[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.