APPROVED MINUTES
KITTERY TOWN COUNCIL
August 14, 2006 Council Chamber
CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ann Grinnell called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
INTRODUCTORY Chairperson Grinnell read the Introductory.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairperson Grinnell led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Answering the roll were Councilors Jeffery Brake, Matt Brock, Frank Dennett, George Heilshorn, Glenn Shwaery, Judith Spiller and Chairperson Ann Grinnell. Also present were Town Manager Jon Carter, Town Clerk Maryann Place, Public Works Commissioner Rick Rossiter, Recorder Chris Kudym, Jennie Freeman, Susan Emery, George Lombardi, Peter McCloud, Lisa Comeau, Leisa Muccio, Gay Lakin, members of the press and others.
ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES The Minutes of July 10 and July 24, 2006 were accepted, as amended.
Chairperson Grinnell, with Council consensus, moved up New Business Agenda Item 10.d for Council to act on before conducting interviews of candidates for a vacated seat on the Zoning Board of Appeals.
10. d. (Heard out of sequence) (080106-10) THE KITTERY TOWN COUNCIL MOVES TO
ACCEPT THE LETTER OF RESIGNATIONFROMRICHARD BALANO FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WITH REGRET.
COUNCILOR HEILSHORN MOVED TO ACCEPT THE LETTER OF RESIGNATION FROM RICHARD BALANO FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, SECONDED BY CHAIRPERSON GRINNELL.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSES 7/0.
INTERVIEWS FOR PLANNING BOARD, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND/OR CABLE TELEVISION RATE REGULATION BOARD
Applicants to fill the vacancy on the Zoning Board of Appeals were as follows: Tom Battock-Emerson, Joseph Carleton, Ray Grenier, Donald King, Craig Wilson.
Council interviewed the following applicants: Craig Wilson, Don King, Joseph Carleton, Tom Battock-Emerson.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN FOR EACH CANDIDATE, AS FOLLOWS: CRAIG WILSON - 6 VOTES IN FAVOR
DON KING - 5 VOTES IN FAVOR
JOE CARLETON - 2 VOTES IN FAVOR
TOM BATTOCK-EMERSON - 5 VOTES IN FAVOR
MR. WILSON WAS APPOINTED TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO FILL THE VACANCY CREATED BY MR. BALANO’S RESIGNATION, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
Councilor Brock noted that this was the first time they had used this process and he was not sure it was the best; he had been uncomfortable because there was no opportunity to explain or discuss the why of their vote. He said it was not a personal statement, he thought all the applicants were qualified; some had been in Town longer than others and there were a number of reasons that might come into play. He suggested that the Council think about tweaking this process because he got the sense it was sort of a “cold bath” for three of the four candidates and it really shouldn’t be a message like that. They were all well qualified and he hoped they all would come back.
Chairperson Grinnell seconded Councilor Brock’s statement. Addressing the applicants, the Chair said that with the other process, they would always have just one applicant show up and they would all get yes votes; she didn’t remember anyone not getting on. The Chair said this was a new process and thanked the applicants for being part of it.
Councilor Shwaery reiterated the hope that the three other candidates would keep their names on the list because he agreed, as well, that they were all qualified.
Councilor Dennett commented that if Council had used the Solomonic decision, they would have tied everyone and then the selection would have been determined by lot.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
(080106-1) THE KITTERYTOWNCOUNCIL MOVES TOHOLDA PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPLICATIONFROMBERNARD J. LONTINE, YORK, ME FOR A VICTUALER ’S LICENSE FOR B & B RESTAURANT, 435 U.S. ROUTE ONE, KITTERY.
Chairperson Grinnell said this item was advertised in the local paper and opened the Public Hearing. Receiving no response, the Chair closed the Public Hearing.
COUNCILOR HEILSHORN MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION FROM BERNARD J. LONTINE, YORK, ME FOR A VICTUALER’S LICENSE FOR B & B RESTAURANT, 435 U.S. ROUTE ONE, KITTERY, SECONDED BY CHAIRPERSON GRINNELL.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSES 7/0.
(080106-2) THE KITTERYTOWNCOUNCIL MOVES TOHOLDA PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPLICATIONFROMAE SENESOMBATH, 18 KA TANA DRIVE, SOUTHPORTLAND, ME FOR A VICTUALER ’S LICENSE FOR THAI JASMINE RESTAURANT, 182 STATE ROAD, KITTERY.
Chairperson Grinnell said this item was advertised in the local paper and opened the Public Hearing. Receiving no response, the Chair closed the Public Hearing.
COUNCILOR SHWAERY MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION FROM AE SENESOMBATH, 18 KATANA DRIVE, SOUTH PORTLAND, ME FOR A
VICTUALER’S LICENSE FOR THAI JASMINE RESTAURANT, 182 STATE ROAD, KITTERY, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR BRAKE.
Councilor Dennett noted that when they got to the liquor license, they would find this was not an individual but a corporation and he thought the motion should be worded to grant the victualer’s license to the corporation; if the corporation later sought a liquor license, then it should be the corporation that was granted the victualer’s license.
CHAIRPERSON GRINNELL MOVED TO AMEND THE APPLICATION BY REMOVING THE NAME “AE SENESOMBATH” AND REPLACING IT WITH “STAR CORPORATION,” SECONDED BY COUNCILOR SHWAERY.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSES 7/0.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MAIN MOTION, WITH ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSES 7/0.
(080106-3) THE KITTERYTOWNCOUNCIL MOVES TOHOLDA PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPLICATION FROM THE STAR CORPORATION FOR A MALTAND VINOUS LIQUOR LICENSE FOR THAI JASMINE RESTAURANT, 182 STATE ROAD, KITTERY.
Chairperson Grinnell said this item was advertised in the local paper and opened the Public Hearing. Receiving no response, the Chair closed the Public Hearing.
COUNCILOR SHWAERY MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION FROM THE STAR CORPORATION FOR A MALT AND VINOUS LIQUOR LICENSE FOR THAI JASMINE RESTAURANT, 182 STATE ROAD, KITTERY, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR BRAKE.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSES 7/0.
(080106-4) THE KITTERYTOWNCOUNCIL MOVES TOHOLDA PUBLIC HEARING ON THE RENEWAL APPLICATION OF DELTA AMUSEMENT, INC. FOR A MALT, SPIRITUOUS AND VINOUS LIQUOR LICENSE FOR NAVY YARD BAR & BILLIARD, 182 STATE ROAD.
Chairperson Grinnell said this item was advertised in the local paper and opened the Public Hearing. Receiving no response, the Chair closed the Public Hearing.
COUNCILOR BRAKE MOVED TO APPROVE THE RENEWAL APPLICATION OF DELTA AMUSEMENT, INC. FOR A MALT, SPIRITUOUS AND VINOUS LIQUOR LICENSE FOR NAVY YARD BAR & BILLIARD, 182 STATE ROAD, SECONDED BY CHAIRPERSON GRINNELL.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSES 7/0.
e. (080106-5) THEKITTERYTOWN COUNCIL MOVES TOHOLDA PUBLIC HEARING ON THE RENEWAL APPLICATION OF DELTA AMUSEMENT, INC. FOR A SPECIAL ACTIVITY/AMUSEMENT PERMIT FOR NAVY YARD BAR & BILLIARD, 182 STATE ROAD.
