[0:00] Down, council meeting 16-26. It is Tuesday, August 18.

[0:04] Thank you.

[15:00] On June 4th, the same group, or an overlapping membership of the same group, sent a letter to the town proposing another ordinance with the same exact title ordinance to launch the island rover vessel. And it did include a few changes, which I will mention. And I did submit a letter to the manager, town manager, and the town clerk regarding my opinion as to whether or not this

[15:29] This was an ordinance that in substance was the same ordinance, as had been the subject

[15:37] of a citizen's initiative that failed at the signature.

[15:40] It matters as to whether it's the same ordinance or different ordinance is that your charter

[15:46] under section 8.01 has a mandatory 120-day waiting period, so that if a citizen's group proposes

[15:53] in ordinance, it fails for whatever reason to get enough signatures, they cannot propose

[16:01] the same ordinance for 120 days. And I think you can understand the public policy purpose

[16:08] of doing that. There's a lot of town machinery and staff time that goes into managing this

[16:14] through correctly so that you're following your charter. And so I had to opine on whether

[16:21] not these ordinances were the same. As you know from my June 12 letter, I did indeed review

[16:28] the ordinances. I went through them very carefully, and I concluded that the combination of

[16:35] the way your charter language is worded, that the intent behind section 8.01 is to say that

[16:42] ordinances, if the ordinance is the same in substance as the prior ordinance, then the 120-day

[16:48] waiting period applies. In this case, a number of things were identical. This is still an ordinance

[16:56] whose mission and purpose was identically worded as the same. An ordinance to launch the island

[17:03] a one time launch of the island rover vessel through the same mechanism, which was to name a new

[17:10] use of temporary boat launching facility use and to send that through review through the code

[17:17] enforcement officer rather than the Coastal Waters Commission and potentially the Project

[17:25] Review Board.

[17:28] And almost entirely to a provision, this ordinance is the same.

[17:34] There are a few differences that I think were procedural, but before I get into the differences,

[17:41] One of the issues that was the same is that it still, there is an environmental impact

[17:47] standard which says that this use which does fall within the shoreland zone and extends

[17:57] into the resource, cannot have an adverse impact on various, I'll just shorthand wildlife

[18:04] habitat, spawning grounds, things like that.

[18:07] And the original proposed ordinance said that a temporary boat watching facility, if constructed and removed during a particular window of time, October to April, I don't have the exact dates, but that window of time, would be deemed to not cause an environmental and adverse environmental impact.

[18:28] That provision remains in the second ordinance with one minor change, which is to say that

[18:37] the temporary bullet launching facility, if constructed or removed within that window,

[18:44] would be deemed not to create an environmental impact.

[18:48] But in case there was an inadvertent environmental impact,

[18:53] that the applicant would have to do a remediation plan.

[18:59] So the other minor changes to this version of the ordinance, it did include a sunset

[19:05] clause of two years and it did include recommended DEP review.

[19:13] Of course, you know that any proposed ordinance that impacts the shoreline zone automatically

[19:17] exactly by state law needs to go to the DEP for review and approval and there are a couple

[19:25] of other minor revisions to the ordinance and in the end I concluded that in substance

[19:31] I believe these were the same ordinances and so the 120-day waiting period applies.

[19:38] That 120 days expires on August 20th, we're here on August 18th.

[19:47] I am aware that the attorney for some folks who live in the neighborhood who I think

[19:56] oppose this ordinance, Chris and Colin submitted a letter today.

[20:02] I did speak with Chris and briefly today as well and her opinion is that the council must

[20:08] just wait until the clerk has accepted this ordinance for processing before it can

[20:17] weigh in on what this agenda item asks you to do.

[20:22] I understand the arguments made by Ms. Collins.

[20:24] I don't agree with them.

[20:27] I think the charter provision in section 8.01 is broad enough to encompass and

[20:38] and anticipatory order from the Council giving guidance to the clerk.

[20:44] And that's how this order has been worded.

[20:47] It is true that you could say, well, the Council shouldn't take any action until there's

[20:52] been an acceptance, I think in the circumstance that we have in front of us and the fact that

[21:00] I believe if this is accepted for processing, there is a path for this to meet all of

[21:07] the requirements of Section 8.01 and if the signatures are validated this time to have

[21:14] this go to a vote at the November 3 statewide election.

[21:21] So I've thrown a lot at you.

[21:24] I'm happy to answer any questions, but I think the order that was drafted before you, much

[21:31] like the one in the spring, Section 8.01 says, look, if a group

[21:37] proposes an ordinance that they want to go through the citizens' initiative process.

[21:41] The council can look at it and decide, well, we'll just adopt that.

[21:45] You don't have to go through the citizens' initiative process.

[21:48] You have the authority to do that under the ordinance.

[21:52] You also can, in the alternative, decline to do that, decline to adopt the ordinance of your own initiative,

[21:59] and instead instruct the clerk to follow the 8.01 procedures in the event that the ordinance,

[22:07] the proposed ordinance is accepted for processing on August 20th.

[22:11] So the attempt of these two dueling options here are, do you wish to accept?

[22:17] Do you wish to send it forward in two days time, we'll know, and then your clerk will know

[22:25] So, I can get that she can get going on working through the steps in the charter process for this to go through signature gathering.

[22:40] I think I should probably stop there and see if there are any questions.

[22:49] If we decline to accept it, per the charter, the group has the right to pursue that avenue, whether or not we say that's okay or not, right?

[23:00] correct. This is, I mean, if this is accepted for processing, which I assume, if the

[23:06] petitioner still want to go through this process, it will then go through that process.

[23:11] So, really, the question is whether or not we want to bypass the process and just adopt it

[23:17] as a counsel.

[23:18] As is, correct.

[23:19] I think just to be clear, sort of, with this process, counsel has to respond.

[23:28] So it's how

[23:30] it's picking which avenue reflects our response to the citizens' initiative.

[23:40] Well, it's more towards the ordinance, do we want to accept the ordinance, as it is, as we say?

[23:44] No, let it go through the issue.

[23:57] Any thoughts?

[23:59] So I will say that, you know, looking at sort of the process of how we did this last time,

[24:04] Council didn't choose to put it out to collect signatures.

[24:12] I will say personally my opinion hasn't changed on the matter.

[24:15] My concerns still are the same.

[24:18] I would proceed that way.

[24:20] I would recommend we go that way.

[24:23] Yeah, I agree.

[24:24] I don't think anything's fundamentally changed.

[24:26] I respect the process as it's laid out in the charter.

[24:29] I wouldn't be in support of endorsing this as an ordinance.

[24:35] I don't think it's a bed and address so happy to have it go through the charter process

[24:43] and, you know, if they get the signatures, have it on the ballot and let the voters decide.

[25:03] Councillor Peltch.

[25:04] Is there a public hearing that we have to have on this point?

[25:09] So there is, and unfortunately it's going to create another special meeting.

[25:16] So the way this works, and Chris and Amy can correct me if I'm wrong.

[25:21] But we've mapped out on the infamous whiteboard if you were to send this to signature.

[25:30] It doesn't matter how many days they take them to collect it, they don't have any more than 30.

[25:37] At the end of that period, Chris then has a window of time to certify the signatures.

[25:45] The way that lines up, she would come back to you at your regularly scheduled October

[25:50] 6 meeting and certify one way or the other, much like she did last time when she had that

[25:56] document all set up for you and told you that they didn't meet the number of signatures.

