Falmouth Council Opposes CMP Power Line Project, Supports Food Pantry Grant

[0:00] Councilor Mahoney: Thank you. So yeah, Julie, if you'll go ahead and do the roll call for us, please. Thank you. [0:04] Julie (Clerk): Council Diaz? Here. Council Tracy? Here. Council Mahoney? Here. Council Sharp? Here. Council Morton? Here. Council Hogg? Here. Council Vance? Here. Thank you. That's everyone. Thank you, [0:15] Councilor Mahoney: Julie. Appreciate that. We're going to jump right in. Item number one on the agenda is an introduction on an ordinance to the temporary sign ordinance amendment in order to schedule a public hearing. The Town Council has heard concerns regarding temporary signs around town. These concerns land in one of three categories, environmental, safety, and aesthetic. Due to the increase in comments from residents, the Town Council added amending the temporary sign ordinance to their 2026-2027 work plan. The ordinance committee presents the following amendments to the Town Council. One is to no longer exempt the town from provisions of the ordinance. Two allows public works to remove signs in violation of the ordinance. Three imposes a fine of 25 per sign upon pickup of signs from public works. Fourth, signs are no longer allowed to be placed in medians or roundabouts. And fifth, increases the distance between signs with similar messaging 30 feet to 50 feet. The goal of these changes are to reduce the amount of signs around town and to ensure that signs are not left on the side of the road to deteriorate. With that, a public comment period has been included with this up to three minutes. So I'd like to extend an invitation to anyone who is here to speak about this item. Step forward, introduce yourself, and just offer where you live. Not [1:44] Councilor Vance: one clarifying question. Sure. We ran into last time, can a resident can speak on multiple agenda topics over the course of the evening, just not more than one time on a given agenda topic? Is that correct? [1:58] Councilor Mahoney: We're that's a good question, and yes, we're going to go ahead and that if someone has separate agenda items that they can, yes, they can speak. So we're going to be making that nope, so thank you for asking. For myself, because I and I appreciate you asking that clarity says yes, that we are going to, we are going to be doing that. Thank you. And not seeing anyone here, I'd like to extend that invitation to anyone who is attending remotely. If you'd raise your hand and not seen any hands raised, we're going to go ahead and bring this back to the council and just to see if there are any comments regarding, again, this is introduction of temporary sign ordinance amendment to schedule a public hearing. Does anyone in the council have any comments or questions at this time? [2:44] Councilor Morton: Yes, Councilor Morton. Thank you. I just wanted to thank the ordinance committee for taking this up. I know I had submitted some thoughts on making sure that we're having this conversation as a community as we've seen, I would say, a proliferation and of signs popping up. I think the only maybe consideration that I want to restate is that I do know that we have heard previously from Public Works that there is a burden of going around and checking the signs and then pulling them. So my only concern is does this potentially place additional burden on Public Works? Works for enforcement. Yes. Councillor Diaz. [3:24] Councilor Diaz: Where are you going to speak? It shouldn't introduce more of a burden than they already had and they still have the power to decide, hey, we're not going to, it's not a problem. We don't need to enforce it as we otherwise would if it had been too many signs and they thought that it had to cross whatever threshold. So it gives them some flexibility. But on the other end of things, it does make it clear that they can actually go around and enforce the ordinance, whereas before it was not as clear. Also, reducing the spaces where the signs can be placed makes it easier to enforce, including not having to walk across the road to get to the median to remove a sign. So I think overall is a step in the right direction balancing act between the rights that people have to advertise and put their signs up and our needs within the community for in terms of the aesthetics of the community and the amount of waste of time or resources that we want to put into it. Right. Thank you, Councillor Diaz. [4:36] Julie (Clerk): Councillor Tracy. So I was surprised to see the – not to exceed four feet in height. Is that, like, the sign, four feet, or is that the sign plus the part that sticks in the ground? But not to exceed seven square feet in size doesn't make a four-foot-high sign very doable because that's pretty skinny. any seven square feet would be like a two less than two feet wide if it was four feet high so the four by eight sheets of plywood would have to be cut in four to comply so i thought that was interesting that 's i mean i guess i still in there it's still in there so the four feet high four feet in height was the sign is four feet in height or the whole thing from ground up four feet in height so [5:33] Councilor Diaz: I can let you answer that Amanda or I can take it and wing it. So that was the way that it was, so there was no amendment since I guess we didn't address it because we didn't think has been an issue. Most of the signs that we are, that we see around are some form of, you know, one 18 inches by 12, John you would know better