Waterville Council Advances Food Truck Rules, Fire Hose Grant, Permit Fee Hike

[7:09] Michael J. Morris: Okay, good evening everybody, and welcome to a regularly scheduled meeting of the Waterville City Council. There are agendas available on the table near the entrance or online at the city's website. Consent agenda items are routine items which are voted on in one motion and vote. Unfinished or new business items are voted on separately. Councilors will be given the opportunity for questions or comments, followed by citizens who must speak at the podium identifying themselves. Citizens will be allowed to speak one time per for each agenda item for up to three minutes. Citizens who wish to not speak, to speak on a topic that does not appear on tonight's agenda will have the opportunity to do so during the public comment section of the agenda for up to three minutes. Kicking us off tonight, the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for [8:02] Nick Cloutier: which it stands, one nation under [8:10] Michael J. Morris: God. All right, and next up, any disclosure of conflict of interest? Does any councilor have a conflict of interest on any of the votes that they will take this evening? Seeing none, Chief Frost, sir. You want this, sir? [8:42] Brandon Gilley: Sure. Can you hear me? Caitlin, Doug, good to see you guys. I actually had this awesome speech prepared, but it literally doesn't explain what these two folks did, so I'm gonna shoot from the hip because I think that's much more important at this point in time. This is Caitlin Husser. This is Doug. It's Myrick, right? So Caitlin and Doug decided that they were going to go do a 5K race in Brunswick. And this 5K race was to raise money for the 9-11 Heroes run. So this 5K race, now 5K is 3.10 miles. This makes it even crazier. 3.10 miles in firefighting gear with an air pack on, okay? So all their firefighting gear plus an air pack, both of them, all right? So they are how far into your run? About two miles into this run. At this two-mile mark, they notice what looked like feet sticking out of some bushes. These two go over there. They find a gentleman unconscious, and by the time they brought him out of the bushes, he had no more pulses and was not breathing. so he clinically was dead these two immediately now mind you full turnout gear air pack on this is not an easy job started chest compressions and cpr and did chest compressions and cpr until brunswick fire arrived i 'm here to tell you this is no small feat on their part we train on these situations every day we do not train usually cpr and air packs in fire gear i can tell you that much we don't normally do that but we train on these type of situations all the time but to actually train for the situation, to actually acknowledge that this situation exists, and then to actually do something about this situation is amazing to me. Last I heard, this gentleman was transported to Portland. This gentleman was extubated. This gentleman was a no times three, and this gentleman, all his cognitive functions were returning at that time and probably will be released home very shortly. To me, that is absolutely amazing that you two not only recognized the situation but did something about it. A lot of people recognize situations and then turn a blind eye in this day and age. These two did not do that. They jumped into action, never took their air packs off, just went to town and started CPR. CPR. So we want to present you with a certificate of commendation. It is with great pride and sincere appreciation that we formally commend your extraordinary heroism and decisive actions taken on September 12th, 2026 at the Brunswick Naval Air Station, resulting in a successful rescue. So Doug, congratulations. Kaitlin, congratulations. [12:29] Michael J. Morris: Excellent way to kick the meeting off, without a doubt. So thank you both, that was fantastic. All right, next up we have a presentation from the Waterville Opportunities Recovery Resource Center, known as W-O-R-R-C. Yeah, you stand right, like at the podium right there. Yeah. My [13:15] Courtney Grineer: name is Courtney Grineer. I'm the Kennebec County options liaison for Waterville, but I do all of Kennebec County, but I'm presenting tonight as a community member and somebody that loves the city. [13:37] Andrew Tibideau: I'm Andrew Tibideau. I'm a peer recovery coach for the Waterville Community Impact Unit [13:47] Doris Labranch: and I'm Doris Labranch. I'm a, or I'm actually a board member of WORK, a member of the Winslow Town Council, and a resident of Winslow, and I'm here tonight to speak as a resident of Winslow. Well? [14:03] Courtney Grineer: So Waterville, it stands for work. It's the Waterville Opportunities Recovery and Resource Center. At the heart of our community, the Waterville Opportunities Recovery and Resource Center is dedicated to supporting individuals and families on their journey to wellness and personal growth. Our center offers a safe, welcoming environment where everyone can find help, hope, and the tools needed to build a brighter future. So our mission is we empower power individuals affected by life challenges through compassionate support, education, and access to vital resources. Together, we foster resilience, inspire change, and strengthen our community. Go ahead, Doris. [14:43] Doris Labranch: As I've mentioned, I'm Doris LaBranch. I'm here as a resident of Winslow. And I understand when something new comes into a neighborhood, it can raise questions and even create some anxiety for some people. The home at 21 Elm Street in Waterville, across from the Beehive is currently being renovated to become a recovery center. It is not a homeless shelter. It is not a treatment facility. When people hear the words recovery center, they automatically think an addiction or substance abuse or use facility. While recovery is important, work is much broader than that. Work can be viewed as a support center, a place dedicated to helping people solve specific problems and help navigate many services and resources available throughout our community. When we help someone find housing, employment, treatment, mental health services, or other basic resources, we aren't simply helping one individual. We are strengthening entire families, neighborhoods, businesses, local and surrounding communities. There are many organizations already providing valuable services. Work is not intended to replace those organizations. Rather, the goal is to access many of these resources together under one roof, making it easier for people to find help they need. The problem isn't that resources don't exist. The problem is that many people don't know where to go to find them or what steps to take next. Work is intended to help bridge that gap. Our goal is to meet people where they are, treat them with dignity and respect, and help connect them to the appropriate resources. We are still in the very early ages of building this organization. We don't have paid employees, and we are relying heavily on volunteers and fundraising. The building at 21 Elm Street has been donated, along with labor and materials, donated by people who believe strongly in this mission. The reality is that nearly every family knows someone who has been impacted by addiction, homelessness, unemployment, mental health, Alzheimer's, or other health challenges. So why should the town council and why should the people listening tonight consider supporting work? Because prevention helps reduce the likeness that problems become larger or more expensive for our community down the road. We are helping people become productive members of society. We believe in a helping hand up, not a handout. I hope the council and those listening tonight will take the time to learn more about work, understand what we are trying to accomplish, consider how you can help support us and help this resource center for Waterville and for all the surrounding communities. Thank you for your time, and thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. I [17:48] Andrew Tibideau: just wanted to quickly say one of the reasons Courtney and I got into this is because with options we do intensive outreach and through intensive outreach we've learned a lot in a very short period of time we've learned a lot across the economic spectrum everyone needs similar kinds of help however meeting them on their level you find that they need vastly different kinds of help and having a one place one roof where all the community resources can come together and we can have them available for someone that day give them an answer don't send them away don't say oh sorry that program was cut don't say I'm sorry we don't have that anymore we will find something for them to help them it's my work through intensive outreach is I've worked with people and I basically talk to people into treatment if whatever form that may take I also help them and coach them after treatment whatever form that may take I believe that if we had a good base we could really expand this and we'll have like an army of coaches and liaisons and the unit will grow and hopefully we'll just be able to use the models that we have that are evidence-based that have worked I mean the models where the participants actually can work in the building with us they can participate in the activities they can have ideas for things. I've already been promising a lot of my clients and participants that they can experiment with different meetings of people with like minds, like issues, people that are just affected others, people that are just affected by certain substances. Maybe people who got addicted to stuff innocently because they had their wisdom teeth out and then they ended up hooked on opioids for the rest of their life. Like these sort of things, there is the overall connection of it's not just addiction because there's so many things we now have to recover from and it's we're only just beginning. So I'm also keeping in mind that we're educators, we want people to know what we do there and we want our people volunteering there to believe in what they're doing. Yeah, that's it for me. [20:03] Courtney Grineer: as Andrew had touched you know