[26:02] At that point, you would call a public hearing that needs to happen within 10 days.

[26:10] So 10 days from that is a Friday, so we look back one day and we would say on October 15th,

[26:16] we would have to have a public hearing on the ordinance.

[26:20] You can do any other kind of information sessions you want or anything like that, but

[26:24] that's the one you need for to meet the charter requirements.

[26:31] and then from there, if you back up, if they're collecting signatures, you would set up our first.

[26:41] Once again call a municipal referendum election contingent upon their obtaining enough signatures and hit that.

[26:52] So we're still kind of running the regular election process in the background to make it conform to the charter.

[27:00] So you would be taking a lot of votes based on if they meet this criteria, not a lot, but a couple.

[27:07] This is what we would do next.

[27:11] And it lines up so that the question would be on the ballot in time for absentee balloting,

[27:20] and go through the regular November 3rd election.

[27:27] So distilling all that down a likely timeline could be two days from today, the clerk accepts the petition they go out and have some time to collect signatures.

[27:39] There's a public hearing sometime in October and it's on the ballot sometime in November, assuming all other things line up on the way.

[27:46] The only thing that I'm not thrilled about, but we can't address until we open the charter back up is that the way the ordinance works, we will have absentee ballots with a question on it before the actual public hearing happens.

[28:07] And when would the language be finalized for, you got it?

[28:11] So Amy and Chris actually work on that together and she formalizes that language at, we were

[28:19] doing that when they were circulating is that?

[28:22] I believe so, yes.

[28:23] So it's, you would have it when she certifies the election.

[28:28] You would have it when you call, not when they call the election but then there is, you sign

[28:36] the warrant, right, to sign the warrant so the question would be on that as well.

[28:45] Thanks, but again, the challenge with absentee.

[28:48] So under state law, absentees are available for 30 days prior to an election, so that means

[28:54] that absentee ballots would be available on the third, doesn't have to be certified until

[29:02] the 6th, we would work really hard to certify by the 3rd so that we know whether or not,

[29:09] but I mean that we are stepping into a little bit of a conundrum with the absentee ballot.

[29:18] There are a few sort of anticipatory things that need to be done that we won't know until

[29:25] the 30 days has expired, or we won't know for some days afterwards because obviously the

[29:30] the clerk needs to validate.

[29:32] And so one of those, as Sophie mentioned, is on your September 1st meeting, you have

[29:36] to file with clerk the question, because you've got to do that 60 days before the November

[29:41] 3rd election, right?

[29:43] So you're going to be doing that.

[29:44] And then as well, because of the state law on absentee ballots, and when you need to make

[29:50] those available, there's this timing issue about

[30:00] I'm not creating the question that is going to appear on the warrant. If it ends up being validated, but we'll have to draft the questions ahead of time. We did this very similarly last time. I think Chris and I have it down, hopefully, from a process perspective. Okay.

[30:23] One more thought, the, again, sort of a rhetorical question, but just to clarify.

[30:30] If we choose not to just accept the ordinance as it is and send it out for referendum,

[30:35] we're not being asked to say, we like the ordinance, we dislike the ordinance, we think it's valid,

[30:40] we think all the points in it are right or wrong.

[30:43] That's not what's being asked of, and if so, then they have the right to submit this to vote.

[30:49] So, right now today, you're being asked whether or not you want to adopt it as it sits.

[30:57] When it is certified to you, that will be Chris saying the signatures have been obtained.

[31:06] Council has an absolute right to speak its mind in terms of if you had opinions and you

[31:12] wanted to provide opinions to the public about this ordinance, but you do not have to.

[31:19] There is no requirement of that.

[31:21] So I think if this process moves forward, Council might want to think about that.

[31:31] And you know, last time we had talked with DEP, they had started an informal review.

[31:39] we will do the same thing if you decide to go in the referendum direction will ask DEP to weigh in on this ordinance.

[31:49] The other thing that has come to our attention is that we don't have a lot of passenger vessels being launched for the first time,

[32:02] But that evidently takes a Coast Guard inspection process before they're allowed to hit the water and so I think there are some questions that we might have also of the Coast Guard that we would want to have answered just factual questions one way or the other.

[32:20] And I think you kind of touched on it a little bit of even if we decide we're not putting our opinion out there, we're not taking a stance.

[32:26] It doesn't mean we can't get information out there, so we can consider what that looks like as well.

[32:31] Of a neutral stance, but here's some information.

[32:36] I'd very much like to use our position to create the form, to be able for people to come and learn about.

[32:43] I think they're going to be a lot of questions about what is this thing in the ballot?

[32:45] What does it mean to the more information we can help facilitate the better?

[32:49] I think it would be really, well, I think if council decides to send it to referendum I think

[32:58] it would be very helpful if a committee, like special projects, thought about what that

[33:04] might look like so that we could maybe begin to frame that because it is actually a very

[33:10] short period of time that we have to work through here.

[33:14] We also have district meetings that could be helpful in sharing that information and providing an opportunity for people to ask those questions.

[33:23] We also have already on the calendar, which is great candidates forum, yes, on September 30th for the town election.

[33:31] And not on a religious holiday this time, awesome.

[33:37] Just to clarify, again, to reiterate this from the last time we went through this.

[33:43] If we were to say no, we want to pursue adopting this directly, we would still then have to have a schedule of public hearing, hold the public hearing, but regardless of what we heard at that public hearing, we couldn't change anything in the ordinance.

[34:05] So we would be asking for a public input, but not actually able to change anything because if we do not adopt it as it is, it then kicks back into the petition process.

[34:24] Yes, I think you're correct.

[34:29] I think what Amy will tell you is that it's, you cannot make substantive changes to the

[34:35] ordinance.

[34:35] No matter why at this point.

[34:37] And so this is why this is a little bit different for council because Freport is a unique

[34:42] community in that you have an applicant-led zoning amendment process where anybody in the

[34:51] community can go through the planning board process with an idea or language that they

[35:00] propose for a change to shoreland zoning or the zoning ordinance that would then go

[35:07] through this staff process of review with us talking with DEP and things get wordsmithed

[35:14] as you go through that process.

[35:16] And so, you are used to an applicant starting here and maybe ending up over here because

[35:23] there's been conversation back and forth that then goes through a planning board process

[35:28] where the planning board asks questions gets public feedback and may alter it some more as

[35:35] they make their recommendation to you, which then you go through a public hearing process

[35:39] and can send it back for revision and review.

[35:42] So, I think that's the difference in these two processes.

[35:47] You don't have that ability to take in information, make this conform with maybe state law, chapter 1000, other ordinances.

[35:59] This is a straight up or down pretty much, and Amy can correct me if I'm wrong.

[36:04] I think that's a pretty, pretty, that summary of.

[36:08] And I think that's a significant part of why I am in favor of sending this out to

[36:17] referendum because it's one of the very few times when we get an application, a petition

[36:25] essentially from a very small number of residents who have every right to bring us

[36:32] that concern, but then no matter how many other residents we hear from, we can't take that

[36:41] into account in terms of how we shape this ordinance.

[36:47] And so I think really from my perspective, the responsible thing to do is to send that

[36:53] back out to the voters, that to allow them to have that conversation and to weigh in essentially

[37:01] in two ways. One certainly is to support this by signing the petition, but then the other

[37:06] is to have those public conversations and decide how they feel about that.