Chairperson Grinnell said this item was advertised in the local paper and opened the Public Hearing. Receiving no response, the Chair closed the Public Hearing.
COUNCILOR BRAKE MOVED TO APPROVE THE RENEWAL APPLICATION OF DELTA AMUSEMENT, INC. FOR A SPECIAL ACTIVITY/AMUSEMENT PERMIT FOR NAVY YARD BAR & BILLIARD, 182 STATE ROAD, SECONDED BY CHAIRPERSON GRINNELL.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSES 7/0.
f. (080106-6) THE KITTERYTOWNCOUNCIL MOVES TOHOLDA PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ONAMENDMENTS TO SEC. 11.02, PETITION FOR ENACTMENT OF ORDINANCES, OF THE TOWN CHARTER.
Chairperson Grinnell first noted that copies of the proposed amendments were available for the public and explained that they would have a Public Hearing and then a discussion. If the Council voted this issue down, it went away; if the Council voted in favor of it, it would be put on the November ballot. The Chair then opened the Public Hearing, inviting members of the public to address the Council.
Jennie Freeman, Prince Avenue, came forward and said, under the Home Rule Provisions and State Law, people could petition for a referendum vote on any matter pertaining to their community. Currently, Kittery followed the State’s number of signatures necessary on such a petition, ten percent of the number of voters who voted in the last gubernatorial election. If that number of signatures was obtained, the Town Council could accept the changes right away or could pass an amendment on to voters as a referendum question. Ms. Freeman said that Chairman Ann Grinnell was seeking to increase the number of necessary signatures. According to the newspaper, the two citizens’ petitions that slowed the Rec Center project down had led her to now believe it should be more difficult for
citizens to petition for a vote. People’s participation in the activities of government was essential to good government.
Ms. Freeman stated that Council might remember they stopped the Kittery retail venture mega mall through petition some years ago. They were forced to go that route when the Town Council refused to listen to them, despite the huge turnouts at the Public Hearings against the malls. Ms. Freeman indicated that she thought both the Chair and Councilor Brock were involved in that struggle. The then Town Council took an extremely dim view of any dissent and did their best to stop them but, ultimately, they were successful.
Then, Ms. Freeman said, the casino interests came to Kittery and the Town Manager and the “old boys” on the Town Council, who ran the show, wanted to stop any anti-casino sentiment. Leo Guy, the then Chair, went so far as to refuse to hold the Public Hearing at the Shapleigh School auditorium, so the hearing that was held on their petition was not a Public Hearing because half the public was outside the building because they couldn’t get into the packed Council Chamber. Ms. Freeman again indicated that the Chair and Councilor Brock were very involved in the anti-casino activities. Because the paranoia of dissent for Leo Guy, Mark Sousa and Dennis Estes was so great, she said, they tried to have Ann, Susan Emery, and Sarah Brown thrown off Town Council because the women wanted the Town
Planner to attend a conference on what towns should expect from a legal standpoint should the casino come to Town. The “old boys,” along with Phil McCarthy, the then Town Manager, saw them as a real threat to their authority; it was their way or the highway.
Referring then to the two petitions concerning the Rec Center, Ms. Freeman stated that Ann Grinnell was very supportive of the Rec Center and, as a citizen, that was her right. However, this time, she was on the other side of the petitioners, in a position of power, and able to make it more difficult for those opposing the Center. Ms. Freeman said this reminded her of Dennis Estes’ failed attempt to force Kittery citizens, or any other political affiliation involved in a Town issue, to register as a political action committee. In theory, his plan would not forbid citizen involvement, it just would have made it more difficult; he was the single only person at the Public Hearing who spoke in favor of his plan and it was clear it was simply an attempt to squelch his political opponents
- just as she feared this was.
Ms. Freeman said she took real issue with anyone trying to make it more difficult for her to be involved with her governance. The Council called this Public Hearing in an attempt to force citizens to obtain five percent more names in order to get an issue on the ballot, from around 369 signatures to around 549. How many signatures did the Council need to put this on for this Public Hearing? None; they didn’t need backing from the public to get this Public Hearing.
After this June’s Special Election, the Portsmouth Herald quoted the Town Manager, Jon Carter, saying that he planned to put several items that did not pass back onto the ballot at the next election so they could vote on it again; he thought we voted incorrectly so he was going to give us another chance to vote the right way. Ms. Freeman said she was shocked and angry at his cavalier attitude toward democracy; didn’t their vote mean anything in this Town? He doesn’t like the outcome, so put it on the ballot again. The new fire station turned down? Not a problem - put it on the ballot again. Meanwhile, they tighten the screws to citizens’ access to the political process.
Ms. Freeman said, as for herself, she was very happy to vote again on the Rec Center because originally she voted in favor of the York Hospital Physical Therapy Center. However, she had voted without knowing that this project did not comply with zoning, would have to go before the ZBA for a Special Exception and she hadn’t known that the Deed restricted the property for public use. Neither was mentioned at the April 11, 2005 meeting and neither item became public knowledge until sometime after the original vote. Town officials were well aware of both issues but chose not to bring it up at the Public Hearing; it was relevant and pertinent information the public needed to make an intelligent decision. So, she said, they got to vote again, thanks to their citizens’ petition and the voters voted
to go forward with the Rec Center. Whether she was unhappy or not with the outcome of that vote was not the issue here. She was happy that the democratic process of citizen petition allowed her a second vote when she had knowledge of this information, which had previously been withheld; it was an excellent reason for a revote.
Ms. Freeman stated that limiting the power of political opponents was not the answer; the country was founded in dissent and the founding fathers were revolutionaries. She said that most of the Council would have had participants in the Boston Tea Party in leg irons. Given the recent history of this “dirty little town:” two former Town Council Chairmen in prison; a former tax assessor went to prison; the current tax assessor granted at least one unlawful property tax exemption (a big one) – the how and why she would love to know - and he was still their tax assessor; their current Chief of Police was still under investigation by the Attorney General’s office and he was still their Chief of Police (and she had not heard one person outside of the Town Hall in support of him); and
Council scheduled Public Hearings so they could weigh in on handing some of their power over to Town Hall. Nothing personal, she said, but she was not doing that without a fight. Ms. Freeman said she hoped they all decided to abandon this ill-conceived change to their Ordinance and Charter.
Susan Emery, Mitchell School Lane, Kittery Point, came to the podium and said she was not in favor of this change. Extensive public input had gone into the process during the time of the Charter Commission and the ten percent was an attempt to bring their petitions in line with State Law and other towns within the State and, as she recalled, it passed by a high percentage of the voters. It had been in effect now for several years and she didn’t think it was good practice for Council to go about changing the Charter, which went through a well-publicized process for public input, due to a concern by a Councilor about one use of this provision; a pattern of concern would be different, but to change their Charter over one concern was bad policy.
Ms. Emery said she also had a comment from Russell Plante, who could not be there.
Mr. Plante had made a copy for each Councilor so she would read his comment and then hand those copies out.
