Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cruise Bus Impacts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Businesses, chamber and residents warn of strain from cruise‑ship buses; Select Board removes bus item for further review
Summary
During public comment at the April 14 meeting, local business owners and the Kennebunk‑Kennebunkport‑Arundel Chamber said rising cruise-bus volumes and changes in pricing could stress parking, restrooms and reservation systems; the board had removed the bus item from the agenda to allow more time for review.
Several local business representatives and residents raised concerns at the Kennebunk Select Board’s April 14 meeting about the impacts of cruise-ship motor coaches and visitor volume on downtown infrastructure.
Laura Dolce, executive director of the Kennebunk‑Kennebunkport‑Arundel Chamber of Commerce, said the chamber recorded 722 registered buses last year and that about 90% of them were cruise buses. Dwight Raymond, a resident of Arundel and business owner in Lower Village, reported that bus prices have risen from $80 to $100 and warned that operator changes and increased volume could result in "45k‑50k people" using local restroom facilities, a level he said would be difficult for some businesses to handle.
Other speakers, including Emily Nelson on behalf of Kennebunkport Resort Collection and Chris Rackmyre of the Maine Tour Connection, urged clearer drop‑off locations, better reservation compliance and attention to accessibility for guests who need ramps or other accommodations. Rackmyre specifically said some companies do not realize they must reserve ahead of time under the town’s system.
The board did not take action on the bus management concerns at the meeting; Chair Miriam Whitehouse had earlier said new information had been received that day and removed the agenda item (Article 9.b) to allow the board additional time to review the matter. Members of the public who were present for that discussion were invited to raise their concerns during the public‑comment period.
No staff response prescribing immediate operational changes was recorded in the minutes; the record shows the comments were received as input while the board awaits further review of the agenda item.