[37:21] I would also just say that I appreciate the fact that the petitioners did hear some of the

[37:27] concerns that were voiced by the council. They did make amendments to what they brought to us.

[37:32] It is clarifying that it's a temporary boat launch for this specific one-time use.

[37:40] There is a sunset clause, all of those things.

[37:42] I think where I still have serious concerns about this is still the predetermination of

[37:52] environmental impact.

[37:54] And also the taking this out of coastal waters like every other thing that happens in the

[38:00] shoreland zone and putting it on to the code enforcement officer, which I think is really

[38:07] an unfair position to put the code enforcement officer in.

[38:14] So we will no doubt have lots more conversation about this, but for me it's really necessary

[38:23] to send it out through the petition process.

[38:25] I

[38:28] just want to note, for the record, the last time it went out through the petition process and

[38:32] it came back and it failed, what that means is not that there was a dearth of people signing you,

[38:38] but that they submitted the requisite number of signatures, but not all of them were valid.

[38:44] So they got what they thought was enough signatures, turns out that some were invalid.

[38:47] So that's why they proposed to do it again.

[38:53] But I concur with much of what you said.

[38:56] So I would support sending it out to referendum.

[39:00] That's been the consensus I've heard, one second.

[39:04] You can approach the podium and we'll have public comment in a moment.

[39:08] So I've heard mostly consensus about sort of the option that sends it out to the voters.

[39:15] Does anybody feel differently?

[39:24] Okay, and then before we move on, we'll open up the public comment.

[39:27] And again, this is the same signal that we announce yourself and keep your comments around three minutes.

[39:33] And we'll try to avoid repetition in the comments as well.

[39:36] My name's Ken Murphy.

[39:38] I live on the cove where the launching would take place.

[39:42] And I've had a home there for some 42 years.

[39:48] One of my major concerns with the last petition was that it was misrepresented by those seeking getting signatures.

[39:58] For two hours, one Saturday, I stood behind the fellow, trying to solicit signatures.

[40:10] And he told all the people driving up to the transfer bin, would you please sign this?

[40:17] This is to launch the island rover.

[40:20] He made no mention whatsoever of the other aspect of the petition, which included temporary

[40:29] to vote ramps seven months of the year on that peninsula with no restrictions and no

[40:38] environmental concerns, et cetera.

[40:41] That wasn't mentioned until I intervened, and after a couple of hours from my own personal

[40:50] security, I thought I'd better get out of there.

[40:52] But it was misrepresented, and most of the signatures that didn't meet the quota were people

[41:01] who signed not thinking it was simply, let's launch the island rover, they knew nothing

[41:07] about the rest of it.

[41:09] My concern also is, what is the purpose of all of this temporary boat ramping?

[41:16] And the only thing I can think of is that Carter Becker has plans to transfer his

[41:25] Falls Point Marine there once that land is cleared and a temporary ramp is

[41:32] available seven months of the year. It would violate all kinds of zoning rules,

[41:37] but the legal process has taken very long and if you could get a few years of

[41:44] business there, I suspect that's what the goal is.

[41:49] So I would,

[41:52] the other issue, of course, is seeworthiness of this hall.

[41:57] And is it going to be 80 tons destroying the environment and dumped into a cove and capsizing

[42:08] and sitting there forever?

[42:09] I mean, that's a huge risk and one I don't think this council wants to take, thank you.

[42:17] Thank you very much.

[42:19] Good evening, my name is Maury Bohan, I also live on the cove.

[42:24] I have two technical questions.

[42:26] One is that, or maybe a point, that by being flexible on the 120-day rule, we impact when this election happens.

[42:37] So in other words, if you're flexible right now and accept this as discussion tonight,

[42:41] and it makes it on the November ballot, that's a very different election than a special election would be perhaps a month or two later.

[42:49] And I don't know who it favors to have this at a big election where everybody in town turns out,

[42:55] but it does impact it in some way.

[42:57] And so I just encourage you to think about that flexibility and how it potentially changes how the votes turn out.

[43:04] The other is to add to Ken's point is I would love if the town clerk might be, if that's the right person,

[43:11] might be charged with making sure that the title on this petition correctly address what's inside the petition.

[43:18] So if what's inside the petition is about a seven-month launch that is repeated year after year,

[43:23] then the title should not be to launch the island rover.

[43:27] It should be to encourage these launches to be loud, okay?

[43:33] And then the third thing I just want to say is I want to thank you all for being so clear-headed.

[43:38] And I think I'm hearing that perhaps you're going to turn this over to a vote.

[43:43] And I believe the reason that's right is because while we have great confidence in our

[43:48] code enforcers that no ordinance should be allowed that exempt structures from environmental

[43:54] performance standards that are normally upheld by the Coast of Waters Commission.

[43:59] So thank you.

[44:00] Yeah, and I'll take a second to respond as well, or I think Sophie mentioned that with this process, you know, part of the restraints are we can't change anything. It's a vote of and down, including on the title.

[44:11] And in terms of aligning it with the November 3rd election, I think, strategy here and or there. I think this is a topic that has a lot of our community really engaged and involved in the more people we have voting on at the better.

[44:26] And that will certainly be on the November 3rd election, so yeah, thank you.

[44:30] One more thing, and that's both brought up the length of time that these are here.

[44:34] It's sunsets in two years, so it's only, you launch it, you get one more year, that's it.

[44:49] Yeah,

[44:53] I thought that that meant that

[45:00] No one could first put in their first launch after the two years, but that if you started it now, it would go forever. Did I misread that? So, whatever anybody does, it's only for two years. Yeah, so Amy, can you see what your thoughts are on that? Yeah, I mean, the language reads, this ordinance shall become effective immediately as of the date of adoption, subject to DEP reviews from the effective date.

[45:28] So if the construction or removal of a temporary boat watching facility during the seven month window occurs within that two-year period, then this is captured.

[45:41] I mean, wouldn't it be a use like any other land use which is once you're gathered, once you gather the right to do it, you can't expand it, but you can continue doing it.

[45:54] And you can construct it, yes.

[45:56] And even if the ordinance, the zoning ordinance goes back to not including that as unallowed use,

[46:05] if it's already there, the question is, would it be a sort of grandfathered nonconforming use?

[46:14] Well, I understand that you're building it each year and you're taking it down each year.

[46:18] So it's not permanent, and it's a temporary, you couldn't build another temporary one, even if you, that's the way I do.

[46:28] So I'm going to stand up for Amy here for just a moment to say that the question in front of us is not what the ordinance says or doesn't say.

[46:38] The question in front of us is, do you want to adopt it the way it currently reads or do you want to send it to the clerk?

[46:45] I would like to just flag that as maybe some future context to sort out.

[46:50] I would give Amy time to think about that.

[46:53] I think that's a fair question.

[46:55] I think a question that I would like to study further.

[46:59] But the definition of a temporary built launching facility is a facility that may remain

[47:04] in or over the water for no more than seven months in any 12 consecutive month period.

[47:09] So, if we have this thing constructed and it takes four and a half months to construct it, and no launch happens,

[47:17] I mean, there is a way to read this as saying it has to be removed within seven months.

[47:23] It's temporary.

[47:24] So, I think there's a seven-month window to construct launch and remove, is one way to look at this.

[47:32] That can't happen.

[47:34] You can't build it because the ordinance is gone.