“August 14, 2006.
I believe the increase in the number of signatures from ten percent to fifteen percent will stifle residents who have legitimate concerns from introducing changes, issues and improvements to our Town. At the current ten percent requirement, you need 369 signatures in order to submit a petition to the Town. Increasing that to 15 percent would require 554 signatures; that was 185 more signatures. Even getting ten percent requires a lot of work. A concerned resident will spend many hours of their time in accumulating that number.
Instead of blatantly attempting to require another five percent, you might want to consider the increase for Special Elections only and leave the ten percent requirement in place for the regular voting times ofJune and November.”
Ms. Emery then distributed copies of Mr. Plante’s note to Council.
George Lombardi, 105 Manson Avenue, approached the podium and said he agreed with everything that had been said. This was something, he said, that was trying to be enacted because of one petition and was something that would come back and bite them. Every single time something was done wrong, legally or illegally, the people had no voice any longer. Mr. Lombardi said he had protected this country one time in his life and he protected it to protect democracy and this was not democratic.
Peter McCloud, 46 Norton Road, came forward and said he would like to address the Council from the perspective of a former Charter Commission member, 2000-2001, when the Charter was last reworked. The Charter Commission spent many, many hours and had many discussions on this very subject and he just wanted to remind the Council that this was approved by a vote of the people via a very large, more than two to one, margin and he didn’t think that when something had been passed by that large a margin, it was a good idea to just change it when it had been a relatively short time since then. There hadn’t been that many elections or petitions since 2002, there had only been a couple of times it was used and that was all he had to say from his former Charter Commission member
experience.
Mr. McCloud then said he would like to say something to the Council as a former petitioner. Most people in Town knew that if he felt strongly about an issue, the difference between ten percent and fifteen percent would not make a difference to him. Anything that people in Town, whether it was him or someone else, felt strongly enough about to go to the trouble to go out on the streets and petition for, they would do it any way, no matter what. He personally felt this was sour grapes and hated to say that but he thought that was what it was. One element that entered into the mix was
that the more petitions they had in Town, the more it cost for special elections and he thought that was one of the concerns of the Council members at this time and maybe they had to take a look at that. If they changed it - if the Council were to go ahead tonight and say okay they wanted to change the Charter - then the very next morning, if citizens so desired, they could go out to collect signatures and wouldn’t be subject to the higher amount and when citizens find out about this plan, they won’t like it. Himself, if the Council passed it, he thought he would be inclined to help anyone so inclined to overrule the Council.
Lisa Comeau, Admiralty Village, came forward and thanked the Council for the work they did and thanked everyone for being there. She said she had Beth’s great article of July25 entitled “Town Pushes for Tougher Petition Rules” in which there was a quote explaining why Chairperson Grinnell, supported by Councilor Brock, wanted to make this change. The article quoted the Chair saying “I would like to raise the bar so that there would have to be more involvement from the public.” Ms. Comeau said, as brought up tonight, and as she personally knew, it was difficult because this whole thing, according to Ann, had to do with her two petitions, which she brought forth to try and save a park in her neighborhood. She had exercised her democratic right under the United
States Constitution and the Town of Kittery’s Charter; she broke no laws and did everything above board and if the reason for this move on the part of certain Councilors was because of her two petitions, then that was completely the wrong reason to be doing this.
Ms. Comeau referred to another quote from Frank Dennett, “the wise old owl,” which said that the only dissenting voice was that of Councilor Dennett, who was wary of limiting the voters’ power of petitioning and he questioned why, if there had been only one or two successful petitions in the past few years, did the Council need to up the ante? Ms. Comeau said that was an excellent, intuitive and searching question and she was glad at least one person spoke up for the people.
Addressing the Chair, Ms. Comeau said she didn’t really understand how the Chair felt that making it more difficult to collect signatures was going to bring more involvement. She thought it would make less involvement and it made her wonder if that was exactly what the Chair wanted.
Ms. Comeau stated she was very proud that, at her own expense, she campaigned for and won her seat on the Charter Commission. She said, she could tell them that the Commission had looked at all the charters in the surrounding communities; they wanted to bring their Town in line with and consistent with other towns and with the recommendations of the Maine Municipal Association and the State of Maine’s Constitution. That was why they made the changes they made to the Charter, this being one of them. They also voted to increase Town Council’s pay because they felt Council deserved an increase for the time they spent trying to govern this Town. She had been instrumental in bringing forward conflict of interest language because there had been none.
Chairperson Grinnell asked Ms. Comeau to stay on topic. Ms. Comeau replied, yes, that she was getting to something. The reason for 11.02 in their Town Charter was to support a system of checks and balances; Town Council needed that system of checks and balances. If they changed 11.02, that made her wonder, what’s next? Was it 11.03, Petition to Overrule Town Action, would that be next? She couldn’t help but arrive at that conclusion if they were messing with the changes in the Charter the Commission had worked so hard on.
Ms. Comeau said this did have to do with stifling the voice of the people; if they wanted to make it harder to have the voice of the people be heard and to get something on a referendum vote before the voters, then they were voting to stifle the voice of the people. By the way, she said, she seemed to remember a few Councilors sitting on the Town Council right now who ran under a
“voice of the people” platform and they supported them but she seemed to see a reversal. Addressing the Chair, Ms. Comeau said she was really surprised because she had voted for her and
her citizens group helped her win her seat. Addressing Councilor Brock, Ms. Comeau stated that they had supported him. She wouldn’t vote for them again.
The Chair reminded Ms. Comeau to stay on topic and they would address the issues she brought up. Ms. Comeau continued, saying that this change to the Charter shouldn’t even be on the agenda and it was there for all the wrong reasons; she really thought they were wasting the people’s time. She also thought they were probably going to say things like, it cost so much money to have a referendum vote. The Chair said that Ms. Comeau should let her decide what she was going to say and Ms. Comeau countered that she had the freedom to comment right now; the Chair agreed.
Ms. Comeau said she didn’t think they could put a price on democracy and this would not be good for their Town. She didn’t see how they thought this would make more involvement; it was going to discourage it and she would really like to know if that was what they were trying to do.
Leisa Muccio, 4 Central Avenue, came to the podium and thanked Chairperson Grinnell for bringing this forward. She was a little confused, she said, because she kept hearing about citizen participation. She thought that was what a vote was and her understanding was that if it went forward, they would vote on it in November and the Chair confirmed her understanding. Ms. Muccio said she would like to be able to vote on it and wondered why anyone would be afraid of people voting on this. She said 185 signatures was not a whole lot more but it did raise the bar a bit and the bar needed to be raised. This last go-around with Lisa’s petition, thousands of dollars and thousands of hours on both sides were wasted to get the same result in the end. Perhaps getting signatures
was difficult because there wasn’t enough support to change it. If she truly believed something needed to be petitioned, she would not have an issue with getting another 185 signatures and if she couldn’t get them, she would understand that maybe there wasn’t enough support to go forward. Everyone kept talking about citizen participation and she knew people came to these meetings regularly and put in a lot of time and effort; a lot of them did not have that time to put in. Thousands of volunteer and citizen hours went into this petition last fall and regular citizens didn’t want to do that on a regular basis. At that time, her mother was dying but she kept coming to these meetings because she believed in it, but she was disgusted when, in the end, the percentage was exactly the same; what a waste it was. Ms. Muccio said if they wanted them to participate, then don’t waste their time; she really felt that the bar needed to be raised and if people felt
strongly about something, they could get the extra signatures. Most importantly, though, let the voters decide in November and if they decided to keep the number at ten percent, she was fine with that, just give them a shot.
