[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6146749,"mediaKeyId","5524022-b186ab00f492b373067946c242d17c04","parentId",5524022,"title","Council, planning board continue ordinance work after 55–45 local referendum; debate centers on caps, siting and aesthetics","audioSeconds",523,"startMs",1526000,"endMs",2049000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5524022-b186ab00f492b373067946c242d17c04&start=1526&end=2049","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5524022-b186ab00f492b373067946c242d17c04/thumbnail_1526000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6146749/Maine/Council-planning-board-continue-ordinance-work-after-5545-local-referendum-debate-centers-on-caps-siting-and-aesthetics","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6146749-0e718f7375a0500d2dc779dc012d81cf/orig.mp4?Expires=1771206519&Signature=MTitDazu71zxwevsgzSd9tsExz0dN8DLry8Eu8SGQt6IdPYbDm4zLTgcqjQH5unLpxYX9Z~fZ~blpWrsz23i4ii7YnYJgjDcT63K9SXbUWSyIIB5ysqTBe5EGryRsuzJ6PjQ4ywS8H6AjRRgmdDJ0~eLB7UKs-yJpncQoPw8G2g60UGPSqvGxMrNet~tTww0H32qBX4kH8Q0TggtNaA7E1KS3FjEv4eZt2GA5oUalW72LvWEZ0fJCekO8ilW7--NCFmdLiuYTxZNrrivfu4Cil7N13uXvZgysFGlds8jO3C~t4nXFSNJ-FUCE~1qjWG6fKfDCaPDKe8VQATtCTE0NQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-08-01T13:23:16Z","article","City officials and staff described next steps for local rules to implement a recreational cannabis vote that local voters approved by about 55–45, and councilors debated how to limit and site potential retail businesses.

The referendum result — reported in the meeting as 55–45 in favor — was raised by staff in the context of drafting local zoning and licensing rules. Staff and planning board members reported they are aiming for a September schedule for planning-board review and a council vote.

Why it matters: councilors said they want to allow legal retail operations while guarding against clustering, oversized retail outlets and negative impacts on downtown character. One resident, Jared Wilbur, urged the council to consider measuring the required 500‑foot buffer from door to door rather than from property line; he said property-line measurements could prohibit retail on large mixed‑use parcels.

Key policy options discussed: participants described several possible tools now under discussion by council staff and the planning board:
- Cap the number of retail licenses (multiple councilors discussed a cap of three in the primary commercial corridor and allowing two existing medical providers to convert).
- Use a lottery if more qualified applicants seek limited slots, rather than a merit test that could invite legal challenges.
- Define the 500‑foot buffer measurement (door‑to‑door vs. property line) to avoid unintentionally blocking operators on large parcels.
- Apply limits on co‑location or clustering so retailers are not immediately next door to each other and consider maximum retail square footage to avoid “mega” stores.
- Align some local rules with state regulations; staff said a side‑by‑side of state requirements and proposed local rules will be provided at the next meeting.

A number of councilors and staff emphasized treating cannabis like other regulated legal products while retaining local control over appearance and nuisance concerns. One councilor said communities should “treat it like liquor stores” when considering zoning and performance standards. Staff also flagged state rules such as 1,000‑foot drug‑free zones for parks and schools and said many of the performance standards the council was considering are already required by state law.

What was directed vs. discussed: staff and the planning board recommended continued work and a September timeline for planning board and council review. No final ordinance, license allocation or formal vote was recorded at the meeting; the discussion focused on ordinance options and drafting approaches.

Community concerns and aesthetics: councilors raised concerns about signage, window tinting and storefront design so retail locations do not present a “Bob’s pot shop” appearance. Staff said they will prepare a comparison of state and proposed local standards and return with draft ordinance language for planning-board and council consideration. Ownership diversity and preventing a single owner from dominating multiple local licenses were also discussed but no final approach was adopted.