[47:37] It's not like it becomes an enforcement problem within seven months, it's still there, it shouldn't be there after seven months, and they have to start all over again.

[47:46] Right, but they're implying what they've read is that once he starts doing it, once the person builds it the first time, you build it the second time and the interpretation is it can keep going because he's built it the first time, that's their fear.

[48:04] And because it's a temporary and it has to be taken down each year.

[48:10] It doesn't get, this ordinance doesn't get renewed even if he wanted to build whoever wants to build one.

[48:18] There isn't an opportunity to do that because it's for two years to build a temporary.

[48:24] It's not like it's permanent and it's staying there and then yeah, we said that gets grandfathered in, right?

[48:31] Great if it was a permanent one.

[48:33] Great.

[48:34] I think if you want to say that a little bit more, Amy.

[48:37] Yeah, I think that's fair.

[48:40] Yeah, and another point for making sure that we have information sessions.

[48:44] Yes.

[48:45] Good to be out there.

[48:45] It's a good question.

[48:46] Thank you.

[48:48] Go ahead, sir.

[48:49] Yes, Michael Delahunt, I live on the cove.

[48:54] So my concern is you folks are overseeing our town.

[48:59] you're doing a great job, all the work you do. And yet, this comes to the people. Five pages,

[49:07] sign this, please. Read all this legalese. And it says on the front, a one-time launch.

[49:16] And then why do you need within seven months, within any 12 months? That's not consistent. That's

[49:28] It's deceitful or misleading, I don't know what words you want, but this is what's

[49:35] being placed in front of the public. And I've gone out there and I've been chatting

[49:40] with folks when they're trying to get signatures and all that. And then I have to erase

[49:45] back all these things so that they make, I show them the papers. I yellow mark them.

[49:53] And there's all these exemptions in here.

[49:57] to all these things. And none of that is explained to them. And so I think the process

[50:04] I like the fact that an individual can, you know, promote their concerns, but then

[50:12] to misuse what we've given them, it seems like there should be some oversight to say,

[50:19] Okay. Okay. This, this, this doesn't fly. You can't get this to the public. It's misrepresenting.

[50:28] When do you folks have to step in and do that?

[50:32] So, um, the council at any time can speak on just about any issue. But I will just say the

[50:43] The charter is the document that the town meeting and voters agreed to when they formed a town council or representative form of government.

[50:55] That charter is the sums up the breadth of responsibility that they and authority that the town was willing to vest in the town council.

[51:07] So, when the charter says Council, you cannot make any substantive changes to this. Council,

[51:15] the town attorney must look at this, and the town attorney is the only one that can make any change to this,

[51:21] and it cannot be substantive. The Council can't overrule a charter. It's not like an ordinance that the council could simply say,

[51:30] We don't like this. We now see that we, it's too far this way and we need to bring it back this way, which is what we see with the other 68

[51:39] ordinances we have. The charter only way to change the charter is to open it back up and take it out to a

[51:46] referendum and it is a lengthy process. One that I'm going to be suggesting council do because this process does not line in

[51:55] well with existing state law on elections. And that will be a time that the residents can

[52:01] speak to, wait, we want counsel to have more control over that. But also understand

[52:07] this provision was my hunch put in to give the voters an opportunity to check the town

[52:16] council. So I don't think they would want to give the council a lot of authority to check

[52:22] voters who were trying to curb something that council was doing that the community didn't like.

[52:29] So it's a balancing act and it's one of those things where you play it out and I would encourage

[52:35] people who feel strongly on either side of this position to be contacting council to talk about

[52:42] what information would be important for them to get out to the public, what venues you think would

[52:48] be good venues to have, whether or not you want the council to speak on this and try to come

[52:55] to some agreement or vote on whether they want to promote it or oppose it. So, there are places

[53:03] to go arguing about whether or not they can make substantive changes to the title or the ordinance

[53:11] is kind of a no-go because their hands are tied.

[53:16] I'm not really saying, you know, I like or don't like it.

[53:19] I just find when there's a lack of truth in something, it just makes me lose faith

[53:26] in the system.

[53:27] So I think, too, this is why you're hearing the Council say over, again, that it feels

[53:34] really important and responsible, it's private responsibility, along with you and everybody

[53:39] who's passionate about this, to do the education, and I think Council has made it clear we're going to

[53:47] dedicate time and effort into making sure we do our best to get that out there.

[53:52] Thank you.

[53:54] Yeah.

[53:54] I just want to address because I've heard it from a couple of different folks about the signature

[53:59] gathering process, and this is not specific to this referendum, it's specific to all signature

[54:08] We see it at the state level where the Secretary of State needs to craft a ballot question that encompasses a law that's pages long or an amendment to something that's pages long.

[54:24] And for whether it's volunteer signature gatherers or paid signature gatherers, they're trying to get your attention in a matter of seconds.

[54:33] and they're trying to get you with the smallest sound bite that will get your attention.

[54:39] And I have found repeatedly whether it's at the polls here in Freeport,

[54:44] if it's in the parking lot at Haniford, if it's in Bow Street at the transfer station,

[54:52] very often the signature gatherer cannot explain to me the full breadth of what they're asking me to sign.

[55:04] And when I ask probing questions, do not have the answers.

[55:09] So I don't think that that's unique to this situation.

[55:14] I would say that that's really on the citizens, that when someone approaches you to sign something, you should understand what you're being asked to sign.

[55:23] And if you don't, you should think twice about signing that perhaps.

[55:26] Because I did hear from folks, I've heard from folks in a number of things.

[55:31] This ballot question and others where they only heard later or

[55:36] only realize later what they were actually being asked to sign.

[55:42] Hi, my name is Joe Bohan.

[55:44] I live on the cold then coming him road.

[55:49] I actually had stuff written, but everyone's asked those questions.

[55:52] So at the risk of being told by my wife that I have to walk home, I'm going to say a few comments.

[55:59] First of all, what I do for a living, I develop pharmaceutical drugs, I develop scientific instrumentation.

[56:07] In Carter, I'm probably the most supportive guy to say we have to do a critical design review, both environmentally and structurally of what's going on.

[56:19] We're not going to divulge any of this stuff because I hear we're going to have a public forum, right?

[56:23] Right? Amy, you know, what we've, so we'll do that.

[56:27] I understand that process, Daniel, I got that now.

[56:30] The other question I have is, who should be the point person on the committee?

[56:35] Because we don't want to del-village everybody here.

[56:38] So what's the process for feeding information to you so that we can make citizens aware of things?

[56:46] I would say if you send them through my office, I can get them headed in the right place among my staff with Amy with the council.

[56:56] So what is the email address now?

[57:00] I know we had updated it.

[57:01] Oh no, it's back to council at freeportmain.com.

[57:04] So council at freeportmain.com goes to all of us up here and then also to Sophie and the assistant town manager.

[57:13] So that's one way, one stop shop there, for sure.

[57:18] Can I make a clarification if I understood the question?

[57:22] The question is how do citizens who feel that this ordinance is misleading in some way get information out into the community about what really the ordinance does or does not do?

[57:37] Is that the question?

[57:38] No, not real part of it, part of it, I hear that.

[57:41] You have constraints about the wording of the ordinance and all that, I get it, I got that, okay.

[57:47] Do I agree with it or not besides the point?

[57:50] What I'm more interested in is, we've had a significant amount of, because of what I do for a living, right?