Gay Lakin, Ox Point Drive, approached the podium and said she was the Vice Chair of the Charter Commission and wanted Council to know that they held several Public Hearings on all the issues and all the changes they made were put forward to the people. As far as this went, she said, they looked at the State and all the surrounding communities; they didn’t just pull this number out of the air, it was to make Kittery be in line with all the surrounding towns. There had been an
overwhelming vote that put it in so she didn’t see how they could put it back out to the people because they didn’t like the way someone used it. Ms. Lakin thought the people’s rights were being taken away and if they had ever gone out to petition against anything, they knew how hard it was to get even ten percent of the last gubernatorial; it was not an easy task and they were stifling the mouth of the people with this change.
Courtney Edwards, 9 Payne Road, Kittery Point, came to the front saying she was actually proud to be a Kittery resident, she didn’t see it as a “dirty little town.” She saw a lot of good things
going on in this Town and thought that this move was a brilliant move because they were so tired of listening to what they didn’t want, what they didn’t want to see in this Town, while they were busy working on what they were trying to build in this Town, which was a community of assets for their children and assets in a Town to be proud of. Ms. Edwards said that if it was truly a good idea whose time had come, she didn’t see a problem with getting 554 signatures for anything. Democracy was about one person’s voice but not if one person’s voice negated anybody else’s in the Town and didn’t allow anybody else to feel comfortable speaking in their own Town, saying she knew many people who would not come to this meeting to speak up because they didn’t want the
negativity. A lot of people did want this, did want it in order to stop stupid elections and wasting of their taxpayer dollars that could be spent for the schools. Ms. Edwards said those were her thoughts on the issue and she hoped they got to vote on it in November.
Chairperson Grinnell closed the Public Hearing. The Chair then said she would like to make a couple of comments because it seemed like this was about something only she wanted and then reiterated that the Council could not change the Charter. As she had said before the Public Hearing opened, if this were to pass, it would go to a vote of all the residents that were registered to vote in the Town of Kittery so to all the people who accused her and this Council of trying to take away their rights, they were wrong; they couldn’t do that, they had no desire to do that and they had no authority to that, all they were doing was, if they got a positive vote, every resident would be able to vote on this and there had been many, many residents that had come forward and spoken the way Courtney
and Leisa spoke and the Council was giving them a chance to go to the polls to vote and they would then see where things stood after that.
Specifically addressing Ms. Emery and Mr. McCloud, the Chair reiterated that they were not changing the Charter and explained that more people would have to be involved because more people would have to sign the petition. The Chair told Ms. Freeman that she had no idea how she had voted on the Community Center because she was the only one in that booth at voting time.
The Chair said she felt that she and Councilor Brock got lambasted. She had no ulterior motives, this was just giving the residents a chance to vote on this. Maybe, she said, if it got on the November ballot, nobody would want it, but this wasn’t all about her and what she wanted. The Chair said she thought it was a fabulous idea. They had gone over the numbers and they weren’t raising it 20 percent, they were raising it five percent, so the petitioner would have needed 185 more signatures. That was where more people had to participate because more people would have to stand up at the beginning to sign a petition in order to get the ball rolling and that was what she was referring to in the Herald’s quote. In this case, 185 more people would have had to participate in order for it to go
forward; that was not a lot. The Chair said she never spoke about the money, as she had been accused, that she would talk about how much it cost; that was not her issue. She also didn’t know why the Manager had been dragged into this for something he said in the paper.
Councilor Shwaery said the consensus in the room, and he thought the consensus in general, was that the change to 11.02 was primarily a response to a petition to enact zoning ordinance changes in the Village Residential District and that proposal would have affected the placement of the proposed Rec Center and the activities that could take place within its walls. To his recollection, this was the only successful petition in many years that had come before the Council and eventually forced a special election. The intent of the proposed changes to the Charter was to make it more difficult for Townspeople to bring a petition before the Council, who could either adopt it that evening or put it on the ballot to the voting public. The “voting public” was key; whether local, State or
Federal, the way a government ran was influenced by the people who
showed up, people who engaged in a dialogue either at a Public Hearing or at the polls, so if a few people showed up, then those few people had their influence over the entire Town population. In his mind, the proposed changes to the Charter were trying to repair an apathy in their elections. If they wanted to require more signatures on a petition that could be brought before Council, what they should be doing is invigorating and encouraging more people to go to the polls. When more people went to the polls, ten percent of that increased number went up and you needed more signatures.
Councilor Shwaery then recited some stats received from the Town Clerk: During the last gubernatorial election, 50 percent of the registered voters in Kittery went to the polls. (That was better than the national average so they shouldn’t be too down on themselves.) Translating that to signature numbers, based on that vote, 369 signatures would be required. At the last presidential election, 5,394 people voted, or 67 percent of the population of the registered voters in Kittery. Taking ten percent of that, 539 signatures would be required without changing the percentage. Townspeople seemed to get energized by a presidential election and didn’t come out for gubernatorial elections and, therefore, they had a relatively small population of people that could sign a petition and come before
Council. That was primarily because, for some reason, people didn’t feel it was important to vote in their State elections; they obviously had all kinds of local issues and would have local candidates for Council in November, as well. The danger he saw was if this became a really hot issue and they got 67 percent of the registered voters to come out, if this petition passed, using the same number, it would require 808 signatures, not 539, so what you would be doing was basically double indemnity. Councilor Shwaery noted that they were raising the percentage, and by more people going to the polls, instead of going from ten to fifteen percent, which made it 50 percent harder, they’d made it almost two and a half times harder because they’d gotten more people to come out and vote. To him, that should be the strategy and the alternative and, in fact, if they got just 50 percent more people to vote in the gubernatorial election this time, and if this petition ended up
on the ballot and all those people voted it down, it would be 50 percent harder to get a petition next time because 50 percent more people voted.
Councilor Shwaery thought that if they really wanted true democracy, that was what everyone should be pushing for, engaging the public and have people influence government by showing up and, as far as he was concerned, those who didn’t show up really didn’t have any stake to complain. He said he was going to have to vote against this appearing on the ballot because he thought there was a better alternative, getting more people to vote and leaving it ten percent, but he also understood that some other people thought that Council shouldn’t be messing around with the people’s vote; they should let this go onto the ballot and let the people decide. That sounded like a good idea at first, but the present Councilors were elected to do what was in the best interests of the Town and
sometimes they had the responsibility and burden to make tough decisions. The problem he had was he would not be able to point to a place where people in Town could go to get unbiased information on this from both sides because it was more and more difficult to get unfiltered information without a spin on it. He thought what they should do was just get more people to come to the polls in November, which would basically make it more difficult for a petition to come before the Council.