recovery can mean different things it's not just from addiction there's recovery from homelessness there's recovery from mental health there's recovery from dv so it's not just addiction that we're focusing on there's you know it's all walks of life so i just want everybody to keep in mind that it's not just a recovery center from addiction it's a recovery center from all things and we just want to be able to be a support for people and be able to walk in it's also important to note that we will be offering hygiene kits. We also have support from Carla from the soup kitchen whose food pantry. So it's not just an addiction recovery center. It's a collaboration throughout the community. So if anybody has any questions, we can talk after. [20:54] Speaker G (unidentified): I have a question. First of all, thank you very much for what you're doing. We definitely need that here in Waterville and the surrounding areas. [21:02] Courtney Grineer: So what is your ask for us, like how can we help? So right now, obviously financial support would be great, however we're really just trying to get the word out there and if anybody does want to donate that would be fantastic. We've already put in applications for grants, like I said, this is not anything that's, this is all volunteer work, this is all groups of people that believe in this all the way down to the materials that are being donated to the time that's being donated to make this happen. So, you know, it is, it's just a labor of love, honestly. [21:44] Michael J. Morris: Thanks, Flavia. Anyone else from the council? I mean, I think this is a great thing. You know, I think it is, there's, this is definitely a missing piece. You know, I think as people work through the stages, right, and then once they get to the point where they're in a state of recovery, there's not that support there and to keep them in that in that good space that they've worked probably really hard to get to. So I think that's great. Thank you for filling that gap and certainly wish you all the best success and yeah, keep us posted as things progress. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay. OK, CITY MANAGER REPORT. [22:35] Nick Cloutier: I'LL TRY TO BRIEFLY GO THROUGH MY BULLET OF INFORMATION HERE. FIRST WAS AS PROMISED IN A PRIOR MEETING, IMPACT TASK FORCE UPDATES. I'VE BEEN GIVING SPORADIC ONES AS I GO, BUT I PROMISED I'D HAVE SOMETHING IN WRITING, SO THAT'S IN THE PACKET, AND THERE'S MEMBERS OF THAT GROUP BOTH FORMALLY AND INFORMALLY HERE, SO THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, AND JUST WHILE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LAST PRESENTATION work although that's not a product of the task force they did that of their own volition it's those kind of projects and initiatives that we're trying to support with that task force so that's one of our greatest initiatives is when other people have great ideas trying to make sure everyone knows about it and supporting it and getting it before the council so the city as a whole can push support behind it as well. Next I also included an attachment about a new police vehicle and it was free to the city but due to the nature of how it looks I just wanted there to be more visibility because it's specifically a vehicle that has a little bit heftier look and it's you know because it can do additional rescue missions and it's through as the attachment notes it's through a state LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT OFFICE PROGRAM AND OFTEN REFERRED TO AS THE 1033 PROGRAM WHERE THERE ARE USED ITEMS, WHETHER THEY BE EQUIPMENT OR VEHICLES THAT THE STATE IN THIS PROGRAM CAN LOAN TO MUNICIPALITIES FOR FREE AND WE JUST HAVE TO USE IT. IF WE DON'T USE IT, WE GIVE IT BACK TO THE PROGRAM. AS STATED IN THIS MEMO FROM THE POLICE CHIEF, IT JUST SHOWS THAT IT WILL BE ONE MORE TOOL TO KEEP NOT ONLY OUR STAFF, BUT ALSO OUR RESIDENTS SAFE IN SITUATIONS THAT REQUIRE MORE CAPABILITIES. SO WE'RE PLEASED TO BE RECIPIENTS OF THAT LOAN FROM THE STATE PROGRAM. Next, I just wanted to touch upon the fact that I have given quarterly reports about the council goals, and I think I mentioned it after the last one that for quarter three I'm proposing that I do something a little different because of the end of the year coming before you know it. That maybe I skip a formal quarter three report and do the quarter four early, but not have no report in the interim. Rather, the in the coming weeks when available in a coming meeting that I instead do a brief update on comprehensive plan and downtown vision plan, those kind of things specifically, and then follow that up in December with the kind of early year-end report on council goals. So you'll see that coming in the meetings in the future weeks and months. Next I just wanted to give an update on future presentations. At the next meeting one will be from the impact task force. One of their initiatives is having emergency response initiatives that go above and beyond what we see available in our community for example, many people are aware of general assistance through the city, but sometimes that isn't nimble or quick enough, or it needs to go by state mandates, but there's still needs that require immediate or emergent funds or services, and we have on-the-ground support like was mentioned through our community impact unit and our partners at the shelter, the soup kitchen, etc. But this group will be bringing forward a proposition that they're in the works for starting a new nonprofit entity to try to meet some of those needs that where the gaps still exist. And I won't go into details, but they'll be able to present on that at the next meeting for your review. Also, we'll have the fiscal year 25 audit presentation. It'll probably be brief, but you'll have documentation to go with it. Next week on the 14th, there is a workshop, and it's a very proactive early information about next year's budget. As we all know this year's budget, it took a lot of time and dedicated effort to work through the challenges, and I came in brand new on day one with a budget already kind of started, but we promise that next year we try to do it a little differently and proactively, so that's exactly what we're doing next week, starting early, and there will be materials forthcoming to get you in the mindset of what you can expect, but it's largely an opportunity for myself and staff to share a little bit about what you should see forthcoming, both things that are expenses or revenues or what we've been working on to try to get ahead of next year's issues, but also we want to hear from the council about your expectations and priorities so we have that going into the budget, which we don't even begin our internal processes until December or January, so this is nice and early to start that year. and then finally just wanted to shout out to an upcoming event this weekend the Waterville Police Department is having a charity cornhole tournament it was previously scheduled for a week or two ago and that was rained out so the date is the 11th and you can go on their Facebook page or other resources to learn more about how to participate if you're so inclined and that is to benefit the water will PDS operation hope community outreach program so a [27:55] Michael J. Morris: very good cause. Thank you. All right, fantastic, thank you very much. Okay, moving on to council comments and or committee reports. Any council members have any committee reports? Council Bill, the [28:14] Speaker H (unidentified): parks and recreation subcommittee is continuing to work on the strategic plan. Our initial focus is on recreation sports. We got into that because of the regular field issues that came up early, and it looks like we're gonna head in a, we've got a proposal on the table to restructure how recreation sports are managed in the city, and we're working with AYCC to come up with what that's gonna look like, [28:50] Michael J. Morris: but so we're making some good progress. Thank you. Great, thank you very much. All right, any other counselors have any other committee or comments that they'd like to make? All right, well it's that time of year. I'd like to turn it over to our Youth Council. If you want to introduce yourself and let us know what role you play and kind of give us an update as to what we've been doing over [29:13] Kallen: at the youth council. Yeah, hi, I'm Kallen, I'm the chair for youth council, and we just got started three weeks ago and we just had our second meeting. We attended Sucote at the Waterville Creates and right now we're planning on decorating a car for Nightmare on Main Street and that's what we've [29:41] Michael J. Morris: been doing. Excellent. Yeah, I mean, this is the third year that we've done it. We have 10 participants this year, which I think is going to be a great number for us. We've got a lot of some pretty good things planned. I know last year we worked on drafting some ordinance, and we'll continue to do that and expose the kids to that, as well as some other opportunities that are going to come down the pipe, which is going to be great. On our first meeting we did have Patty come and talk about elections, get them all excited, and I think out of the tent have we probably got quite a few folks that are going to volunteer for the day, which is awesome. So yeah, looking forward to doing some good things. So awesome, Thank You. Callan all right, next up we will go to public comments. Anyone from the public that wants to make any type of comment with regard to anything that's not on the agenda this evening, sir i [30:46] Brian McArthur: think this is on yeah on is the one with the line the line that says yeah brian mcarthur award four i'm also a candidate to be on the council this fall for word four i just wanted to express my enthusiasm for the work program i saw that going up recently just some signage down the road on the road to daycare and i think that's exactly the kind of resource our city has been lacking to be able to articulate all of the great things that people are already doing. It seems like every church is doing some sort of effort to engage with the homeless community or people in need. I know that the soup kitchen and