with your science lately. And to the extent that we have seen signs that are on the four by eight, those are in private property, which it doesn't, you know, we obviously can't do anything about that so not sure that 's been an issue but of course if it were to be an issue i think just the sheer cost is probably what's keeping those signs from proliferating in town they're just expensive i'm [6:24] Councilor Mahoney: fine with it. Great, thank you. Any other comments, questions? Maybe, oh, did you have a question, Councilor Sharp? I do. [6:35] Councilor Vance: I guess I would echo the concern just about enforcement and are we really equipped to enforce. And I take the point that there's not really anything, the rules are clearer, and so to the degree that we were enforcing before, you know, it's no harder to enforce now. I guess the question is were we enforcing before? I know you had some signs pulled during our campaign, Councilor Diaz, But are we doing that on a regular basis, public works? [7:06] Amanda (Staff): Sorry, I was looking up the four feet. [7:08] Councilor Vance: Do we, in fact, pull signs? [7:11] Councilor Mahoney: And maybe we have Amanda. [7:14] Amanda (Staff): I can answer that. I was going to say, do you want to answer it? Okay. Yes, we do, regularly. And as soon as we pull them up, it's like weeds in the garden. They just show up again. Okay. Okay. [7:26] Councilor Mahoney: And maybe just kind of piggyback a little bit on the enforcement piece because there's a $25 fine. Does most of the signs are able to locate an address for? Because I would think that would [7:37] Councilor Sharp: be a, may not know where to send that fine to. That would be something we'd have to look up [7:43] Amanda (Staff): because one of the things that's required is identification contact number. And so that would be a violation, but we would certainly, you know, do what anybody would do to, you know, google and look up the business to try to find them to i can provide a little more context [7:58] Public Works Staff: Too okay yeah thank you. So the contact information is the biggest violation that we're finding is that people aren't putting it on there. So the fine is actually assessed at public works when they come to get their signs. So we know who you are because you're here to pick up your signs times and they would be given a fine at the time of pickup. Yes. [8:22] Councilor Diaz: Counselor Diaz. So my case is a good example right. They I put them in the wrong place. I thought maybe Public Works has them and they did but they didn't charge me anything. If I had done it again this time I would have to make the choice of do I pay or do I just move on. Yep okay great any other thank you. [8:47] Councilor Mahoney: Man yeah any other comments questions regarding this item. Not seeing any would then like to ask for a motion for order 33-2027. Do i have a motion counts thank you very much council Mahoney. Do i have a second all right council Rance. All right all those in favor of the again this is the ordinance the temporary sign ordinance amendment for public hearing all those in favor? And that is unanimous. And that closes out item number one on the agenda. Moving on to item number two. This is 2027 Shellfish License Allocation Order. Per the Falmouth Shellfish Ordinance adopted by the Town Council on April 26th, 2021, the Shellfish Conservation Commission must, one, submit its recommendation of the number of resident and non-resident commercial and recreational shellfish licenses to be made available to the Commissioner of Marine Resources for approval. Two is to notify the Town Clerk and the Town Council of Falmouth in writing prior to November 1 of the number of commercial and recreational shellfish licenses to be made available. The Town Council then shall adopt a shellfish license allocation. With that, there is a public comment period that has been included with this item for three minutes. Is there anyone who would like to come forward introduce yourself and speak on this item. Not seeing anyone in person would like to extend that invitation to anyone who is attending remotely if you'd raise your hand and not seeing any hands raised bring this back to the council. Does anyone have any comments regarding the 2027 shellfish license allocation order. Not seeing any. Would then like to ask for a motion for order 34-2027 for the shellfish license allocation order. Councillor Tracy do have a second? All right great. Councillor Morton. So all those in favor of the 2027 shellfish license allocation order. And that is unanimous. That closes out item number two on the agenda. This moves on to item number three. This is a resolution to support for the food pantry for the community development block grant application so the fauna food pantry is seeking funding through the community development block grant program a competitive federal grant managed by cumberland county the application is submitted in partnership with a host of community with a host community with funds spent on eligible activities benefiting low to moderate income residents the food pantry is requesting thirty $35,000 in grant funds to help support the need for food and heat assistance. These funds will help offset growing costs related to acquiring, organizing, and distributing healthy foods to those in need. The town would assist this effort with $15,000 in local matching funds, which is similar to past grant funding the town has given the food pantry. A public comment period has been