26:10] » Well, and that the city council recommends approval. Our municipal

[1:26:15] attorney has let us know that that also needs to be on the ballot.

[1:26:19] » That's why it's down here. Like it has to state city council recommends

[1:26:23] approval. >> See? Yeah.

[1:26:26] » So, that would be the motion, >> correct?

[1:26:28] » Well, the motion. So, um the city >> we've we've had so many emails, so I'm

[1:26:33] going to defer to D Okay.

[1:26:39] » The ones we've had with the CUD with everything that has gone, you know,

[1:26:43] about that the city council has to authorize it going on the ballot. Yes,

[1:26:49] that's part of it. And then also, um, attorney Solomon has said that the

[1:26:55] question on the ballot must say that the city council recommends approval.

[1:27:00] » Okay. >> Two parts,

[1:27:03] » two votes. >> Yes.

[1:27:04] » Okay. Thank you. Oh, okay.

[1:27:07] » I mean, we would I don't think we can put it on the ballot if you vote the

[1:27:12] second time that you don't approve because that's kind of

[1:27:18] » contradictory. Exactly. Yeah. >> Well, let's take a vote first on the

[1:27:23] approval of the expenditure and then we'll take a vote on putting it on the

[1:27:26] referendum ballot. >> Okay.

[1:27:29] » Does that work? >> Yeah. I mean, all I know is, you know,

[1:27:33] to follow the law, which is what we need to do because we have no grace in not

[1:27:37] following the law, that we need to make sure, per our attorney's advice, that

[1:27:45] the the council needs to vote that it's going to go on the referendum and that

[1:27:48] they recommend approval. Whatever order you want to do that in is fine.

[1:27:53] » It's just a we one motion. If someone wanted to do it that way,

[1:27:56] » that's I think that's the one that's making it. Well, you may have some

[1:27:59] people who don't approve that still want it on the referendum is is what that is

[1:28:03] what I am. So, would you like to amend >> picking up what is being put down?

[1:28:09] » How about we just >> two motions? So, our our our council

[1:28:13] secretary has said two motions is better. So,

[1:28:16] » okay, I'll make the first approval first. Authorization to purchase a

[1:28:20] replacement area ladder truck as stated here

[1:28:27] » up to 2,900,000 or 29

[1:28:32] » of a replacement aerial ladder truck together with

[1:28:34] » together with all necessary equipment and accessories for the Caribou and Fire

[1:28:37] Analyst Department to be funded by any combination of municipal funds, reserve

[1:28:43] grants, the issuance of bonds, lease purchase or bank financing as determined

[1:28:48] by the city council. Does that work? >> I second that.

[1:28:52] » Great. >> Yep.

[1:28:53] » That's great. Ryan, any further discussion?

[1:28:56] » Nope. >> Baggley

[1:28:57] » I. >> Nightfair.

[1:28:58] » I. >> Lovewell.

[1:28:59] » Hi. >> Smith.

[1:29:01] » I. >> Watson.

[1:29:02] » I. >> I. Motion carries. So now we need to

[1:29:05] make a motion to that we approve >> make a motion

[1:29:09] » that we that we include the statement that the city council

[1:29:15] » How about >> recommends approval? How about this? I

[1:29:18] make a motion. >> You make the motion

[1:29:20] » that as the council, we move to make sure the statement is included. The city

[1:29:27] council recommends approval. Is that good enough, Danielle? Does that get you

[1:29:31] across finish line? >> Okay.

[1:29:34] » We've already done that though in our previous

[1:29:35] » I second that. >> I think so.

[1:29:37] » I know. We're just technically we're just making the lawyer

[1:29:39] » vote that this should be on should appear on a as a referendum question.

[1:29:44] » That's simple. Yeah, because the first one you guys basically gave the

[1:29:48] approval. Correct. We need something to put it on the ballot.

[1:29:50] » Correct. Just recommendation that you put it on.

[1:29:53] » Yeah. Put a recommend. Make a motion. Put it on the ballot.

[1:29:56] » That's all that's needed. >> I think I think second

[1:29:59] » November election. >> Get a second.

[1:30:02] » Yep. >> Motion in a second. Any further

[1:30:04] discussion? >> God. No. Let's move.

[1:30:07] » Baggley. >> I.

[1:30:08] » Nightfair. >> I. Love.

[1:30:10] » I. Smith. >> Of course.

[1:30:11] » Watson. >> I.

[1:30:13] » I. Motion carries. Look at us. We're all motioned up. All right.

[1:30:19] Item 12, reports and discussion by mayor and council members. [clears throat]

[1:30:24] » Council Watson, this point, no. Just make sure to show

[1:30:30] up at the airport on Saturday. >> Saturday.

[1:30:34] » 11 to 6. That's stealing Dan's thunder, but it's my bar, so I'm going to keep

[1:30:40] pitching it. So, it makes your thunder, too. So, I would like to see everybody

[1:30:45] show up.