the homeless shelter do fantastic work. I'm also thrilled to hear that the city's own impact program has their own plans coming forward very soon to continue to articulate all of those needs. So I'm excited to hear about the coordination of all of those efforts. Had another thought but it's gone, so we'll just leave it at that. Thank you. Thanks brian. [31:57] Michael J. Morris: Anyone else public comment this evening? All right, moving anyone online patty? Thank you. All right, moving on to the consent agenda. Can i entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda? Motion to approve consent agenda. Second. Okay, all those in favor? Wonderful, thank you very much. And at this point can i entertain a motion to read by title only? Motion to read by title only. Second. Any concerns? All right. Seeing none. All those in favor? Wonderful. Okay. Moving on to new business resolution 179-2026. [32:40] Speaker K (unidentified): Authorizing a regular and special municipal election to be held on November 3, 2026. Move to adopt. [32:47] Michael J. Morris: Second. Okay. This is pretty standard, right, Patty? Like this is just to, yeah, do you want to talk any if you don't pass it I'm taking the week off. Okay, well there we go. All right, any questions from the council? Any from the public? Seeing none, all those in favor of not giving Patty the week off, fantastic. Thank you very much. Moving on to resolution 180 2026 establishing hours for [33:21] Speaker K (unidentified): voter registration for the November 3 2026 general and municipal election. Move to adopt. Second. All [33:28] Michael J. Morris: right, all right now what this, what is this just for the public? What does this one do? We're [33:33] Speaker K (unidentified): required to have extended hours prior to each election unless the municipal officers establish different hours. So we generally don't have high turnout if we do have evening hours, but I'm compelled to do it just to be able to offer it even if no one shows up. So we're going to do it one evening on Tuesday October 27th up until 7 30. So we'll be open here until 7 30. But [33:56] Michael J. Morris: otherwise they can come Monday through Thursday eight to five, eight to five, and then the one day that you'll be open until seventh, correct? Awesome. All right, great, any questions from the council? Any from the public? All right, all those in favor, thank you very much. Moving on to resolution 181 2026 replacing table one with table two of the building and electrical permit [34:23] Speaker K (unidentified): fee schedule based on updated International Code Council building valuation data. Move to adopt. [34:29] Michael J. Morris: Second. Okay, well table one with table two, that says a lot. So here we go, break it down straight [34:36] Nick Cloutier: forward. Yeah, I think this aligns with the council's goal of increasing revenue where we can, not at the burden of the taxpayer. The last time we updated permit fees was in May of last year. This is an update for new construction only. It's based on new or recent, as of August of this year, building valuation data from the International Code Council. Council. It's basically a per square foot cost based on type of construction and type of use. Our current one is from August of 2024, so that was the most recent one at the time in May of last year when we updated it. This should bring about in new construction a modest increase of around 8% in a building permit fee. In real world terms, a scenario would be a single family home currently with our current fee structure, an average sized home, 1,300 square feet with a two car garage, 576 square feet. Our current building permit fee for that is $994 25 cents. This would bring it up to 1073 dollars 79 cents. That's just one kind of scenario. So this aligns with real-world cost increases over the past two years when [36:18] Michael J. Morris: you say real-world like so where did that where did where did [36:21] Nick Cloutier: the numbers so the Code Council does studies nationally. So the International Code Council creates the building and energy codes that the state of Maine has adopted. So, I don't want to bore you, but it is the average construction cost per square foot, which can be used to determine permit fees for a jurisdiction. So the ICC developed the data to aid jurisdictions and determining permit fees anyway well no it's fine specifically like how [37:11] Michael J. Morris: does this fall in line with like our surrounding areas right like so like how do we how do we now line up with them oh it's all over that with other municipalities yeah I mean more like surrounding like so like low Fairfield you know Oakland you know question those folks right because at the end of the day we want to encourage them to build here we have a lot of great things that [37:37] Nick Cloutier: we do here but yeah no I looked into that I compared us to one two three four five six different municipalities Bangor they are about 200 percent higher than we are currently augusta is quite low they are at 67 percent for residential for commercial they're about on par with where we are now but we do a lot more residential construction than believe it or not than augusta does we did 81 new dwelling units last year that we issued see of those floors and i believe augusta was about half of that although our permit fee is a little bit higher vassalboro they're at about 50 percent 52 percent of where we are now but they also have inspection fees that are separate that we don't do everything is included in the permit so it's kind of hard to tell winslow is it about at about 47 percent of where we are, so on and so forth. That's just a few. So, I mean, they calculate them all sorts of different ways. I like our way because it's more based on actual data than it is some places do just per square foot, 35 cents per square foot, you know, I think is what some do, 54 cents for commercial and that kind of thing. Or they rely on the developer or the contractor to give them the cost and then they charge a dollar amount per cost to me this is more real world okay council bill i'm [39:27] Speaker H (unidentified): Generally inclined right now to avoid raising funds on the backs of people if we can find any way around it and you said how many houses did we do last [39:41] Nick Cloutier: year we issued 81 C of O's for dwelling units last year one which is quite a few [39:50] Speaker H (unidentified): so we're talking roughly $100 in addition for each one so for a single [39:58] Nick Cloutier: family home yeah so I mean some of those not all of those were single-family homes some more apartments somewhere ad use this won't impact renovations like this wouldn't impact like the Lockwood project for instance this would not affect that at all this is just from ground up construction we have a separate way of doing permit fees for renovations and permit fees are the only revenue stream that we have is building permits [40:28] Speaker H (unidentified): you know what are they what if we don't do this just keep the status quo stays the way it is yeah [40:36] Nick Cloutier: so you feel the only reason we do it is just to try to get more revenue yeah don't get me wrong [40:42] Speaker H (unidentified): we need more revenue but I'm not sure I don't think this is the way to do it you're talking [40:47] Nick Cloutier: about what 10 000 bucks maybe extra 10 is that about right no so for new commercial construction this would be this could amount to ten thousand dollars in one project depending on [41:03] Speaker H (unidentified): the project so what do you anticipate in revenue increase I don't well I say about eight percent [41:08] Nick Cloutier: about eight percent on new construction right permit fee permits fee revenues just for [41:17] Michael J. Morris: context by chance do we happen to know what the revenue or what the fees were for last year what the revenues were for last year well yeah so if we get to that number we say eight percent of [41:31] Nick Cloutier: that like hey well not really because most of our permit fee revenue comes from renovations and this won't impact that well do we have okay we do more renovations than we do brand new construction you [41:45] Michael J. Morris: said 81 right so of the 81 how many like what were the feet what was what was the cost what did what do we net from the 81 that we did last year I don't I don't have that broken down yeah. Okay. Can we get that? Can you shoot that out? Yeah. [42:02] Nick Cloutier: Yeah, I can. I should be able to. [42:04] Michael J. Morris: I mean, because it's, I understand what you're saying, Councillor Bielik, but these aren't folks that, I mean, they could be technically folks that live here now, but like these are folks that are looking to build new homes or apartment buildings here in the city. [42:21] Nick Cloutier: Yeah. It's about a hundred bucks for a new house. [42:24] Speaker H (unidentified): We want to encourage growth. We want people to build here and you know we're just adding to the cost of building in Waterville that's one way that's how I'm looking at it yes [42:43] Speaker K (unidentified): if I [42:45] Nick Cloutier: may that's certainly a valid point we do want to encourage growth in development we do that every way we can streamlining the development process which were a LEADER IN THROUGH DELEGATED REVIEW AND OTHER PROCESSES WE UTILIZE AND WE CAN SHARE THAT MORE BUT FOR THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST I DO STRONGLY SUPPORT IT AND THE REASON BEING IT'S A VERY OBJECTIVE FACTOR SO DAN WAS SAYING OTHER COMMUNITIES ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE SOME LARGER COMMUNITIES BANGOR PORTLAND THEY'RE MUCH HIGHER THAN US AND SOME SMALLER COMMUNITIES ARE NOTABLY LOWER than us but they're picking and choosing this is among these standards of objective data so we're not choosing why we're doing it the international code standards are delineating this is the appropriate value so we have that standard versus picking and choosing if the that standard goes down we could adjust it down it's about fair and equitable treatment and then secondly just to ECHO DAN'S STATEMENT, THIS IS ONE OF MANY THINGS