Councilor Brock said he appreciated people’s comments and had worked with many of them in the past. It troubled him to hear what he would call finger pointing and personal attack in the comments. He didn’t think it was productive, he didn’t think it helped the Council or the process. The important thing was, if this was up for a vote and the Council had the power to enact this change, raising the bar from ten to fifteen percent, he might vote against it because it did make it
more difficult for the public to petition their government and he absolutely thought that was an important right and had certainly been involved in efforts to use that process. However, that was not what this was and he felt there was some real sliding over the point or mischaracterization, whether intentional or not; the question was can the people of Kittery decide whether or not the bar was set at the appropriate level, that was what this was about. They didn’t have the power and, with due respect to Councilor Shwaery, they were not there making the tough decision, they didn’t have the power to do it, they couldn’t change the percentage at all.
Councilor Brock said there was a Charter Commission and he knew they worked hard and the people voted that in. They now had five or six years of experience, the Rec Center had been divisive; they had gotten it from both sides, they had people that said “a minority has grid locked the government,” they had other people saying “you’re trying to mess with our rights.” Councilor Brock said this was a Charter issue and he thought something that the public, as a whole, should be able to vote on; it was not a Council decision. He thought the issue had been mischaracterized and - to come up and say that a particular Councilor, him or the Chair or anybody else, was taking away rights - they were not taking away anyone’s rights. It was up to the Town to decide how the
“checks and balances” would operate and if people were comfortable with a ten percent level – and, again, he might oppose this when it was on the ballot, he hadn’t made up his mind – that was fine but there had been a lot of controversy about where that bar got set and shouldn’t the people of this Town, with all the experience they’d had with the Rec Center, get to decide if they wanted to change it or say they liked it as-is? This was all it was about, so they should be fair as to what it was about and what it was not about. Who had the power on this issue? The people of Kittery had the power, not the Town Council. It went on the ballot, the public could decide; they could decide, we want the ten percent because we don’t want that extra threshold to come to the government or there may be people who said things got tied up and we have to move forward, we’re going to raise that bar.
After all the divisiveness of the Rec Center, Councilor Brock thought it was appropriate to let the Town, with that new experience since the Charter went into effect, decide the issue. With that new experience, they would either say, we set it at ten percent - they did change it five years ago, it wasn’t like this came from on high carved in stone – it was changed by a vote of the public and now the question was did the public now, with this new experience, want to change it again or not? That really was the issue and he took objection to what he thought was really some personal comment or that the Council was trying to do this or that; he was not trying to take anybody’s rights away, he thought this had been a hot issue in Town and they should let the public make the call on it. By law,
it was their call because it was changing the Charter and they were the ones that had to make the change; Council was not making the hard decision, they were simply asking was this issue worthy of a public vote after all this experience and, in his opinion, yes, it was. How he actually voted on it, he expected he would vote against it, but thought the public was entitled to a vote and let the chips fall where they may. That was his vote and to the extent it was characterized otherwise, he thought it was mischaracterized.
Chairperson Grinnell seconded everything Councilor Brock said.
Councilor Heilshorn said he didn’t know that he was going to say anything differently but maybe he would use some different words. Being a Town Councilor was a very interesting position and issues such as these had their people for and against and this Community Center experience had been a joy for some and extremely problematic for others. Sitting in these chairs, Council was
taxed with serving the public and there was a big contingent of people that felt that something didn’t
work and he thought, as Councilor Brock had said, this proposal was an opportunity to have the Town weigh in on an idea to address that; he also was not really sure how he would vote personally on the issue. He didn’t want to take anyone’s rights away and didn’t want to erode democracy in Kittery and he appreciated Jenny’s sort of history refresher; they had been through some stuff, without a doubt, and he didn’t want to see this Council add to the negative balance there but he did think there were some very frustrated people out there and this was an idea they were going to float that would either end there or in an election but he thought it important it make it out there so the Town had an opportunity to weigh in.
Chairperson Grinnell stated that they were the public officials that the residents of the Town elected to do ajob and they had to listen to all parts of the Town and, as Councilors Heilshorn and Brock said, she really felt that they were serving the public by letting them weigh in on this. She couldn’t understand how it had gotten so distorted that the Council was trying to take anyone’s rights away. The Council was not, would not and could not take anyone’s rights away, they were public servants putting something out to the public that many, many people had told them they would like to see out there. If they got to the polls and didn’t want it, fine. If they did have all the power and it was their decision, she couldn’t tell them she would vote for it; that
was not a decision that these seven elected people could make.
Council Spiller noted that, like Councilor Brock, if they were the ultimate decision making authority, she would vote against it. She had concerns about it, she worried that they were raising the bar a little too high; on the other hand, she thought they had all been contacted by many, many people who wanted a chance to cast their opinion through a vote on this particular issue and, for this reason, thought they should go ahead and put it on the ballot. She had no doubt there were many people in Town who would launch a vigorous campaign against it, then it went into the hands of the voters.
Councilor Shwaery wanted to clarify that, although he was sure they were contacted by a lot of people, he hadn’t been contacted by anybody that suggested that this go on the ballot. His biggest problem with it was that there was no way to predict what changing from ten to fifteen percent would do to the number of signatures needed; hypothetically, if no one came out to vote in November, the number could go down. He didn’t see the Charter as being broken; the number would fluctuate and every four years a different number of signatures would be required and if there was a massive turnout and people felt their democratic rights were being stepped on because they now needed 900 signatures to get something done, four years from now they would be dropping it back down to ten percent.
He would say let the chips fall where they may and the number of people that came out to vote were the people that influenced the government.
In respect to Councilor Shwaery’s remarks, Councilor Spiller clarified that she had been contacted by many people following the Community Center election and not by anyone concerning this particular item; Councilor Shwaery said he had understood that.
Councilor Dennett said he would like to discuss this article but could not do so until it had been moved and seconded.
CHAIRPERSON GRINNELL MOVED THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 11.02, PETITION FOR ENACTMENT OF ORDINANCES OF THE TOWN CHARTER, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR HEILSHORN.
Councilor Dennett noted that this was very difficult for him and he was going to break his own cardinal rule that the people should have the right to determine their own fate through the ballot box. Very briefly, it had been said that many people wanted to see this change made. If that be the case, under State Law, they had a right to petition and have it put on the ballot and then the voters could decide. As much as he wanted to see the people vote on this, he was going to vote against sending this forward because he didn’t think it should be up to four or seven people. Again, if there was a ground swell to this, the petition process was provided for under State Law and he thought that was the way it should go.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN AS FOLLOWS: FIVE IN FAVOR, TWO OPPOSED. MOTION PASSES 5/2, WITH COUNCILORS DENNETT AND SHWAERY OPPOSED.
Chairperson Grinnell stated that this amendment would be on the November ballot for all residents to vote on; she then thanked people for coming and for their comments.
Recess called:8:30p.m.
Meeting called back to order: 8:35 p.m.
Town Manager Carter requested that Agenda Item 10.c. be taken up at this time.