Next steps: staff said they plan a September planning‑board review and possible council workshop; they will prepare a side‑by‑side of state rules and proposed ordinance text, and staff said they intend to present a timeline for final council action in September.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Finance Committee Meeting - August 1st, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","City officials and staff described next steps for local rules to implement a recreational cannabis vote that local voters approved by about 55–45, and councilors debated how to limit and site potential retail businesses.","taxTitle","Finance Committee, Ellsworth, Hancock, Maine","taxId",70091,"location","Maine","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6146755,"City outlines next steps, permits and bidding approach for Courthouse Road project",275,1125000,1400000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5524022-b186ab00f492b373067946c242d17c04&start=1125&end=1400","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5524022-b186ab00f492b373067946c242d17c04/thumbnail_1125000.jpg","/articles/6146755/Maine/City-outlines-next-steps-permits-and-bidding-approach-for-Courthouse-Road-project","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6146755-8e1fd5c99f0bda45a96ef4c6ff1b04e4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771206519&Signature=CoUMOhLtmoK--Sy6S2o6bYF2UItVm4CrsDsVFt90MvehaONh05sz-5l76-bDbKuXQPl8yF7nWZl0H18w3dtJd6SfRK6jrjkQi~UIWzStkjWLvBQ9Jz8e-I-yoCXEQWR3XqwMJ-fbETlcIXSXmgw-soasgG5yR3IwuZ61m~5fUHNzTTaIObNqcjuH8NBCZXRRGHUqKK3J6TBAZzqDbHimOSETcYAEsEshlQsjDB2GSAiFBr~Lu7CrxIgRjtLw-N4VWhuUrauwMRZ-aAoSyQP3pJtoNfbw3W9wSJh~XOfN32VLJ70imHtM92CHruP12cv59KsKA2grd92fKGPxaR4xPA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City staff updated the City Council on progress for the Courthouse Road project and outlined next steps on permitting, parcel closings and bidding.

The update, requested by resident Jared Wilbur, noted that the Adams parcel has closed, the Merrill parcel is close pending resolution of a sublease legal issue, and the Wardwell parcel will close after those two. Staff said they already have “right, title and interest” on needed parcels for the project.

Why it matters: staff said the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) indicated the road might qualify as a separate project, which could allow a shorter permit-by-rule review (staff suggested a roughly 20‑day review rather than a longer common‑scheme development review). That shorter path would accelerate the stormwater review and allow construction to begin later this fall if design and permitting proceed as expected.

Permitting and costs: staff reported that initial test borings identified potential blasting needs on one parcel and that a final geotechnical report from SW Cole was pending. Staff said blasting and rock removal are the largest remaining cost variable. The presentation also said vernal pools in the area did not meet the definition that would require more extensive mitigation and that design changes reduced the amount of construction off Long Lane, producing a potential cost savings.

Bidding and project management: staff recommended putting the entire project out to bid with the existing design prints, rather than breaking it into many piecemeal components. One councilor urged that approach: “Put the whole thing out to bid. If you can’t stomach the bid that comes in, sit down with the contractor and see where economies can be made,” the councilor said. Staff said a full RFP will give bidders’ pricing detail and allow staff to decide which parts, if any, might be performed in house.

Staff also discussed hiring a clerk of the works (an on-site project manager) or similar certified project owner to coordinate public works, contract paving and other private contractors. The city’s project engineer, Andrew McCullough, was identified by staff as using city design standards for the work; staff said a new planning director expected Oct. 1 may also help manage project oversight.

Funding and finance considerations: staff said state bond release funding for the project has been authorized and that the state should be moving toward advertising contractor bids soon. The city is also considering whether to seek additional county funding, explore tax-increment financing district options or impose utility hookup fees to recover water and sewer costs for new development tied to the road.

What was directed vs. discussed: this meeting captured discussion and staff recommendations; no formal contract award or council vote was recorded. Staff said next steps include filing the DEP stormwater submission, receiving the final SW Cole geotechnical report, posting bid documents when design is final and deciding whether to hire a clerk of the works. Staff also indicated they would follow up on potential county funding.","City staff said parcels for the Courthouse Road project are closing and a separate DEP permitting path could shorten review; staff recommended an RFP for the full project, discussed a clerk of the works and identified blasting and utility hookups as major near-term variables.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6146759,"City staff warns tax bills may arrive with reduced payment window; finance team outlines fixes",363,0,363000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5524022-b186ab00f492b373067946c242d17c04&start=0&end=363","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5524022-b186ab00f492b373067946c242d17c04/thumbnail_0.jpg","/articles/6146759/Maine/City-staff-warns-tax-bills-may-arrive-with-reduced-payment-window-finance-team-outlines-fixes","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6146759-dd3dad2433a92d134a3e6cca8f8d006c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771206519&Signature=N6IfvwRytgBregvZKfLbZKLaJqHihJfc3UgW2VlhhWaDMJ3U2cpKiE~MA61a2TUc0vX3lDMYQUlAJmlWOBDfAutSeA0mYsvn50XmtbwE~7N5uyBXn554S1MGNyaJZK~bJjjx9Y3rs6ks4TYM0j3KNHPQkpIAkThtUoQLX2Jve6e~19Owk5YP0g~~8hPe1FP9TexKEc1gQWhomM2zLoGHxHo-9cmJL-bTtXjXMSeTXyhTrOHDegttn6R3KltvsuvjujukY7w4Bv8waW1BNe5JWPPleeA2p8GddCAhQpCmA1WPJSBqR3QiRb90Lq-Sm-1W3bqno5GMIvfftezhLYXi~Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City staff told the City Council that a backlog of property assessments and a compressed production timeline mean property owners will likely have fewer than 30 days to pay their annual tax bills after mailing.