WE'RE LOOKING AT FOR FEES AND LICENSES AND REVENUE SOURCES THAT AREN'T ON PROPERTY TAXES. SO PROPERTY TAXES, THAT'S OUR GOAL HERE IS TO TRY TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT ON PROPERTY TAXES IN THE BUDGET PROCESS AND OTHER SOURCES OF REVENUES, ALTHOUGH ARE A BURDEN FOR THE people utilizing them it's just that it's a pay per use and these people developers are choosing to go into this enterprise ideally to make a profit and we're this is proposing an objective way to charge them for the services the city provides which also increase with wages and our cost so it i think it's fair not only because it's objective but it's a pay to use if people don't want to be construction developers they're not going to have their property taxes go up because of this if anything it'll do the opposite which is our goal right now yeah that's a good point i mean when you're paying for this also if i piggyback on that you're not just paying for the permit you're not paying for the piece of paper you're paying for the meetings that we have before you're paying for the reviews you're paying for all the inspections we did 405 building permit inspections site inspections last year that's a lot on top of everything else we did so to me on a brand new home that can take more time than i said it twice today already a rusty Lantern market, you know, because you've got complicated building codes that have changed, and a lot of home builders don't, aren't up to date with them. Your commercial contractors typically are. It takes a lot of time. So I think even at, you know, 1,000, whatever I said, $87 or something like that for a brand new home for a permit fee, I don't think that's very high, considering what the resources that we put into it. Yeah, somewhere. [45:54] Michael J. Morris: Eighty dollars more. Yeah, somewhere around there. All right, any other comments or concerns from the council? Any from the public? Council Green? Yeah, I just wanted to, I just wanted to confirm. [46:11] Speaker M (unidentified): Did you say this was for both residential and commercial? Yes. Okay, any new construction, any. [46:18] Nick Cloutier: New construction? Yeah. Okay, so this would apply to like Amazon? I do. [46:27] Speaker M (unidentified): I do think that it's important for us to be looking at, you know, while we are encouraging development, to be competitive with other communities and, you know, get the value for services that we're providing, such as your time and the other things that go into it. So I'll be supporting it. [46:57] Michael J. Morris: Anyone from the public? All right, with that, all those in favor and opposed? Okay, six one. Thank you. Okay, moving on to resolution 182 2026. [47:16] Speaker K (unidentified): 6. Approve the use of funds from the fire department cost recovery account for the 2025 FEMA AFG grant local match. Move to adopt. Second. Chief. Hello. [47:36] Brandon Gilley: And thank you again. It's kind of a little backwards to do it this way, but the next part is what I wanted to talk about first, but we have to do it this way. So just a little back story. This is a regional grant. It was a regional effort between Waterville, Fairfield, Clinton, and Oakland. This grant is to replace all the worn out, non-serviceable hose and nozzles, and also to standardize this region, so we're all using the same hoses and nozzles. So we wrote this FEMA AFG grant as a regional grant. We were awarded the grant. The grant total for all the departments is in the amount of three hundred sixty seven thousand four hundred and forty four dollars. One hundred five thousand two hundred dollars will be for the Waterville Fire Department. That will literally replace every single hose and nozzle that we now currently have on our three pumps. Basically every year our hoses, by BLS rules, OSHA rules, and NFPA rules, has to go out and be tested. without fail every year we fail a couple lengths of hose is getting ridiculously expensive and we just don't have it in the budget to replace it so we don't when we go to a structure fire when we come back our hoses are as you can imagine covered and they're just they're completely covered and so we have to clean them because of cancer initiatives and we can't stack the hose back on the trucks wet because if we do it then molds and it'll eat through the lining so we have to we have to hang it to dry it before you can put it back on the trucks. Unfortunately, we do not have enough hose to replace on our trucks at this time because of the hose that we've been using. On top of that, our nozzles are in the 20 year old range. We continuously are losing parts on the nozzles, and we cannot buy parts to replace, so we're running kind of low on nozzles too. So this grant is amazing. This grant will replace everything that we have and give us almost enough hose to replace every single length of hose on the trucks when we have a structure fire. So basically what I'm asking for here is to, for our local match for Waterville of 9563.64 to come out of our cost recovery to cover our local match for the grant. Any [50:01] Michael J. Morris: questions from the council, any comments in the public? All those in favor? Thank you. All right, now on to order 183 2026, acceptance of FEMA assistance to firefighters grant. Move to it [Nick Cloutier: up. Second.] Thank you. All right, now the main event. Like, right, like, so this is why we're, why we did [50:36] Brandon Gilley: the previous one right same thing i'd like to accept the grant yeah i'll be honest with you this grant was a real regional collaboration between our departments i knew this is what or i say i 'm sorry i take that back we knew at our fire department this was one of our biggest needs this year we have been trying to come up with ways to replace our hose we just do not have the funds to do that so what i have noticed in the past and we received a grant last year when we can regionalize these grants, it only helps out the entire region, but you're more apt to sometimes get one of these grants. So reached out to the fire chief from Fairfield, then we started reaching out to our surrounding communities. A couple of them were all set, but a couple of them were like, yeah, this is great. So there was our four communities, we kind of split up kind of the work that needed to be done between the four communities. We all kind of had a hand in what we needed to do. My part of it was I have a little bit of grant experience, so my part was to actually put the grant together and write it, sent it out to them folks. They liked it. We put it in, and by Jesus, lo and behold, we got it, and I couldn't be happier to get this one. This is a big deal for this city to replace all our hoes like this. So I want I do want to thank the chiefs of Clinton Fairfield and Winslow. They did just a fantastic job to put this all together. When we get AFG notifications the it's a very short time frame to turn it around, so everybody worked together. A lot of folks at the fire department were helping with what do we need, what do we don't need. So our next step if we are, if you so choose to accept this grant, is we'll be putting together a working group comprised of a member or two from each department. We will be bringing vendors out. We will be using the hose and nozzles at the Fairfield training facility to find out what works best for all of us. We will be buying the same hoses and nozzles together so that we are, when we go to Oakland to help fight a structure fire, when we pick up their nozzles they're exactly like ours, which is a huge safety, huge safety concern when you don't know how to use a piece of equipment. So this is a real regional collaborative effort, and I'm very proud of the group that we put together and worked on this. Thank you very much. Any [53:04] Speaker H (unidentified): questions? Thank you very much for doing this, and I encourage you to pursue to regional collaboration on as many things as you can. [53:21] Michael J. Morris: Okay. Any other questions from the council? Any from the public? Seeing none, all those in favor? Opposed, none. Okay, wonderful. Chief, thank you very much, I appreciate it. Okay, moving on to ordinance. Ordinance 184-2026. [53:48] Speaker K (unidentified): Amend the zoning ordinance food truck parks. Move to adopt. Second. [53:53] Michael J. Morris: Okay. Patty, I'll kick it off to you. [53:58] Speaker K (unidentified): And I'll kick it off to Ann. Oh, Ann, sorry. [54:01] Michael J. Morris: Sorry, Ann, I apologize. [54:14] Speaker N (unidentified): Except that the planning board recommended three changes. One is to eliminate the maximum number of food trucks in a food truck park. So this would allow any number of food trucks in a food truck park, but they would have to meet all of the requirements for food trucks, the distance between food trucks and other food trucks, other buildings, setbacks, landscaping, all that. that. So the site would have to be large enough in order to meet all of these requirements. The second change was they wanted to add dust as a nuisance. That seems to be a little bit of a concern for the planning board. And the last thing is the added requirement for certain surfaces for parking lots. Again, that was to decrease the amount of dust in parking lots. [55:20] Michael J. Morris: Okay, any questions for Ann from the council? Sorry. [55:31] Speaker O (unidentified): With other businesses like a restaurant's being built or something, are there parking lot requirements? [55:41] Speaker N (unidentified): And the type of surfaces? No, we technically don't have a requirement for paving. [55:48] Speaker O (unidentified): But does it have to be a specific surface, like a no, in order for it to be a parking space? No. [55:54] Speaker N (unidentified): So well, okay, so if you, if you build with just a grass lawn, that wouldn't work because fire chief would not approve. That would have to be something that would allow the fire department to get in there without getting stuck in the mud. So yeah, there is, there, the fire department would require something through site plan review, but it's not an actual requirement in the zoning ordinance or the site plan review