[1:30:49] That's all I have. >> Councilor Nightmare,

[1:30:53] » Deputy Mayor. >> Uh, yeah. I'm I'm not going to go too

[1:30:57] deep into the ocean on this one, but uh we're talking about uh referendums and I

[1:31:04] something I'd like we can talk about maybe at the next meeting is uh moving

[1:31:09] toward the fiscal year. I I think that's the direction we need to be going and it

[1:31:14] needs to be on the ballot. So I if anyone wants to beat me over the head

[1:31:21] side in the yard later good at it. But uh I think that should

[1:31:26] be on there as well. And we have I believe until the end of September.

[1:31:31] » No. >> No.

[1:31:32] » The first Friday in September. So you're too late.

[1:31:35] » I'm too late. Well, unless we do a paper ballot.

[1:31:39] » We're not doing that. Too late. >> Too late for that, too. I know. I know I

[1:31:43] am, but um [laughter] >> Well, then uh

[1:31:48] » maybe something to set your sights on for next year, Deputy Mayor Smith.

[1:31:52] » Well, I'll set my sights on it for a long time, but uh um

[1:31:57] Okay. We can do it in June, right?

[1:32:03] Is that acceptable?

[1:32:07] It depends on the council. So, okay. So, we don't have any.

[1:32:13] Okay, I'll drop my voice. >> Councelor Lovewell.

[1:32:19] » Um, you know, I actually just want to go back and touch base on the letter we

[1:32:23] received from Scott Far and then I think councelor Nightfair actually touched on

[1:32:28] it last meeting about the safety and the kids on some of these ebikes and things

[1:32:34] like that. Um, and the traffic that's traveling

[1:32:38] down Colin Street is ridiculous. I mean, we see people going 80, 90 miles an

[1:32:43] hour, and we do call them in, but you know, what good does that do when

[1:32:47] somebody's killed or injured? Um, I I I do think that this is maybe a subject we

[1:32:52] need to look at a little more closely. Um, I'm not sure if maybe making a

[1:32:57] four-way stop at Prospect and and Collins would help to slow people down

[1:33:02] because they're going to have to come to a stop. um because we see a lot of speed

[1:33:06] picked up through there. Um but apparently it's going in all kinds of

[1:33:11] different directions as well. So just knowing there's a lot of people out

[1:33:15] walking uh pets with their families with small children and just kids on bikes

[1:33:21] and scooters and ebikes, I I really do think that this is a a valuable topic to

[1:33:27] look at here, right? Right now is as good as any. But yeah, just put that in

[1:33:33] your wheelhouses. >> So just a correction for the record,

[1:33:38] you're referring to the email that was from Larry Knight.

[1:33:42] » Scott Bears was about the >> Oh, I'm sorry. City official.

[1:33:46] » You are right. Yes. >> I had a fair and a night and I just

[1:33:51] [laughter] another night. >> A fair, a night, and a night fair.

[1:33:57] » Exactly. Yes. Thank you for that, >> Councelor Baggley. No, nothing further.

[1:34:02] » I got one more. I've got one more thing here. If we're going to regard this

[1:34:06] fiscal year and it's something we can look on next year. Um,

[1:34:12] and as Danielle has said, we don't have time to get it onto the ballot in the

[1:34:17] time if we don't make a formal vote this evening. And I'll make a motion

[1:34:22] that we put on the ballot the question to receive. Should

[1:34:29] the city of Caribou move

[1:34:33] towards a fiscal year

[1:34:38] and then we'll let that [snorts] determine.

[1:34:41] I don't know if I'll get any traction on that, but if I don't, that's fine. And

[1:34:45] then I'll

[1:34:54] No second, so I'll drop it. Thank you. Okay,

[1:35:00] so our next regular meeting is September 21st, 2026. We do have executive

[1:35:07] sessions on the agenda for this evening. The first being

[1:35:11] economic development. What are the wishes of the council? I move that we go

[1:35:16] into executive session for economic development pursuant to 1 MRSA

[1:35:20] subsection 405.6.C for hospital district.

[1:35:25] Have a motion second.

[1:35:29] » Have a second. Two seconds. Any further discussion?

[1:35:35] Baggley >> I.

[1:35:36] » Nightfair >> I.

[1:35:38] » Lovewell >> I.

[1:35:38] » Smith >> I.

[1:35:41] » Watson >> I

[1:35:42] » I motion carries. So, this will conclude the public portion of our meeting this

[1:35:47] evening. Thank you all for being here. We'll take a quick break. Everyone,

[1:35:50] please turn off your microphones. >> Right. But I mean, that was all about

[1:35:55] referendum and the process. He was talking all about the process. Yeah.

[1:36:02] » I didn't see this on the fire station. >> No, my brain was on track,

[1:36:06] » right?

[1:36:12] » Oh, yeah.

[1:36:17] Where the heck you want to do this? >> Yeah.

[1:36:22] » So, you want to put it in that area.

Caribou City Council 8/10/2026

Transcript