[58:00] I remember one, I'm an entrepreneur, so it would break my heart to have to cut the stand vote until it breaks my heart.

[58:06] So, we have gone and I made sure we've done critical design reviews of everything here.

[58:14] And I haven't disclosed a lot, I tried to disclose it but I was told the other side didn't want to be involved, okay, fine.

[58:21] So, we've done our own thing but now we want to know how do we disseminate that information because I thought we would have to go through you.

[58:28] But what I'm hearing is it goes through the committee so all of you become aware of our information in the future.

[58:35] When you say the committee, I guess I'm not sure I understand that.

[58:39] Council, council.

[58:41] I mean, make some general statements and Sophie, you can correct me.

[58:44] I don't know.

[58:44] I mean, the council has every council has its own kind of ways of dealing with things.

[58:50] From my perspective as the legal council to the town, there is some information that the

[58:55] town itself and town staff you heard Sophie reference a couple of them.

[58:59] One is a review, depending on what the council does, but if the council does decline to take

[59:04] action and put it in the clerk's hands to go through this process, then I understand

[59:10] that the town will follow up with DEP who already has begun to weigh in to get something

[59:16] more formal in writing. I think that's something the town will do. I've also heard something

[59:21] about potential Coast Guard outreach and information comes back from an agency like that that might

[59:30] By impact this ordinance, that seems appropriate for the town to do.

[59:36] If citizens on both sides, either side of the issue, want to get information to the public.

[59:42] Don't really see the council as being the feeder of deciding what's accurate and what's not and putting that out.

[59:50] Just like any other state ballot question that gets put on.

[1:00:00] For vote, both sides, multiple sides can put information out into the community as you would. And I'm thinking of more like the League of Women Voters, where Daniel was talking about its neutral. Procon information, if I'm a voter, I go to a source to gather the information. So that's what I was just trying to answer. And I've had this issue before. So in this citizens, you know, when you have a citizen's initiative, the town's role is to, I think, be in terms of town staff.

[1:00:29] Obviously town council can have its own opinions and they can make that public.

[1:00:34] In terms of what staff is here to do, it's to determine what facts may be relevant with

[1:00:42] this ordinance and get that.

[1:00:44] I've knew about this critical design review we've done then there are multiple ways to do

[1:00:49] that.

[1:00:49] I would not particularly see the council being involved in it.

[1:00:53] Same goes for the folks who think that there's an issue with this.

[1:00:58] I don't see that fading through the council or the chair, either, unless that's something that you have uniquely done in, in, in free port.

[1:01:06] No, and I think, you know, it's good old fashioned campaigning, science, public, or letters of the editor, avenues like that, and, you know, we'll create the space for discussion.

[1:01:17] Thank you, okay.

[1:01:17] Hi,

[1:01:24] good evening, everyone.

[1:01:25] My name's Tim Forster.

[1:01:26] I'm a professional well-in-scientist

[1:01:28] and one of five certified ecological restoration

[1:01:30] practitioners in the state of Maine.

[1:01:33] I'm here on behalf of the,

[1:01:35] of butters, the direct butters

[1:01:37] in the surrounding residents of Raspberry Cove.

[1:01:40] I have a lot to say about this project,

[1:01:43] but I'll skip that for this evening

[1:01:44] and just go for a clarifying question.

[1:01:46] And that is the process here,

[1:01:50] which honestly was kind of heartbreaking that people can come and speak at a public forum,

[1:01:57] but you can't act on the information they give you. And to me that's fundamentally wrong.

[1:02:04] But the general processes goes to vote. Let's assume they get enough votes that are valid.

[1:02:10] And then at that point it may go to DEP to become involved. So there's an article out there

[1:02:18] that people are looking at that may be correct, it may be incorrect.

[1:02:21] I mean, I could come forward and say, I want to build a rocket launch pad, and I could

[1:02:26] get that.

[1:02:28] It's kind of hard before the horse.

[1:02:32] So then there's this public hearing where we can speak, but you don't get to do anything

[1:02:36] with that information, but Amy is allowed to take some action on the language of the ordinance

[1:02:44] to some degree is that correct, you can make some changes, but not substantive, is that, is that right?

[1:02:49] Yeah, I mean Section 8.01 of the charter does give the town attorney a review opportunity before the ordinance is submitted to the voters.

[1:03:01] So I see that as an earlier opportunity and probably happening before the public hearing.

[1:03:06] Okay. And then, at what point, if DEP is making comments, let's just say, and I think it's quite possible, that this in no way meets chapter 1000 shoreline zoning standards and far exceeds them.

[1:03:24] How then does this get kiboshed, as it should, because it's a poorly written document?

[1:03:30] Well, there are a lot of different things to speculate upon, but what I would say in general,

[1:03:37] I would hope, again, the council has been voted on this yet, but I would hope that if

[1:03:43] it goes down the path of following section 8.01 of the charter, the town staff will be

[1:03:49] reaching out to DEP to get a formal written response, and ideally before the public hearing

[1:03:55] is scheduled. So I mean, I think it would be helpful to have that information from

[1:04:02] DEP probably after the last day of the signature validation date, which will be somewhere

[1:04:08] in the latest September timeframe, maybe third week of September, but before the public

[1:04:15] hearing, assuming that enough signatures are valid.

[1:04:20] We don't town can't control what DEP does or doesn't do, so that leaves it in the hands of folks who are concerned about that to make clear that they're concerned that DEP might have a problem with a particular provision.

[1:04:35] What I can say legally is this ordinance does have a severability clause, and that that's a fancy legal way of saying if there's something that is deemed unconstitutional or improper or

[1:04:47] The violative of state law, in this case, Chapter 1000, and the town is informed of that

[1:04:54] by a state agency that that provision would need to come out of this proposed ordinance.

[1:05:00] That doesn't mean the entire ordinance comes out, but it does mean that people looking at

[1:05:04] it would have to look at how this, what impact that would have and whether that, you know, whether

[1:05:13] that would guide the voter to say, should I vote for this or not?

[1:05:19] Thank you very much.

[1:05:26] I just wanted to make another comment about the timing concern.

[1:05:31] I want to acknowledge that all seven councillors are here for a second regular meeting in

[1:05:38] August that we are not actually supposed to have, and we're here primarily to talk about this issue.

[1:05:45] So if Amy decided we had to be here two days later, we'd be here two days later.

[1:05:51] Because I think we take seriously the charter, we take seriously the right of the residents of Freport to exercise their rights to bring their petitions to us and for us to respond to them.

[1:06:04] And we've worked diligently with Amy, with the manager, with the clerk to make sure that there is a way to get this.

[1:06:14] if it gets the ballot, if we vote to send it out to signature, if the signatures are validated that it gets on the November ballot because as the chair said regardless of who it favors something that's going out to the voters should go to the most amount of voters possible.

[1:06:34] And part of, so that's the fundamental reason, the other reason is we don't want to go to a special election because it costs a lot of money.

[1:06:43] We would like to keep that cost down and keep it to where we already have owners who are expecting to go and vote on things.

[1:06:56] And do you have any comment online?

[1:06:59] I don't think so.

[1:06:59] So we'll close the public comment.

[1:07:01] Thank you for speaking and for coming out.

[1:07:03] I'm much appreciated.

[1:07:06] Can I make a motion?

[1:07:07] Yes, please go ahead.