ordinance. So the food truck parks have to be, the way this ordinance is written now, they have to be reviewed by the planning board and this, all of these requirements in the draft language which except for the three that I just mentioned, come from the contract zone where Popo's Food Truck Park is located and currently it's the only food truck park in the city. So it's the contract zone requirements and the site plan review requirements. There are four reviewers who review all the site plans. That's the fire department, water district, sewer district, and the city engineer. Year and also the site plan meetings are open to the public and abutters are specifically invited to the meeting. So this language includes issues that the neighbors raised such as fencing, landscaping, setback requirements, that sort of thing. So this draft language is based on the experience of the planning board with one food truck park. [57:46] Courtney Grineer: okay counselor i guess my question is so this is a the food the food truck park on kmd i guess we're talking about right now that is it is a certain specific size right and you said something about like the spacing between the trucks that's a fire [58:02] Speaker N (unidentified): department requirement because some of these have, there we go, some of them have propane tanks and so yeah, no, if they catch on fire, I think there was, if they catch on fire, you want to make sure that the one truck doesn't, yeah, so I guess my [58:23] Courtney Grineer: Question is, so based on those requirements, wouldn't we then have to set a maximum number of trucks in this park? Like, I can't imagine unlimited. No. [58:32] Speaker N (unidentified): No, the idea is that anybody who applies would have a different size park. They would have a different amount of land. Okay. [58:42] Speaker O (unidentified): Yeah, because right now it's like maxed at six or something, like no food truck park could be maxed at six. So this way, as long as they're meeting all of the set required, right? So if they're having, there's a larger piece of land, you could presumably put more trucks on it because you just have to meet the setback requirements and keep them spaced apart. [59:02] Speaker N (unidentified): Part right, so there's no, there's no minimum size for food truck park, it could be any size as long [59:09] Courtney Grineer: as it met these requirements, so the number of trucks the planning board's recommending not there, no, not be no maximum number because you're, you're saying the trucks can be different sizes [59:20] Speaker N (unidentified): And no, well, not the trucks, but the parks. Yeah, the parks. Yes, sorry, got it. Yeah, I mean, I think [59:27] Michael J. Morris: I think it's safe to say that this is not necessarily singling out the current food truck park. This is to say, if there's another one, by changing these, it eliminates issues in the future of having to kind of talk about why we need to do different changes, like, well, you know, based on Popo's size, she can have six trucks, but this other one can have ten. But the ordinance right now says six, but we only have one, right? [59:56] Speaker N (unidentified): It is. Oh, well, no, the planning board is recommending that you remove, right, but currently [1:00:01] Michael J. Morris: Right, if we, if we said no, like we, it's a specific, well, the language that's in front of you doesn't [1:00:07] Speaker N (unidentified): have that six. It's the definition is the food truck park is defined as two or more, so you would have to put six back in there, and the only reason for the six, I think, was because of her land area, or I think maybe that's all she wanted. Yeah. Okay. All right. So I [1:00:35] Speaker M (unidentified): I'm just trying to imagine another food truck park in Waterville and whether that's a good idea, since food trucks also are able to get a permit to operate on property, correct, with the owner's permission? [1:00:59] Speaker N (unidentified): Oh, a single food truck would be allowed anywhere. [1:01:02] Speaker M (unidentified): Right, I'm just throwing it out there that, you know, I mean, it's good to plan for the future, but I'm just not sure how many food truck parks we really need in Waterville. So, and I don't know how my fellow counselors feel about it, but it doesn't seem to be a very efficient use of land either. So just. [1:01:29] Speaker N (unidentified): Well, I would point out that this draft ordinance was written to implement an ordinance you already adopted, which is the mobile or temporary food vendors ordinance. Right. Which Patty can speak to. And that requires food truck park owners to assure that the mobile homes, pardon me, the food trucks in their food truck park meet the requirements for health requirements or whatever. But that ordinance, which you already adopted, did not define what a food truck park is or set any requirements for food truck parks. [1:02:14] Speaker M (unidentified): I understand the reason for this ordinance. I'm just saying in the future, we might wanna consider whether we want to grow in this way. Yeah, cap how many food truck parks we wanna have. That's all. [1:02:42] Michael J. Morris: Okay. Any other questions for Anne? Sir, yeah. [1:03:00] Robert Hatch: Robert Hatch, live in Waterville. Own a food trailer. So I had a few questions. One of them being the dust issue. Can we clarify or expand on that a little bit? Because as I recall, we already passed ordinances for the food trailer park. It's already been good, right no so can we clarify in the dust issue so I can understand it better as a [1:03:28] Speaker N (unidentified): food trailer owner which I have no clue about Park was reviewed just as a commercial development went through site plan review okay but some planning board members thought that dust might be an issue from vehicles going in and out and food trucks going in and out. And so that's why they added, there's a list of nuisances that have to be addressed through the review. And so they wanted to add dust as a potential nuisance. [1:04:00] Robert Hatch: Dust as a nuisance, okay. [1:04:01] Speaker N (unidentified): Yes, and the way they wanted to deal with it was to require a surface. I can read you the requirements. Sure. All right, so there's a base of a minimum of eight inches of gravel. And then above that, There could be either four inches of recycled bituminous asphalt, or four inches of crushed stone, or three inches of hot bituminous pavement. [1:04:27] Robert Hatch: And how much would this cost to implement? [1:04:30] Speaker N (unidentified): That's a good question. The reason, I don't know, the reason that we have those three options is because the planning board members were concerned that just saying that it has to be an asphalt surface would be too expensive so that's just a brick and mortar isn't required for [1:04:51] Robert Hatch: these like a brick and mortar doesn't have that same requirement okay the fire [1:04:58] Speaker N (unidentified): department requires that you have a surface that so I would say it's got to be it would have to be at least compact I mean every [1:05:16] Brandon Gilley: Commercial property that we do a site plan review on, we give them the dimensions of our largest truck, and that surface needs to be able to be big enough for our truck and to also be able to hold the weight in the size of our [1:05:32] Robert Hatch: vehicles. Okay, I mean, I've driven a food trailer on there. I'm sure it's not quite the same size, but it's pretty heavy, and it's functioned well. We're at Popos, she [1:05:41] Brandon Gilley: but she did pass all that. Oh, she did? Okay. Yeah, she did. Yeah. So it was part of our site plan review was she had to have enough room for us and be able to hold the weight of our [1:05:50] Robert Hatch: vehicles. Okay. And the reason why I'm asking, as a food trailer owner, I don't own the park, but I understand that this is going to be an additional expense that might get passed on to the food trailers that are there. No, but okay, if you're talking about Popo specifically, sure. [1:06:10] Speaker N (unidentified): Sure. Hers is legal non-conforming, meaning it's grandfathered, it's already there, so we're [1:06:16] Robert Hatch: not adding additional. Oh, okay. So we're not talking about what's already implemented. [1:06:19] Speaker N (unidentified): So this is about a potential new food truck park. Oh, okay. I see. I misunderstood. Because we have an ordinance that governs food truck parks but doesn't define them. So this is all about setting rules for food trucks that Patty will license and charge. [1:06:35] Robert Hatch: Okay. Okay. Well, I guess then the basis of me asking these questions, I'm sorry for wasting everybody's [1:06:42] Michael J. Morris: time. No, you're fine. You're fine. We all learned again. Thank you. It's okay. Thank you, sir. Anyone else from the public? All right. With that, I will then, all those in favor? No? Great. Great. Moving on to Ordinance 185-2026. [1:07:09] Speaker K (unidentified): Amendment to Licenses and Permits, Article 10, Mobile or Temporary Food Vendors. Move to adopt. [Michael J. Morris: Patty, this way.] So this came forward as a result of a workshop held with vendors in the area. We had a great discussion. And so in reviewing the ordinance, because part of it was brought forward because of the difficulty and administering the mobile food truck licenses, which are very quick coming in and going. And so we have proposed adding that all the licenses will expire December 31st annually. So there won't be an influx of licensees coming in and they'll all expire at the same time. It will also allow separate licenses to be issued to one vendor, because currently if they're at a separate location they have to get a separate license for that location. So we're licensing the same vendor in multiple locations, so we could easily then, once the vendor is approved for a license, we can just, as long as they have a written permission from the landowner, they could be at other locations with the same license. We the section about requiring a vendor that's operating within 250 feet of a licensed vitular business. They have to come to the city council for