10. c. (Heard out of sequence) (080106-9) THE KITTERY TOWN COUNCIL MOVES TO AUTHORIZE THE TOWNMANAGER – INACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 3.04.070 OF THE PURCHASING ORDINANCE – TO USE ANALTERNATIVE PROCUREMENT METHOD TO PURCHASE A JOHN DEERE 997-Z TRACK 72 INCH MOWER FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
Public Works Commission Rick Rossiter came to the podium and said the Town needed a new tractor. Mr. Rossiter said that Michael Namen, the crew chief of the In-Town Parks Division, was present to answer any questions and that he had tried out three different mowers, which had all came in over $10,000. He referred to his memo containing the Town Manager’s comments and also the memo Mr. Namen had written to him concerning the performance of the machines and a request that the Town purchase the John Deere tractor. Mr. Rossiter noted that this would be the alternative procurement method because anything $10,000 or over was meant to go out to a bid. In this case, he tried out three tractors and two quotations came back with municipal pricing, which was a special price given by manufacturers to
municipalities and was as low as they went either with a bid or a quote. Mr. Namen could also point out the timesavings that would be involved in using these machines. The proposed machine was the John Deere at $11,995. Mr. Rossiter then asked Mr. Namen to come up in order to answer any questions and to speak about the machine’s performance.
Mr. Namen thanked the Council for listening to them. He understood they bought computers to move up into the modern age and he thought they needed to move up from a 1978 John Deere 850, which he was now mowing with. This new one, he said, was a fine machine; it out performed the rest and asked if Council had any questions?
Councilor Heilshorn asked how many years he thought they would get out of it? Mr. Namen noted they had gotten 28 years out of the 1978 model. The new machine did a great job and would last them a long time.
Chairperson Grinnell said it sounded like a good idea. Mr. Namen explained that they would keep the John Deer 850; they had taken over new mowing responsibilities on 236, which he planned to use the 850 on because they didn’t have to be turf like a baseball or football field, so that tractor would still be in use, but for athletic fields, for field hockey, baseball, football, you needed to have a safe surface for competitors and this machine would do it for them. The Chair said he was the one who knew the mower so she would move the purchase.
CHAIRPERSON GRINNELL MOVED TO PURCHASE A JOHN DEERE 997-Z TRACK 72 INCH MOWER FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR BRAKE.
Councilor Dennett said he had no problem with the machine or specifications but asked Mr. Rossiter about his mention of a special municipal price and regardless of where they went to a John Deere dealer, they would get no lower? Mr. Rossiter said they might get a $5 or $10 difference but it was pretty close to the same thing. Councilor Dennett asked if what he was saying was if they took these specs and went out to three different John Deere franchises, they would see a negligible difference in the price and Mr. Rossiter said that was right. Mr. Namen explained that they were dealing with Shaws Ridge, a local company with whom they had excellent dealings; they got them parts within a day, they had done them well and were giving them a great price.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSES 7/0. 8. DISCUSSION
a. DISCUSSIONBYMEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC (Three minutes per person)
Susan Emery came forward saying they bought a home beside an elementary school and for 25 years had enjoyed quiet summer evenings. Last year, the Council gave permission to Chauncey Creek Lobster Pier to park staff and also, at times, they parked patrons, at the Mitchell School Parking Lot. They alerted the Town Manager to their opposition to this because of the noise and traffic; nothing was done and their Chief of Police at one point said people could park anywhere. Ms. Emery said that they finally connected this to their Zoning Ordinance; this was a satellite parking lot, they shuttled people back and forth for a grandfathered use in the Suburban Residence Zone. Restaurants and commercial lots were not permitted uses or special exceptions in this Zone and they asked that this be stopped. If they didn’t have sufficient parking, they should rent space in a zone that allowed it but if they hadn’t expanded their business, why was this suddenly necessary after 25 years?
Ms. Emery said that her husband was a ten-year litter collector on Mitchell School Lane and in the last few weeks, brought all this home for me to take to the dump (Ms. Emery brought bags of trash to show Council) there were tons of beer cans, vodka, all kinds of litter from the area where these people were parking. She wanted to show Council what they had brought into their quiet residential neighborhood and that there now was noise and traffic between 8:30 and 10:00 at night and oftentimes they charged down the wrong way on Mitchell School Lane where there were
children and pets. Along with all this litter, there was probably under age drinking and smoking near a wooded area. They had nothing against kids but a satellite commercial parking lot was not an appropriate use of the Mitchell School lot and a violation of the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Emery stated that they wanted a response to this request from the Council and the Manager in writing because they believed it violated the Ordinance. Also, she said, she was going to leave all the trash for them to give to the Police Department; there were probably fingerprints all over it, was definitely from the area where those cars were parked and there was a $100 fine for littering in this Town.
Gay Lakin came forward and said it had been brought to her attention that Council and the public didn’t have any idea that when the vote for the Rec Center came about, there was a flier sent out by Save the Village to educate voters. What happened to that flier was that Kittery Point’s was delivered but the company they used all these years didn’t stamp the boxes for four-fifths of the Town of Kittery timely and they sat in the Portsmouth Post Office until Tuesday morning when they were delivered. She believed the difference in the vote was 224 votes that the Rec Center won by. Dividing that in two, it was 112. Those 112 votes would have swung it either way and she couldn’t help but wonder if those fliers had gotten to the people with the map that showed the
Village, Emery Field and everything, if they had seen all of it, that they might perhaps have voted differently but, unfortunately, it wasn’t delivered. Needless to say money was refunded but she thought Council needed to know that. Everyone made such a big deal out of it but when push came to shove, when only one side got the proper information out to the people, they didn’t have the ability to cast an educated vote.
Lisa Comeau approached the podium and said there were some excellent comments with regard to voting, which gave her an idea about the problem of voter apathy and it was something she felt the Town Council and the Town Administration could do more about. She didn’t know whether they were talking about another committee for people to serve on, she didn’t know what form that could take, but everybody was working hard. Every time someone was impassioned to protect something, moved to get involved, everyone who did that worked very, very hard to bring that before the people. Regardless of the fact she resented the Town Council’s ability to be able to get something before the Town with the snap of a finger versus what a common person had to go through to make that happen, and
what happened tonight - and what was going to happen with this experiment when ten or thirteen people who had served on the Charter Commission worked so hard trying to bring some kind of uniformity with other communities and trying to make something that made sense happen - regardless of that fact, people worked really hard when they felt strongly about something and she wanted to know if there something that they, as a Town, could do, with their limited resources, to reach out to the public to wake them up to the fact that they were not involved. No matter what side of the fence they all sat on, she felt they had exposed a need. Ms. Emery said there were people home watching this and people who didn’t even bother to watch it, there were people who didn’t even get the paper so, if there was something that the Council, in their wisdom, could come up with, some idea they could talk about in their next Executive Session, she believed they could do something to change this
and she would be willing to help them do that.
b. CHAIRPERSON’S RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
Addressing Ms. Emery, Chairperson Grinnell said they would look into that tomorrow and asked the Town Manager to have the Planner look at the issue of it being a satellite parking lot. The Chair said she had been on the Council that allowed the Pier to use that parking lot and they had
done it with good intentions but they certainly didn’t want a situation like that and they would get back to her on it. Also, they would give the trash to the Police. Ms. Emery thanked the Chair.