[1:07:09] Beat order that the town council following the clerk's acceptance for processing on or about August

[1:07:15] 22, 2026, of a proposed ordinance entitled ordinance to launch the Islander Overbessel,

[1:07:22] submitted on June 4th, 2026 by a group of five residents, declines to take further action on said proposed ordinance,

[1:07:29] and directs the town clerk to provide appropriate petition forms, including copies of said proposed ordinance,

[1:07:35] to be circulated by petitioners to qualified voters for signature in accordance with Section 8.01 of the Town Charter and State Law.

[1:07:43] Second.

[1:07:44] All those in favor?

[1:07:46] Aye.

[1:07:47] That's everybody.

[1:07:49] All right.

[1:07:56] All right, moving on to our second public comment period.

[1:08:00] Thank you, Amy, very much.

[1:08:01] Have a great night.

[1:08:04] So this is for folks who are virtual.

[1:08:07] Is there anyone who would like to speak on items on the agenda?

[1:08:11] Okay, we'll go ahead and close public comment.

[1:08:15] All right, other business is the only item is the Dunning Boatyard update.

[1:08:19] Just a brief report back from our first ad hoc Dunning Boatyard committee last night.

[1:08:27] We had a great, a great interest in folks who wanted to be on the committee, which I thought was great.

[1:08:32] So how many times can I say great?

[1:08:34] It was wonderful.

[1:08:36] So that speaks to sort of the importance of that spot as a working waterfront resource

[1:08:40] and as a beloved asset to the community.

[1:08:44] So with the timeline that we discussed, we will be meeting again in doing a site visit

[1:08:50] in September before going into the visioning process, again with that outcome really being

[1:08:56] a report to the council of potential uses and ideas for the space with the understanding

[1:09:03] that council has directed that we would like to see it as a working waterfront and public recreation resource in perpetuity.

[1:09:14] There was really good conversation around making sure that we're looking at it in the broader context of the town, especially in a little bit of our neighboring region as well.

[1:09:24] In terms of what's happening there, that's not happening in other places that would be hard to lose.

[1:09:31] what are gaps in the town, in the region, around working waterfront needs that this could potentially fulfill.

[1:09:40] And we did our best to sort of make this ad hoc committee a group of subject matter experts,

[1:09:47] but also we'll be doing a little bit of outreach to the users to provide input on the space as well.

[1:09:54] So

[1:10:00] the other issue that comes up with Dunning-Botyard is that we have an executed lease that goes through September 30th.

[1:10:08] That lease was very clear that there was no expectation of renewal or extension beyond that.

[1:10:16] It's also pretty clear that we're not going to be at a point for Council to really be considering this matter by the 30th of September.

[1:10:26] I do not have any direction from council as to whether or not you would like me to place

[1:10:34] this matter on the council, another council meeting with a proposed extension or you know

[1:10:44] where does council want me to go which is why this is other business if it needs an extension

[1:10:49] then I need to have some conversation with Carter and draft up a document for you guys to consider.

[1:10:55] And if you're going to send me down that, could you give me a sense of how long we would be looking at?

[1:11:02] If you would like to extend it, what is the period you're looking at?

[1:11:05] And to provide a little more context so that report from the ad hoc committee we anticipate by the end of the year.

[1:11:12] However, we had also talked about that being sort of just one milestone because then after that we would have council discussion

[1:11:20] But we talked about community engagement to get input from the larger population around the space so I don't think the end of the year is the end of our

[1:11:30] We're not going to have everything we need a plan in place by then

[1:11:35] So I say that to kind of help with if we're thinking about what to do with the lease. That's important information

[1:11:41] Can you remind me who's on the committee and the subject matter expertise we have?

[1:11:49] Yes, so we have Mike Morrissey, who's the chair of Coastal Waters, Mike Ashby, who unfortunately wasn't able to make it, but we'll make sure he's updated.

[1:11:58] Ford, Raiki, Tom Schwarm, who's a community member, Dick, I forget his last name.

[1:12:09] Merrick.

[1:12:09] Yes, who is also a committee member and a butt's the property.

[1:12:11] We have Emerson Goodwetch who works for the Main Coast Fisherman's Association and

[1:12:19] Councillor Smith and myself and Jessica Joyce who works for the state and is actually the University of Maine and is a

[1:12:29] professional in terms of waterfront access planning.

[1:12:33] Thank you.

[1:12:33] Great.

[1:12:34] Thank you.

[1:12:35] Sophie, did we get any other information back from assessments of the physical flant?

[1:12:42] So we had, we elected to bypass another engineering report that was going to cost $24,000.

[1:12:51] We sent in Tom Wright and Ford who both had a pretty extensive rehabilitation of waterfront

[1:13:01] And marine type properties, there is my

[1:13:09] sense, I've not gotten anything in writing from

[1:13:11] them that I can share, but my sense is that adage of an old building is not going to

[1:13:15] meet codes, can turn everybody into liars because it can stay for another 20 years.

[1:13:22] So the idea is that there are some adjustments that likely would have to be made, I've heard

[1:13:29] things like getting rid of the mezzanines, you know, like there are some things that are suggesting

[1:13:34] and some elements that we could maybe look at. So I don't know that it's total tear down.

[1:13:42] I think we are for, unless we bring it up to code, we are for going the property

[1:13:49] coverage on the building. But the liability should sit, at least for, unless we started to see

[1:13:57] some significant signs that it was failing.

[1:14:03] So that's kind of where we are.

[1:14:06] That's an interesting point.

[1:14:08] What would those signs be and how would we look for them?

[1:14:12] And on would it be an active look?

[1:14:15] Would it be at a regular cadence?

[1:14:18] I still do have concerns like, I mean, we got the report and I understand there's context

[1:14:25] for that. But we're also a landlord and I do take that life safety responsibility seriously and I want to make sure we're not just saying oh well we got there important we talked about that couple of months ago and now you know what do we do next like they'll just move on yeah I mean I think you can do affirmative inspections you can look for wood to start giving swaying you see

[1:15:00] I mean, I'm not an expert. I'm just, you know, you can see when, when things start to kind of go out of shape, you can. And we can also see that main municipal association has paid municipalities or had in the past for several roofs that collapsed in buildings that there is going to be rest in no matter what you do.

[1:15:28] Now, my question was more not like what's the actual checklist, but

[1:15:32] bringing the topic up, and is this a, we have Nick take a look every quarter,

[1:15:41] something like that, to just assure us that it seems like it's still in this

[1:15:47] steady state that it was, I just, what do we do, because I don't want to just pretend like it's not an issue?

[1:15:55] Yeah, I mean, I think that I think that likely makes some sense I can have a conversation with Rick

[1:16:00] I think that the feedback I'm getting even from people who say, you know, this

[1:16:06] judging this to the code is just not a fair thing to do for this building

[1:16:12] They are still saying things like yeah, you probably should not be using the mezzanine that just does

[1:16:19] not make sense with the way this building is put together

[1:16:22] So things like that, we can have some conversation with Carter.

[1:16:26] He was supposed to have reduced the load on the mezzanine.

[1:16:31] We need to go out and inspect that, to make sure that that is actually the case.

[1:16:35] So we'll take snaps and pictures and just document that.

[1:16:43] Ford, Reiki, who we mentioned is on the committee, who's also the Chair of the Project Review Board.