approval. We changed the notice to between three days and at least seven days before the meeting to require proper notice. And then the food truck park section, we exempted food truck parks from the requirement of that 250 foot perimeter buffer to brick-and-mortar businesses because a food truck park is more of a business rather than a mobile entity that can move around. They have established their food truck at a specific location, and that vendors that are still within a food truck park don't have to get a license for that food truck park licensed separately, so they can, once they're licensed within the city, they can be within the food truck park, and I think that's all the changes for that section. I will say that we had a good group of people at the public hearing, and there seemed to be a consensus in these changes being brought forward. All [1:09:42] Michael J. Morris: right, any questions from the council? [1:09:46] Speaker G (unidentified): We had a youth council that had a question. Cali had a question. Yes. Oh, [1:09:50] Michael J. Morris: okay, that's fine. Thank you. Yes, Councilor Green. [1:09:59] Speaker M (unidentified): Yeah, so under 173-5.2 B, Section 1, it says the part that's stricken out is three days, and I'm wondering if the intent for that is must be given by the city clerk at least seven days before the council meeting, right? Just my proofreader brain, so take out the between. Yeah, I think that, I think you're right. Come out. Okay, I love your proof [1:10:35] Speaker K (unidentified): reading, it's so. Would you like to promote propose an amendment to strike out that language? I would. I'll second. I [1:10:51] Michael J. Morris: don't believe there should be any discussion. There that's pretty straightforward, but any discussion with regard to removing that? No. All those in favor of the change, and then we can move it as amended. Move as amended. Move as [Speaker G (unidentified): amended. Second. Okay.] And any comments in the public with regard to this? Malcolm. Yes, I [1:11:20] Malcolm Porter: Can't free will is I had to bring my paper. That's fine, Morris, City Council members. My name is Malcolm Porter, and I'm a small business owner in downtown Waterville and have recently purchased a mobile food trailer. I'm I'm wanting to share my feedback about the discussions on the mobile food vendor licensing or ordinance and the regulation of public ways. To the existing ordinance as written, I am unable to utilize my mobile kitchen as an auxiliary kitchen in conjunction with my store. Licensed kitchen, so I own a business on Main Street and I am I have a license through the Department of Agriculture, so I'm health inspected. My food truck is licensed for by the Department of Health and Human Services for the health inspection program, and I'm unable to use that as an auxiliary kitchen in conjunction with my business in on Main Street. Making the necessary updates to the building and the building located in the historic preservation district, including ventilation hoods, fire suppression, propane, not including the equipment, I would be looking at a price tag that exceeds over $50,000 that I already have in the trailer. So I'm being disenfranchised from using the equipment that I've purchased. While I understand the intent to balance local business interests, I'm deeply concerned about the current 250-foot restriction from brick-and-mortar restaurants representing a clear form of economic protectionism. National legal and economic research shows that proximity bans under the guise of protecting public safety do not protect public safety, rather they artificially shield established businesses from competition. The US Supreme Court expressly held that economic protectionism violates the US Constitution in Metropolitan Life Company versus Ward in 1985. Furthermore,, federal appellate courts have repeatedly ruled that using government power to protect discrete interest groups from fair competition is an illegitimate use of municipal authority. For example, the sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in their landmark ruling of Craig Meyer v. Giles. Additionally, the municipal fear that food trucks actively harm established restaurants has thoroughly debunked in real-world data. Comprehensive multi-year data published by the Institute for Justice in their piece, Food Truck Truth Study, reveals that no displacement impact occurs. The number of operating food trucks in a given year has zero negative impact on the effect of number of brick-and-mortar restaurants the following year. And complementary growth, food truck growth actually mirrors and supports restaurant growth by acting as a foot traffic catalyst that draws more total consumers into the commercial district. So instead of restricting these mobile vendors, Waterville should view them as a valuable municipal revenue driver. In Maine, food sales generate an 8% prepared food sales tax. Because the state shares a portion of the tax revenue back with the municipalities through revenue sharing, a flourishing food truck culture directly translates into more operational funding for the city budget. Additionally, the licensing of the food trucks by the city generates a specific revenue stream for the city. I urge the council to reject the proximity bans that flirt with unconstitutional protectionism. Instead, let us adopt regulations that promote fair competition, protect public health, and actively maximize revenue growth for Waterville. I thank you for your time. And I did want to add an addendum to that. that. I really personally think that it's bad business for a legislative body to engage in determining what is actually fair or unfair competition. So another bookstore on Main Street in Waterville, another bookstore opened. Was there some outcry? yes did the city council want to come in and say oh no we have too many bookstores on main street no they chose not to use their legislature legislative or municipal authority in that particular case and but yet they're choosing to protect certain other businesses using the same power that they have which the supreme court has said [1:16:34] Speaker H (unidentified): is not okay thank you thank you would you please send us the documents you reference in particular some of the studies on the impacts on existing [1:16:54] Malcolm Porter: businesses to be fair this was actually in an email that I had addressed to all the city councilors back on august 28th that had all these references and links to the appropriate [1:17:05] Speaker M (unidentified): Articles, etc. All right, I've got it, thank you. Yeah, I just like to hear exactly, I'm trying to picture how your food trailer would augment your store. Where would that be located? [1:17:27] Malcolm Porter: That's beyond the point, really. It's not that, it's not about me as an individual, specifically, yes, I mentioned the fact that under the current ordinance I could not, but it's not about how it impacts me. And that's never what it's been about. But as it stands right now, if I wanted to use my little food trailer to cook hot dogs for my business, for a special event or something along that line, I'm prohibited from being able to do that. and because I'm within 200 feet of people with other virtual or licenses and it's not about my intent to do it 's about my inability to do it should I decide that I'd like to do it moving forward if [1:18:29] Speaker K (unidentified): I may clarify, you may, I think the prohibition is that within the downtown congested business area there's a prohibition against food trucks being in the downtown business area, and that is my understanding is what prohibits that in that location because it's a downtown within that area, but the ordinance [1:18:49] Malcolm Porter: also says that anybody who is wanting to set up a food truck within 250 feet of an established business with a virtual license must be approved by the city council, right, and the city council may at their discretion decide that it is comp direct competition to that established business and can therefore deny that permit based on that alone. [1:19:22] Speaker H (unidentified): Okay. Council Bill, please. I mean, this is an interesting discussion. I don't recall this coming up in the workshop we had. It might have, but I don't recall it. How would we go about maybe looking at this further? [1:19:47] Speaker G (unidentified): I say we table this, it's time to get complicated, I say we table it, take a look into it a little bit more, cuz you know in my head I'm hearing court cases and I would, you are, yes, I'm definitely hearing court cases, I would definitely like to take a little bit more time on this, so I'll put a motion out there to table it, second, hey, we can table it until the next meeting, okay [1:20:22] Michael J. Morris: We have a motion on the floor to table in a second, all those in, could we talk about that real quick, no, unless you want to talk about the table, like, yeah, I'm talking about the tabling, yeah [Speaker H (unidentified): You] can only talk about the decision or not decision to table, like, not like, you know what I mean, like, you can't talk about any changes to the wording or anything of that nature, so [1:20:53] Brandon Gilley: So, just so we're clear. [1:20:55] Speaker H (unidentified): I don't know what to talk about now. Okay. [1:21:00] Speaker M (unidentified): I would just note that we have two votes, and so we could go ahead with this vote, and then that would give us time to research the one piece of this ordinance that's under dispute. [1:21:17] Michael J. Morris: All those in favor of tabling, all [1:21:24] Speaker K (unidentified): those opposed. Okay. So, four, three to four. So that fails. [1:21:32] Michael J. Morris: Any further discussion with regard to this? [1:21:41] Speaker H (unidentified): Councilor DeBrito's observation was I'm in favor of it, thinking about this. But it seems like we can approve this and then revisit it without any harm. Arm so that we can go ahead and get this ordinance updated with the things that we want in this and at the same time think more about where do we want to go from here because this is a big issue and it's going to