Addressing Ms. Lakin, the Chair said she was right, the voters had to be educated; she thought that educating the public was the most difficult thing and she was sorry those things got stuck in the Post Office.
Addressing Ms. Comeau, the Chair said getting people out to vote was hard and their country spent billions of dollars and lost lives pushing democracy in other places; we had it here and you would think that every person would want to vote, so they would talk about that.
9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Referring to the situation Ms. Emery just brought up, Councilor Dennett noted that if it was contrary to Code, there was at least one, and possibly two, other operations in Town that had the same type of thing, with shuttling busses between the main operation and the satellite parking area. That, he said, should not make any difference one way or the other but they should be aware this was not an uncommon operation in the Town and whether or not it was contrary to the Code was up to the Code Enforcement Officer, not the Council.
Ms. Emery clarified that she was saying it was contrary to the Suburban Residence Zone Code; she was aware there was one going on in the Mixed Use Zone but thought that would be an allowed use there. Councilor Dennett stated that there was also one going on in the Rural Residential Zone. Ms. Emery thought that might also be contrary to the Code and the Chair said they would have the CEO look at it.
Following up on this point, Councilor Brock said he didn’t know whether it complied with the Code or not, making the first question did it comply and, if not, it should stop. If it did, however, comply with the Code, then they needed to look at the Code because this kind of activity shouldn’t go on and he was troubled with the level of accommodation to the Chauncey Creek Lobster Pier. He said that he drove through that street to go home and it was like a parking lot, not a public way, and now there was a satellite parking issue. He said this was a private business and if they needed parking or couldn’t manage their traffic, maybe they should be renting space in the Town. Councilor Brock asked if, at this point, the Town was allowing them to park there at no charge? After
looking at the Code issue, he thought they needed to look at it more broadly; it was a popular business and he wanted it to stay popular but it was also crowding other citizens who lived in that area in various ways.
Referring back to the July 10 meeting with the Planning Board, Councilor Spiller noted that Elaine Peverly said she had a list of historic sites in the Town and the Town Manager was good enough to e-mail that out to all of them and suggested that it was something that should be put on the Town’s website.
Councilor Heilshorn asked Town Manager Carter about a workshop a couple of months ago focusing on Spruce Creek. Those folks had some speakers in and at the end of that meeting they were talking about a kind of a list of property owners “do’s and don’t’s” and wondered if anything happened with that? The Manager said they were working on it.
Councilor Brake commented about parking on Main Street between Walker and
Government where the new house had been built. He said that people on this street had been calling him about people basically parking in the roadway there, making it difficult for people getting in
and out. The Ordinance said they were allowed to park there from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. for one hour only and a lot of them had been parking there basically all day. He would like to get that changed so they could not park on that street because, frankly, it was not even wide enough for cars to go up and down it. The Chair asked Town Manager Carter to pass that on to the Chief.
10. NEW BUSINESS
(080106-7) THE KITTERYTOWN COUNCIL MOVES TO APPROVE THE DISBURSEMENT WARRANTS.
Chairperson Grinnell listed the following warrant:
Warrant Article No. 12, Town Accounts Payable - $501,052.25.
COUNCILOR HEILSHORN MOVED TO APPROVE THE DISBURSEMENT WARRANT, SECONDED BY CHAIRPERSON GRINNELL.
Councilor Dennett noted that the Town’s Warrant included the check to the School Department for its Accounts Payable.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSES 7/0.
(080106-8) THE KITTERY TOWN COUNCIL MOVES TO AUTHORIZE THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS INANAMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $60,200 FROM UNENCUMBERED SURPLUS AND TO APPROPRIATE AND EXPEND SAID AMOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASING NEWPUBLIC SAFETY COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH AND MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE, ASAPPROVEDBYTHE VOTERS ON THE JUNE 13, 2006 SECRET BALLOTAS ARTICLE 6.
COUNCILOR DENNETT MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $60,200 FROM UNENCUMBERED SURPLUS AND TO APPROPRIATE AND EXPEND SAID AMOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASING NEW PUBLIC SAFETY COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH AND MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE, AS APPROVED BY THE VOTERS ON THE JUNE 13, 2006 SECRET BALLOT AS ARTICLE 6, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR BRAKE.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSES 7/0.
(Heard out of sequence)
(Heard out of sequence)
e. (080106-11) THE KITTERY TOWN COUNCIL MOVES TO APPOINT A REPRESENTATIVE TO MEET WITH A MEMBER OF THE SHELLFISH CONSERVATION COMMITTEE TO INTERVIEWDANIEL CLAPP, CHAIRMAN, FOR HIS RE-APPOINTMENT TO THAT BOARD UNTIL 8/14/09.
COUNCILOR SHWAERY MOVED TO APPOINT COUNCILOR SPILLER TO MEET WITH A MEMBER OF THE SHELLFISH CONSERVATION COMMITTEE TO
INTERVIEW DANIEL CLAPP, CHAIRMAN, FOR HIS RE-APPOINTMENT TO THAT BOARD UNTIL 8/14/09, SECONDED BY CHAIRPERSON GRINNELL.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSES 7/0.
f. (080106-12) THE KITTERY TOWN COUNCIL MOVES TO SCHEDULE A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE PLANNING BOARD FOR AUGUST28 TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ONAMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING CLARIFYING REQUIREMENTS FOR PIERS, RAMPS AND FLOATS.
Chairperson Grinnell requested a change in the date of this Joint Public Hearing from August 28 to September 25, explaining that the document was not yet ready but she had received assurance from the Planning Board that it would be ready; she also noted that Councilor Dennett had attended the Planning Board’s meeting last Thursday.
Town Manager Carter noted that because there were so many electronic drafts in circulation, the Planning Board wanted to try generating one final, clean copy so all parties would be working from the same final draft. The Chair hoped that draft would be ready for a Joint Public Hearing on September 25 so they could put that document to rest.
Councilor Heilshorn said he would like to ask Councilor Dennett how that meeting went and what his sense of this “odyssey” was at this point, did he believe progress was being made? To paraphrase Winston Churchill, Councilor Dennett said, this was not the end, it was not the beginning of the end, but perhaps they were at the end of the beginning.
CHAIRPERSON GRINNELL MOVED TO SCHEDULE A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE PLANNING BOARD FOR SEPTEMBER 25 TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING CLARIFYING REQUIREMENTS FOR PIERS, RAMPS AND FLOATS, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR HEILSHORN.
Councilor Shwaery noted that their tentative agenda items for September 25 also listed a tentative Joint Public Hearing with the Planning Board for Kittery Point Village and SR Zones; he didn’t think they would want to do both of those Public Hearings simultaneously and, although he was not quite sure why this was on the agenda, if they were going to do this Public Hearing, they needed to postpone the other one.
Chairperson Grinnell asked if they could do the other one on Zones first and Councilor Shwaery replied he wasn’t sure why they needed another one because they already had a Joint Public Hearing on these Zones and he was not sure why they were scheduled to have another one.
Town Manager Carter commented that it depended on the level of change that might be coming or not coming. Until they knew that, Councilor Shwaery said this would remain up in the air, so he was for the 25th for the current motion.