[1:16:48] He also has his own experience with particularly older buildings around the state and shared his concern that, as Sophie said, that it's not just about code so much as that for a lot of historic buildings or older buildings, the structural engineering report is never going to show that it will withstand what it's already withstood for.

[1:17:18] However, many decades, and I've been with structural engineers in church

[1:17:24] steeples when they've said, yeah, you don't want me to calculate the numbers,

[1:17:28] but it's been here for 150 years, so there's every reason to think it will say.

[1:17:34] But to your point, Matt, I think having, you still need to go and look,

[1:17:39] because at some point, there could be a point of failure and you want to see that sooner than later.

[1:17:45] I think there was also some concern voiced in those initial conversations last night about this question that we had kind of opened up of just saying we don't want this group to focus on the building as much as what is the site and the access point really, what's the highest and best use of that.

[1:18:08] But there was some conversation around the fact that you wouldn't be able to replace the bill and still be able to rent it.

[1:18:20] Because at that point, it would cost so much to replace it, you're never going to recoup that cost.

[1:18:27] So we already, I think, have reduced the least premises because of the setback issues

[1:18:36] that we've identified in previous conversations, which is therefore reduced to the rent.

[1:18:42] I think one of my concerns really is an analysis that we should talk about about whether what we

[1:18:50] we are collecting in revenue from the least premises really have the long-term ability

[1:18:58] to maintain those premises and what does that mean in terms of capital reserves for

[1:19:05] long-term repairs.

[1:19:08] So that's something I think we would want to look at with that group or at least the council

[1:19:15] if the group is not going to have that conversation about the building then maybe that's just a

[1:19:19] the council conversation but having that conversation around the inability to

[1:19:25] recoup the cost of a new building flagged for me that I don't know that we have

[1:19:31] a current plan of recouping the cost for the existing building so that's a

[1:19:37] concern but in terms of the building actually standing I think my concerns about

[1:19:44] about the insurance have been answered by the fact that as long as we have liability insurance still I do not think it's worth having building insurance because again we wouldn't be replacing that building, we would be looking at something entirely different if we have to have to do that.

[1:20:04] Highest and best use is a great term, I just add the word long term, because really we're looking at visioning into the future as best we can for the long term welfare of the working waterfront.

[1:20:17] As for a practical answer to the question, how do we check the building or when do we check it?

[1:20:24] And I think practically speaking, I mean, we just had 75 mile an hour August in Portland

[1:20:29] to the degree that trees are down and cars are destroyed.

[1:20:33] So the practical answer to me is, if there's a serious downburst or something like that, we

[1:20:44] should definitely look at the building and look for trouble because wind I think is possibly

[1:20:49] one of the biggest problems.

[1:20:51] We've removed the damage it could be caused by using a hoist because that's not used anymore I understand so but when we don't know when that's going to happen so it has been around for how long?

[1:21:06] 100 years. No, not that 71. 71. I'm sure it's it's. But yeah, by about a yearly inspection

[1:21:16] would be enough and if we had some significant event. But weather is significant to a place

[1:21:24] and it's a very sheltered place actually so that's great. So it sounds like Sophie will

[1:21:30] have a conversation with Nick about cadence and timing on that.

[1:21:34] I think the place to really have that conversation in depth would be the Municipal Facilities Committee, we're meeting on the 26th and we can have that there.

[1:21:44] And just to put a thought in in your guys' head is a lot of people use Carter to have their mornings in and out and I think it'd be easier if we did that for a weighted till April or May once all the mornings in and if we were going to end the lease.

[1:22:05] So right now it's extended to the end of September.

[1:22:08] Right, and I'm saying so would be a year to May, that'll give us time to do whatever we want to come up with.

[1:22:15] Okay, we're going to do this, or we're not going to do this, so it would be 14 months, 15 months, something like that.

[1:22:22] Instead of maybe 18 months, and responding to that, I wonder, can this be renewed multiple times?

[1:22:31] So I think it's, yeah, I want to be mindful of just being clear that it's extending an existing lease, not entering into a new lease.

[1:22:40] Correct.

[1:22:41] Well, I want to be clear, we're extending a lease extension because in that multi-page lease extension that took a long time to craft, there is significant language in there about concerns related to the building, liability related to the building, how the tenant is going to function in the new building.

[1:22:59] So, I think we have a framework that takes us through decision making, I will just say this

[1:23:09] is something that when I am kind of thinking about how your discussions are moving forward

[1:23:19] and that you want a report here by X-Date and then you want to begin a community conversation

[1:23:27] in the late fall and into the winter, and you want to make some decisions, it would

[1:23:33] seem to me if I was a commercial tenant, this idea of we're going to kind of keep

[1:23:44] kicking the can, I would rather have you guys make decisions, decide then if there is

[1:23:51] a transition, if it's a transition to what we're going to do something different, or we're

[1:23:56] going to have something long term because this one we do not have any other property

[1:24:02] leases that go a year at a time. None. Most of them are quite longer. So it would

[1:24:12] seem, I mean, part of me trying to push this a little bit is what is the best use? There's

[1:24:19] been all sorts of conversation. If it is to continue to lease to a single lease hold, then

[1:24:25] and we should make improvements to the building, we should have a plan for how we're going to maintain the building, and we should give some stability to the tenant.

[1:24:37] If we're not going to do that, then we should make a decision.

[1:24:41] This is easy for me to say as the appointed person, probably going way over the line, but make a decision that then allows us to transition into whatever the new plan is.

[1:24:53] That's one or the other.

[1:24:54] And to be clear, that's what we're doing.

[1:24:58] But I think the question now, so we have the process in place, that's exactly what we're going to do.

[1:25:02] But we're not, tonight's not.

[1:25:04] Tonight, no, I know.

[1:25:05] We're not answering the question tonight of are we entering into a long term lease?

[1:25:09] That's not tonight.

[1:25:10] So tonight, really what it is, is are we, do we want to extend it?

[1:25:14] What are we doing with this lease as we know the timeline for that visioning?

[1:25:19] So, sorry.

[1:25:20] Go for it.

[1:25:21] I was just going to say, I thought where Chip was going and I was going to agree with him, is that yes, if you've got to have mornings come in, then you've got to have mornings go back out again.

[1:25:32] So I was thinking yes, May, but next May, not a year from May, mostly because at that point, I think by then the council will have a vision of where we're going with the property and can either enter into a longer term lease.

[1:25:51] Yeah, or will you take an interim to a long time at least any time I'm just I

[1:25:57] Don't think we'll be there and even if we are there it's gonna take time to get everything set in place

[1:26:02] so it gives

[1:26:04] It just gives us time to really flesh all this out. I'm not saying we don't do it

[1:26:09] but and it gives

[1:26:11] you know

[1:26:13] Carter time to figure out too because it's

[1:26:17] You know, we'll know by May, well, okay, this is what we're going to do, but we're not going to, at that point, we're not going to have, and then that brings in a whole other season, that's all I'm saying, because we're, let's face it, we're slow.

[1:26:32] We have to be slow, so I'm saying, if we give ourselves a year and a half to answer all these questions, and it's just a thought, that's what I'm thinking.

[1:26:42] It will give us, we don't have to, okay, it's May now, okay, we're going to do this, and then we're going to do that.

[1:26:48] Well, no, okay, we need extended, we'll do the other guy.

[1:26:51] I don't want to be there.

[1:26:53] It's easier to do that than it is to sit and discuss, okay, yet, well, we got this coming up again, and we want to extend it.