generate a lot of discussion from the businesses downtown and that could be handled separately is what I'm thinking. [1:22:17] Speaker G (unidentified): Can yeah in for me I'm really not comfortable voting for this the way that it's written especially because there is this legal concerns I see the legal concern in it so with that being said I don't feel comfortable go ahead and voting on to this right now I would like to see the whole package first the [1:22:40] Speaker H (unidentified): ordinance is already in effect so we're not voting we're not going to change that I mean it's already there what he said is true today you can't put a food truck downtown so that's the change that he would like to see and so I was thinking we could deal with that later if [1:23:06] Malcolm Porter: I may it's not about the downtown specifically it's about the 250 foot restrictions the downtown the congested area is a different part of the equation right so I'm you know as it affects me personally in my business yes the downtown issue is an issue but the 250 foot restriction affects the city globally so like if I were to decide to get my license for the food truck here and decide that I want to go down College Avenue and in a private parking lot with permission set up my food truck but I'm within 250 feet of Dairy Queen, I would be operating in violation of the ordinance as it's written currently. [1:24:03] Speaker K (unidentified): I'm happy to review that section with the City Solicitor and specifically the 250-foot prohibition that we're discussing. I think that's the point that we're trying to get clarity on. And we could, I could bring that information back to the next meeting if it first or second vote whatever however this motion to table comes out yeah [1:24:33] Speaker M (unidentified): I mean it's a good point that we're we're voting on a modification but we're not really voting on [1:24:41] Speaker K (unidentified): This issue so because that's already currently part of the ordinance is not being proposed to be changed, right? So [1:24:49] Speaker M (unidentified): I don't think there's any, again, I don't think there's any point in tabling this item, but it would be good to look into the issue as you suggested. All [1:25:01] Michael J. Morris: right, with that, all those in favor? Okay, so we're voting on whether to, oh, the [1:25:08] Speaker K (unidentified): motion table failed. Thank you. Okay, so we're voting on the original motion and [1:25:13] Michael J. Morris: it is six to one. Thank you. Thank you. Moving on to what was that, 186, 187, 2026. Oh no, sorry, 186. [1:25:29] Speaker K (unidentified): Yeah, we're gonna go to 186, 2026. Amendment to licenses and permits, chapter 173, article 10, outdoor dining, retail, or entertainment use on city-owned space. Move to adopt. Okay, so this was also part of the discussion at the council workshop. This required more of pretty much a rewrite to make the language flow, if you will. So the basic premise would be that the area directly in front of a business, the three-foot section is allowed for use for the business, so they could put planters or tables to sell goods or small little cafe type tables and chairs, that sort of thing, use that space without any regulation because we found that it was inconsistently being administered as it is now because people were being charged to put two table, two chairs out, but other people had planters us out using the space, and so it was inconsistent and unfair. So we obviously want to rectify that. So we've, if we allow that three foot section to be used for businesses as they wish, then we would use the any space beyond that, defining it as extended use for whatever purpose, whether it's extended dining, entertainment, if they want to have, you know, people playing music out there, retail sales, whatever the use is. So beyond that three-foot section, anything there on would be charged on a per square foot price. We didn't make a distinction between extended outdoor dining with or without alcohol because alcohol is really regulated elsewhere anyway. So we, yeah, we just, we just got rid of the distinction between outdoor dining with alcohol or without, and we kind of struck that section, and so now first time request would be for closure of city-owned property would have to go to the city council, extended use permits, if it's the same exact thing that the person has done in the past. I know there were vendors that came forward that were Frustrated that every year it's very unclear what will be approved next year, even though there's been no issues, no concerns, no complaints. They have difficulty investing significant funds in, you know, tents or umbrellas and nicer table and chairs if they don't have any assurance that they're going to be approved again next year. So what we're proposing, they initially said they would like to have a multi-year approval, which there didn't seem to be a lot of support for that. It would tie the hands of a future council if you allow for a three-year or whatever approval. So basically, the extended you use permits can be automatically renewed by the city clerk, and that unless there's a written request received in writing to bring the next renewal to the city council. So if someone does have concerns or issues or becomes problematic, someone would file with the city clerk a request to bring it to the council. If there's no such request received, it would be an automatic approval for the same exact setup we're trying, you know, we're trying. So that's, that's the premise behind this, I think, you know, that. Oh, and that, yeah, and we're specifically noting in the ordinance that three foot esplanade area, that is the cobble area in the downtown, can't be used for the four foot required passageway or for outdoor dining because it's unlevel. It's not intended to be walked on or placed furniture on, and it's kind of a hazard when we do that. So we want to exempt that from that space for those uses. Thank you for reminding. Why don't you move that? [1:29:36] Speaker O (unidentified): Councilor Burke. Okay, so if people are able to use the three foot portion, what does that leave then on our sidewalk for handicap passage? [1:29:46] Speaker K (unidentified): The four foot is required for pro-wag requirements. So we went and measured the entire downtown area and there was no less than five and a half feet of space. Eight and a half was the total concrete. So if people use three, the less that there'll be is about five, and a half feet left without the Esplanade being considered. [1:30:09] Speaker O (unidentified): And can people block the crosswalk, handicapped access to the crosswalk in this ordinance? [1:30:15] Speaker K (unidentified): Well, this is, are you talking about the Common Street issue? We've done, we've talked about that, as I've mentioned, I think, before many years. And the city engineer has said that because the length of the street isn't long, that we probably don't, we don't need to have that handicapped access there through the park. And that we may consider just blocking it and making the park end and have people use the two side crosswalks on either end of the street. [1:30:43] Speaker O (unidentified): Right. But if people are parking in that lot or down at Head of Fall or whatever, and in order to get them to the sidewalk, they have to go around a tent in the street to get back up to the sidewalk like that could be a problem. Right. Or if they have to park on the parking spaces to the left of the outdoor dining, they have to walk in the street to get up onto the sidewalk to go to the business because the handicap, yeah, because they're right in front of, because it's blocked. I have brought this up numerous times, right, and I am not going to vote on an ordinance that allows continued blocking of the crosswalk and handicap access to the sidewalk. It's a massive problem. I also not, I don't love tents, I don't think we should be putting up structures, I think like, I don't, most businesses don't do that, but I think that just, it just takes away from the outdoor dining flow of down and feeling like it's a downtown vibrant area, but I could like compromise on that, but I will not support if we allow blocking the crosswalk access. I don't even know why we're bringing this up if [1:32:06] Speaker K (unidentified): we haven't changed anything, frankly. Right. Can I ask a question, Council Burdick? Would it, would it make sense in this scenario, and I'm just throwing this out there without having really talk to the city engineer, but I know that he's mentioned several times, like I said, that the street is short enough, what if we didn't have the handicap parking in the middle of the street and just had additional handicap parking on the ends of the street where the access is? Sure, Patty, but it's like [1:32:32] Speaker O (unidentified): Say I don't have a handicap sticker, right? But say I have a stroller, right? And I parked to the left of the tent, and in order to get my stroller up, I either have to lift it, which maybe if I'm holding a kid's hand and have my, or have a back problem, who knows, right? Those things exist. Those access to the sidewalk exists for a purpose. And the way that the parking's laid out, when you have a tent blocking it and it's blocking half of the parking, right? And if you have to park to the left of it, your only option is either walking in the street or like crossing the street in frankly a pretty blind area at that point, because there's a huge barrier and it becomes difficult to see around and getting around. And I just, I just don't understand why we allow people to block access to the sidewalk in this way. So I'm against it. [1:33:34] Speaker H (unidentified): I was at the workshop and I'm gonna try to answer that question. The, vendors that were there were very vocal about the advantages to them and their business by having these outside dining areas. They said their findings since we started doing that after the pandemic have been that it is a real game-changer for them, and it's very important. And I would really like to see us bending over backwards to bring more seats in the downtown area for restaurants. They