Councilor Dennett said, just to make the mix more confusing, the Planning Board had tentatively changed the map to a small degree in the Kittery Point Village and had also made a slight change in the map for the Suburban Residential; it was always up to the attorneys but some people felt this would require a new complete mailing and new Public Hearings, adding that this could become a very expensive endeavor. The Chair asked for a vote on the current motion, including the change of date.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSES 7/0.
(080106-13) THE KITTERY TOWN COUNCIL MOVES TO APPOINTA REPRESENTATIVE TO MEET WITH A MEMBER OF THE PARKS COMMISSION TO INTERVIEWKENNETHFELLOWS, CO-CHAIR, FOR HIS RE-APPOINTMENT TO THAT BOARD UNTIL SEPTEMBER 11, 2009.
COUNCILOR SHWAERY MOVED TO APPOINT COUNCILOR BRAKE TO MEET WITH A MEMBER OF THE PARKS COMMISSION TO INTERVIEW KENNETH FELLOWS, CO-CHAIR, FOR HIS RE-APPOINTMENT TO THAT BOARD UNTIL SEPTEMBER 11, 2009, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR BRAKE.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSES 7/0.
OTHER
Councilor Shwaery said he had two quick items. First, he had previously announced that Bob Shepherd and Cameron Wake would be meeting with him and the Town Manager about alternative energy sources. That meeting took place and he believed that at the next Council meeting there would be a request for a very small investment to look at alternative energy sources and their payback.
The other thing, he said, was that KCAP was having a block party this Saturday, starting at Noon and going until 6:00 p.m. There would be a band and dancing 6:00 to 8:00 and the Town Council had been invited to participate by being the first people to sit in the “dunking” booth; so they should come and bring their bathing suits. There would also be all kinds of games, toys, face painting, etc., and food, so show up Saturday, the 19th at Post Office Square.
Chairperson Grinnell said she noticed they received the $10,000 fine for somebody clear cutting a lot in Kittery. She was really glad to see that the enforcement was done, that the people paid the fine, and she thought it sent a clear message that Kittery was staying on top of things, that they really cared about their Town, and that their Planning Department and Code Enforcement Officer were doing their jobs.
11. COMMITTEE AND OTHER REPORTS
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE CHAIRPERSON
TOWNMANAGER’S REPORT Town Manager Carter reported as follows:
First, their next art show at Town Hall would be September 5 through 30 and was going to be by a local artist, Judy Tottman.
There was an invite to Council, if they could make it, on Thursday, August 17, for a TABOR presentation at the Biddeford City Council starting at 7:00 p.m.
Results of the bond sale were in their favor; they received the bid of 4.1% from Wells Fargo and it was a successful bond sale. This covered two issues, refunding the Shapleigh School 1995 Bond and the two fire stations, for a price of $5.7 Million.
One of the things that resulted from the sale, even though instructions were given to the Bond Advisor that all payments would have to commence in the FY-08 Budget, unfortunately, some sort of communications went out without my authorization, resulting in an interest payment in May of ‘07. He had spent some time working with the Town Auditor and the Town Attorney as to what they could do to resolve that and referred Council to their copy of the Auditor’s memo, saying that Atty. McEachern had concurred with it. The resulting solution was, if Council agreed, that payment could be made if the overlay that was set in October with the tax commitment was large enough to absorb it or it could be absorbed by any funds remaining in the Budget during the June adjustments.
Councilor Dennett asked about instructions going out without his authorization and the Manager explained that it had been his understanding with the Bond Advisor that all payments would be FY-08. When it came back and everything was put together, he called him and asked why there was a payment for May of ’07; it was an oversight on his part. Just as a thought, Councilor Dennett wondered, if it was clearly the responsibility of the other party, why should they stick it on the taxpayer? The Manager noted that they were going to have to pay it one way or the other. Councilor Dennett agreed but asked why they should burden themselves at a given time when someone else made a mistake?
Concerning an update on the water craft excise tax, the Manager said a number of complaints had been brought that they were not enforcing water craft excise; they were attempting to increase their collection but he had to indicate to Council that, even though they had made strides, it was an incredibly difficult task in a border coastal community. The vessels had to be there 75 days; most were from out of State and they were moored either at the Navy Yard Marina or in marinas around Kittery. With the help of the Town Clerk, Police Department and Harbor Master, they were out there with new tags and making efforts to bring additional revenues into the community but it was not without challenge. A cost benefit analysis would have to be done at the end of the process to determine how
beneficial their increased methods had been. What they believed would be time better spent was with legislation that would be introduced, making laws that had some teeth and that would force people to think twice about avoiding the payment of excise tax. Presently, the law didn’t have any teeth other than putting a lien on the boat, which was very difficult, time consuming and not worth the effort.
Councilor Spiller commented that York was involved in a similar effort and the Manager said, no, that was numbering the mooring ball, linking the vessel up to the mooring ball, because what was happening was people were just mooring up to a mooring that might not be theirs.
Chairperson Grinnell asked if, in Kittery, a boat owner could get a mooring without paying an excise tax and the Manager said he was not saying it couldn’t be done but that was the least of the problems they were having because they had greater control over the 500 moorings through re-ups of applications via the Harbor Master because they paid their excise when they came in to renew their moorings. Town Clerk Place noted that with a Maine registration, you had to pay the tax in order to moor the boat; the problem was the people with undocumented boats. The Manager said if an out of State vessel was there less than 60 days, they didn’t have to pay an excise. He also said they hoped to bring to the Council other enforcement ways, such as the legislation he was speaking about.
The Manager said the next item was to make Council aware that he would be attending the Managers Institute for a day and a half, August 30 and 31; he would be in contact.
A reminder to Council, and the School Superintendent would be reminding his School Board, that next Monday night at 6:30 there would be a special workshop to present the work group’s report, which group was made up of the Chairs of the School Committee and Council, as well as the two Administrators, and given the charge to report back on issues with the Budget, particularly on the school side but also on the Town side.
“Save Our Shipyard” had announced that there would be a BRAC decision anniversary celebration at 10:00 a.m. on August 24 to which everyone was invited and, in particular, if anyone could take the time, they had indicated some issuance of award or recognition to the Town of Kittery that might be coming.
This Wednesday, August 16, was the final concert at Memorial Field sponsored by Kennebunk Savings Bank, on behalf of the Recreation Department; there would be a concert and barbecue that evening starting at 5:30.
The United Way’s “Day of Caring” kick-off rally in Portsmouth will be September 15.
The York Watershed Program that they were participating in will be having a day road trip to look at several areas in Kittery that they would like to highlight as being good examples of storm water management on September 27 at 8:30 in the morning.
“Grow Smart,” an organization in Maine sponsoring the Brookings Institute’s revision of practices in Maine, will be presenting that report on September 28. They had asked for good attendance at that meeting and he would present more on that as they got towards that date.
Finally, they received a dividend from their insurance program from the Maine Municipal Association in the amount of $3,987 for good loss experience over the past year.
c. COMMITTEE REPORTS 12. ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRPERSON GRINNELL MOVED TO ADJOURN, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR SHWAERY, WITH ALL IN FAVOR.
MEETING ADJOURNED: 9:26 P.M.
| 