[1:27:01] Well, we don't know this, we don't know that, we're going to, it just takes time.

[1:27:05] And I think if we give ourselves a year and a half to get this all done and know where we're going,

[1:27:11] we're better off.

[1:27:13] I'm usually better, I want to make a decision now, and I do not like taking time.

[1:27:20] But we're not just dealing with our time, we're dealing with clients and everything else.

[1:27:26] So it just gives everyone more time to think about what they have to do if this is that.

[1:27:33] I think we have set up this committee, this ad hoc committee, to be a quick moving process.

[1:27:41] Again, I'm not saying that that's not a big decision, but-

[1:27:45] So I would support May of this year, and then we revisit then.

[1:27:50] Anyone want to place bets?

[1:27:52] I don't think, and I'm not saying that means that we need to, I'm not saying that means that we're perfectly lined up when we know exactly what we're doing.

[1:28:00] That's not what I'm saying.

[1:28:01] I get that, but it's going to get to May, we're not going to be perfectly lined up and then we're going to be doing this again.

[1:28:07] First of all, like I spend a fair amount of time out in the water when I'm feeling better, but I would not presume to know the morning business.

[1:28:18] So May, I'm guessing is actually not the date that we should be talking about.

[1:28:23] I could be wrong, but Carter could tell us, first of all.

[1:28:27] Second of all, I'm the guy that screams for us to move faster, right?

[1:28:34] And I can tell you right now, we will not finish this process by May.

[1:28:39] There's no way in hell we will finish this process by May, which is what happened.

[1:28:44] And I hate to see us set ourselves up for failure.

[1:28:48] This is an important decision.

[1:28:50] The working waterfront needs to be preserved on our shoreline.

[1:28:54] And I will not presume to know whether that means that Carter goes there or something else goes there or

[1:29:03] whatever the people in the town of Freport, you know, whatever is best for them.

[1:29:09] But I can't imagine it will be done by May of 27.

[1:29:18] You know, I think if what you want to do is

[1:29:23] say September of 27, that would give you know,

[1:29:27] you know, that's time to make a decision and Carter to then react to that decision if

[1:29:33] I think going until the following spring actually makes more sense and the one thing that

[1:29:40] I think everybody here has heard or has said is it stood for quite a few years. I don't

[1:29:47] think she's coming down real fast and I understand like you look underneath there and there's

[1:29:53] like pylings that are

[1:30:00] Broken. Go look underneath every single building on the Portland waterfront. I've been under most of them at one time or another. And I can tell you, they look worse.

[1:30:13] And, you know, I think the idea of having some restrictions put on the use of the vasanines on chain, chain falls and stuff like that makes sense to me. I think having a regular inspection makes a lot of sense to me.

[1:30:29] because I think that while we have insurance for liability, it's still incumbent upon us to protect people from getting hurt.

[1:30:40] But I think rushing this is coincidentally the same time that I get to get back out on the water to work my farm.

[1:30:51] And as far away as it seems, I gotta tell you, it's not that far.

[1:31:02] So

[1:31:09] I guess all of that said it makes perfect sense.

[1:31:14] So what's going to keep the fire under our deriors to keep moving forward, because I think that's important.

[1:31:29] I think an iterative process, I think we learn along the way.

[1:31:34] I think, personally, I would not like to see the building vacant unnecessarily.

[1:31:42] So, Sophie's ask was, what would we like to have her prepare for us?

[1:31:48] My individual opinion would be, I would love to see an extension through,

[1:31:53] I'll say, June 30th, to get through the spring season with any additional restrictions that we've learned about since the last time we extended it.

[1:32:02] And maybe that's the last time we extended it was, that was all we needed to do and that's fine.

[1:32:08] We may think that now we also want to add some inspections and that's fine.

[1:32:12] So if that you have any recommendations for that extension, I think that would be prudent.

[1:32:17] I expect that when June 30th comes, we probably won't be done with our process.

[1:32:21] We'll probably need to extend again.

[1:32:22] But we may learn some things between now and June 30th.

[1:32:25] So at the next extension, we may say, in addition to the inspections that we added in September,

[1:32:30] We now decided that red paint is okay and blue paint is not okay, so we want to add that as a condition into the next lease.

[1:32:37] By giving us that window of renewal, it gives us the opportunity.

[1:32:40] If we renew for a year and a half or two years, we don't have the ability to adjust it along the way.

[1:32:44] So I would propose that we extend through next summer, but

[1:32:49] understand that it's not a failure if we don't have a long term solution by then.

[1:32:53] But just it means we have more information for the next lease.

[1:32:55] So what you're saying is because we have a lease, we can't paint the building.

[1:33:00] That's what I just heard, right?

[1:33:01] We can't change the building.

[1:33:03] You saw what you said, well, we can still do things to the building.

[1:33:08] Absolutely, you're not going even if he has, at least for a year or a half.

[1:33:13] If we learn between now and June that we learn something new about the structure of the building.

[1:33:18] That, oh, we need to not put things in this corner of the building because that piling is especially dangerous.

[1:33:23] If we learn something like that, that gives us the opportunity to modify the terms of the lease.

[1:33:28] That's all I'm saying.

[1:33:29] And then maybe that we get to June and be like, yeah, it's fine as he has just added another year, two or six months to it.

[1:33:35] Really like the idea of Councillor Sparta of regular inspections because what happens in the first inspection is you learn about the building.

[1:33:44] The second inspection, you learn a little more and finally you start to settle into, oh, okay, this is what's normal.

[1:33:50] And I just think that makes a really good sense.

[1:34:05] I think the June 30th, I agree with what you said, Dan.

[1:34:09] I think that's great.

[1:34:10] I think that you put it very well of, you know, it's an iterative process and

[1:34:14] we're going to learn a lot as we go.

[1:34:27] There's no mode, this is just, we're giving guidance to Sophie on this, do you need, do you need support from

[1:34:36] from your school facilities in order to think through what we're adding or is it something that you can work with Nick and bring it back.

[1:34:43] My suggestion, I think I already have a lot of it in my brain, I'm going to need to talk with Carter at some point, but I'll bring a draft to the next week's MFC meeting just so people can look at it and get feedback.

[1:34:56] back. So one of the critiques I've had in the past is that I can listen and hear multiple

[1:35:02] people but often can land on one or two voices. So I just, I have heard a length of time

[1:35:09] and six months or until the end of the fiscal year. So I just want to make sure the last

[1:35:16] thing I heard was the end of the fiscal year. And if that's the direction I'm headed in,

[1:35:21] And that's fine, nodding of head, it's great.

[1:35:24] Okay.

[1:35:25] Or, and I rest if that works better.

[1:35:28] So, yes.

[1:35:30] And I might be so clear that this, you know, doesn't mean that's it, it ends.

[1:35:35] This is one step in the direction.

[1:35:40] Okay.

[1:35:41] I think at least two people say a year from the next fiscal year, I just wanted to clarify that.

[1:35:48] Well, that's what I was trying to weigh in on is just because I heard six months less last is that where majority is headed at this moment, knowing I can bring something back and you can change it on the flag.

[1:36:01] Is

[1:36:07] that resonate?

[1:36:11] Okay.

[1:36:14] And with that, we've reached the end of our agenda. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

[1:36:18] So to adjourn?

[1:36:19] Same. All in favor?

[1:36:21] All right.

Town Council - 8-18-2026

Transcript