pointed out that the Waterville Opera House is doing really well. But if you fill up the opera house, you don't have enough seats for restaurant-goers in the city to satisfy that demand. And that's the thing that they're trying to fill, is how can we get more restaurant seats so that we can have people come to Waterville, have a meal, go to the Alper House. And they were very vocal about it. And so I would like to do whatever we can to make that happen. [1:34:46] Courtney Grineer: Councilor Roy. While I agree with that, I think we're obviously specifically talking about one certain area right now. And for me, another big piece of that area is all of the parking spaces that are being used as well. So we want seats for people to eat, but we also need them to be able to park. And the fact that, as my understanding is that extended use is going to be, is charged the same as anybody else in the city, but they're using valuable parking spaces in the city. And come, sir, sorry. And so yeah, that's a concern for me as well. Sure, I want folks to be able to eat outside, but it should be safe, it should be to benefit, you know, parking and to the best of our ability as far as the fees go that are fair, it Shouldn't just be a free-for-all because we want to support restaurants. I mean, I want to support the restaurants, but it also has to be in a way that it's, yeah, serving everybody, not just them. I [1:35:51] Speaker O (unidentified): would also add that while, yeah, this is one specific area, anyone under this ordinance could do that. So we're talking about one specific area where, yeah, perhaps there is better handicap access, right? But if another business decides that they want to block, like, what if Portland High decides they want to block that part and put it on Appleton right there, and you can't cross the street, there's nothing prohibiting it, and it's frankly a violation of federal law if we want to start talking about law, but more so, we're asking our residents and the people visiting the city to take the burden so that a business can have something extra. And I don't think that is a fair thing to ask consumers or taxpayers of this community to shoulder. [1:36:48] Speaker H (unidentified): Council Bill. A segue to another topic. The vendors were very interested in the idea of the three years between the renewal of the licenses for the outdoor dining and such, and you've changed that to an automatic renewal that you can take care of. Have you got any feedback from the vendors on this? No. Because that doesn't really, is that going to satisfy them? Them, because their concern was they wanted to be able to plan for more than one year. And that really hasn't changed, has it? [1:37:31] Speaker K (unidentified): Well, another concern that was raised at that workshop was that they said if we're doing this, we're proposing the exact same thing, there's been no concerns, no one's raised any issues, why wouldn't we get just automatically approved every year if we're doing the exact same thing? That was the, or can we get a three year, you know, it was kind of an either or. No, just have you have [1:37:56] Speaker H (unidentified): you talked to any of them to see what they thought about this? No, you're the, you're a vendor [1:38:07] Michael J. Morris: so actually I [1:38:14] Malcolm Porter: was the one that had mentioned or recommended the automatic renewal. I live in Farmington, and I licensed my food truck in Farmington and as well as potentially here in Waterville, and the way they do it in Farmington is the initial application goes to the border selectman, the border selectman review it, and it goes to the fire chief and the police chief and all that stuff, they get the sign off in that regard, but the way Farmington had handled it was absent any objection, it would just be, it would go to in a stack to the Board of Selectmen and say we have these renewals do we pass them or not or you know and basically or in Patty's case just authorized Patty to make the decision to renew it absent any objections from, you know, residents of Waterville or such. And it would just be a way, and Farmington has found, and I don't want to speak for Farmington, by the way, when I say this, but I think Farmington has found that the renewal process has actually streamlined things significantly. And what it also does is it takes, you know, a lot less time for these things to be dealt with and you know if you're gonna save Patty you know 30 hours of work over the course of you know three months time that's a fairly significant savings I [1:39:58] Speaker M (unidentified): think that's what we have in this in this ordinance right yeah okay [1:40:09] Michael J. Morris: I mean I guess I'm trying to understand I do I do understand your point, Councillor Burdick, is given the fact that we have a handicapped spot that is located in the middle of Common Street, and then that there's an access point there. But again, Patty made the suggestion from the engineer is that if we added spaces at the end and took away the middle piece, based on the size of the street i'm trying to think and you raise well not necessarily the handicapped folks but people with but if i park in front of and i don't know where all the cutouts are right but if i park in front of incense and peppermints or things like that and i have to take my stroller out there 's not a cut in every spot no but the point is that like we [1:41:04] Speaker O (unidentified): shouldn't be blocking the access points to the sidewalk or the crosswalk because those are there for a reason they're placed every certain amount and it doesn't matter where you're putting it we shouldn't be blocking a crosswalk or a side or like the access point to a sidewalk that 's what i mean i don't care where it is well [1:41:33] Speaker M (unidentified): so I actually do think in this case Well, I would propose that we table this item because I do think we should look a little more carefully at this issue. And also the question of sacrificing parking spots for the same cost as sidewalk space. space. I do like the idea of just making it clear across the board, three feet of space is yours to use. I think that's good and generous, right? And then after that, there's a cost. So I'm going to move to table this until we can think a little bit more about these issues. [1:42:35] Michael J. Morris: There's a motion on the table. So the only thing that anybody else can say as a second okay second so that's where we're at this point because the table has been made any discussion with regard to table or not to table all those in favor of tabling until the next meeting all those opposed moving on to ordinance 187 2026 repeal of licenses and permits [1:43:12] Speaker K (unidentified): It's Article 9, Vehicles for Hire. Move to adopt. Second. [1:43:17] Nick Cloutier: I can start this one off. So we've been looking at licenses, fees, and whatnot, and that got us to look into what do we have on the books that probably needs a relook at, and that was the longer title, but Taxi Cab Ordinance, if you will. And the issues we found with that were the landscape of transportation has changed a lot in recent years, and we certainly, the city, want to incentivize transportation, but so that's not why we're looking at this, pro or con. It's rather we found, what we looked at, this ordinance, the, it was very regulatory and burdensome to manage the way it's written. So it's not just a licensing and permitting, there's tons of background checks, there's regular intervals of checking up on these entities in ways that aren't actually practical or manageable in the day-to-day, and there aren't actually that many companies as well. An example would be that they switch out their vehicles a lot, and in order to actually enforce this issue with random spot checks, it would require undercover police very regular intervals, and the thought was it's very difficult to enforce and probably not needed at this time, the way transportation is in the community without taxicab companies. So rather than have something that's not required by the state and that's not easy or even possible to manage and operate as written, that we consider repealing this ordinance, that's a legacy ordinance. Any [1:45:05] Michael J. Morris: questions or comments from the council? I'm [1:45:12] Speaker M (unidentified): just curious if there are any licenses currently operating. Two council. [1:45:22] Michael J. Morris: I [1:45:25] Speaker H (unidentified): missed this, I'm sorry, but what do we do and replace, and if we're gonna get rid of this ordinance, what is the city's responsibility for taxi cabs or vehicle hire? It would largely be [1:45:44] Nick Cloutier: a civil responsibility based on the company, so we remove the city from the liability equation, if you will, and most businesses are not heavily regulated by the city. Some are because the state requires us to, but this is not one such type of business. Okay, thank you. [1:46:03] Michael J. Morris: Anyone from the public? Does [1:46:09] Brian McArthur: this have any impact whatsoever on like Lyft, Uber, any of those services? No. So that's one. [1:46:14] Nick Cloutier: Of my earlier comments about the nature of transportation has changed. Those companies are exempt from this because they have their own hierarchy of regulatory structures that they manage themselves. And that's the new model, not municipalities doing it. All [1:46:32] Michael J. Morris: Right. All those in favor any opposed? Okay thank you. Moving on to ordinance 188 2026. [1:46:47] Speaker K (unidentified): Amendment to licenses and permits appendix a license and permit fee schedule. Move to adopt mayor. This incorporates some of the changes from the mobile food vendor and outdoor dining. I'm sorry the outdoor dining. So I'm wondering if we should postpone this until we [1:47:15] Michael J. Morris: Deal with that and deal them in tandem. Okay with that can I take I will entertain a motion to table until the next meeting. No motion to second until the next meeting. Second. All those in favor thank you very much. And with that I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Second. All those in favor thank you.