The timeline update, presented by a city staff member, said the tax bill due date remains Sept. 15. Staff said they had anticipated a tax commitment from the assessor’s office by Aug. 11 so the billing, matching and proofing process could run 1½ to 2 weeks before printing. If the commitment slips past Aug. 11, staff said Aug. 18 is probably the latest date they can accept and still mail bills in the week before Sept. 15.

Why it matters: the assessor’s commitment triggers IT and tax-collection systems to create and proof bills; delays there compress the time taxpayers have to receive and pay bills. Council members repeatedly pressed staff that two weeks is inadequate and said taxpayers deserve a full 30 days.

City staff described the assessment backlog in detail. The assessor team reported about 110 properties needing assessment work (a mix of new permits and properties pending final valuation from prior years), about 40 land splits to revalue, and remaining work on RV campground valuations. The presenter said Assistant Assessor Nikki Del Luna has done most of the personal property work and has been doing field visits to support code staff and learn the process. The office is also exploring bringing in outside consultant help for higher‑skill assessment blocks that exceed current staff capacity.

On remedies, staff said code enforcement could assist by flagging certificate-of-occupancy cases during inspections so assessors receive data earlier rather than waiting for the April 1 assessment cycle. Staff also described a tracking tool and cross-training among assessors, code and IT to speed processing.

Councilors and attendees pressed staff on fairness to taxpayers. One councilor said, “It’s not fair to Mr. and Mrs. Ellsworth to get a bill that doesn’t have 30 days to pay.” The city presenter responded that the team is “considering changing the date it starts accruing interest, which will give them extra time,” and that the mailed bills will include explanatory language. The presenter added, “We’ve already been prepping that,” in reference to a notice in the bill explaining the short notice and the temporary interest policy.

Finance operations and audits: staff said they are working to start the fiscal‑year‑2025 audit earlier and have scheduled a consultant visit from Sue Souisard, identified in the meeting as a former Bucksport town manager, to review policies and procedures. Staff said they are also implementing grant trackers and other reconciliation tools to improve timeliness and transparency. The presenter praised the finance team’s recent improvements and said the office is striving to have accounts ready for the audit and to prevent future late vendor payments.

What was directed vs. discussed: staff described operational steps already underway (tracking tools, staff cross-training, consultant audit review) and said they will consult the city attorney on deadlines and interest‑accrual options. No formal council motion or ordinance change was reported in the meeting; the changes described were operational and administrative.

Key figures and schedule highlights: staff listed approximately 110 properties needing assessment work and about 40 land‑split valuations remaining. The target dates staff provided were an assessor commitment aimed for Aug. 11 (with Aug. 18 as a likely latest acceptable commitment) and a mailed bill date the week before the Sept. 15 due date. Staff estimated taxpayers will have roughly two to three weeks to pay once bills arrive unless interest‑accrual dates are adjusted.

Next steps and outlook: staff said they will continue working the assessment backlog, explore consultant support for complex valuations, coordinate code inspections with assessors to capture occupancy changes sooner, and put a notice in mailed bills about any grace period or interest‑accrual adjustment. They also said the finance team will pursue the earlier audit start for FY25 and that the consultant review will inform policy and procedure changes.","City staff reported lingering assessor workloads and tight production timelines that likely will shorten the traditional 30-day window for paying property tax bills after they are mailed. Officials said they will notify taxpayers in bill mailings and are considering delaying interest accrual while continuing internal process and staffing changes.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council, planning board continue ordinance work after 55–45 local referendum; debate centers on caps, siting and aesthetics

City outlines next steps, permits and bidding approach for Courthouse Road project

City staff warns tax bills may arrive with reduced payment window; finance team outlines fixes