included with this item. I'd like to extend an invitation to anyone who's attending in person who'd like to introduce yourselves at the podium and speak at this time and Not seeing anyone in person like to extend that invitation 21 who is attending remotely if raised raise your hand and Not seeing any hands raised. We'll bring this back to the council. Does anyone here have any questions comments again? Again, this is regarding resolution to support the food pantry for the community development block grant application. Yes, Councilor Vance. [12:39] Councilor Hogg: Thank you, Mr. Hock. [12:40] Councilor Sharp: We had spoken earlier about funds for community development and allocating $15,000 to the food pantry at Council Workday. Is this an addition to that, or is this that funding block that we had discussed previously? [12:57] Councilor Mahoney: Yes, Nathan. [12:58] Amanda (Staff): the latter the this is that fund yeah thank you very much i [13:05] Councilor Mahoney: was asking right on there are there any changes with this same thing so thank you any other any other questions comments yes [13:13] Julie (Clerk): counselor tracy thank you i know dotty is here dotty blanchett thank you for all you do at the thomas food pantry it's a lot of work and i you know reading through the grant Just getting through this grant application is a lot of work, and I appreciate all that they do with both food assistance and heating assistance and additional work that Dottie does with a lot of clients. So I just want to give a shout out to all the work that they do and, you know, the people that are affected in our community certainly appreciate Dottie and all her staff and the work they do. [14:00] Councilor Mahoney: Thank you, Councilor Tracy, for highlighting that. Yes, Councilor Mahoney. [14:04] Councilor Tracy: I'll just pile on first with thanks to Dottie for all the work she's done over the years at the food pantry. But also, just to also note that some data came out today from the Pew Research Center. Almost 60% of American families have been to a food pantry or food assistant program over the course of the last year. And we all know that the price of heating oil this year is going to go through the roof. So to me, this is one of the easiest decisions that we have to make because we can help our neighbors and our friends in the community. So I'm 100% behind this resolution. [14:43] Councilor Mahoney: Great. Thank you, Councilor Mahoney. Yes, Councilor Morton. [14:46] Councilor Morton: Just to echo what my fellow councilors have already conveyed, thank you, Dottie, for all that you do and all the volunteers who make sure that the Falmouth Food Pantry is up, running, and is helping those in need. And just to reinforce that we know that the need for support is only going to increase for the remainder of the year and into 2027 and potentially beyond. So the real is need, the families that are served are real. I've had the privilege of being able to support where I can in delivering and so just this is important work and something that I absolutely fully support as well. So thank you for your efforts and I know that Counselor Tracy also does a lot of really important work for our communities as well in this area. Great. [15:32] Councilor Mahoney: Thank you everyone for those comments. Does anyone else have any last comments on this item? Great. Okay, let's go ahead. I'd then like to ask for a motion but this is for a resolution to support the food pantry for the community development block grant program. Actually before I get to that, Counselor Tracy, do you have the resolution in front of you by chance? If you could, if we'd be all right if you could just read that to us really quickly, please. [15:58] Julie (Clerk): I will read it as quickly as I know. I asked you already, so not surprising. You resolution number 35-2027, Town of Falmouth resolution in support of the Falmouth Food Pantry 2027 Community Development Block Grant application. Whereas the mission of the Falmouth Food Pantry is to provide food assistance, heating assistance, and other support to needy families and individuals in Falmouth, Westbrook, and neighboring communities, and whereas the Food Pantry has operated in Falmouth for many years and obtained 501c3 status, non-profit status, in 2009, and whereas the Falmouth Town Council supports the Food Pantry's mission by providing space for its operation at Town Hall and with intermittent grant funding, and whereas the Food Pantry works with town staff, other government agencies, area case workers, private citizens and businesses, and other non-profit partners to help residents in need, and whereas the Food Pantry has a dedicated staff and committed volunteers who help assemble nutritional food supplies, deliver healthy food directly to needy families, and assist with home heating and utility costs, and whereas the Food Pantry expects increased need for food assistance and other services and intends to assist over 200 low to moderate income families in 2027, and whereas Community Development Block Grant, CDBG, funding is available through the Cumberland County Community Development Office to assist in providing needed public service to low and moderate income families in the community and whereas the Food Pantry submitted a pre-application for 35,000 in funding to Cumberland County, which determined the proposed activities as eligible, subject to review of a full application, and whereas local jurisdiction endorsement is a required element of the full CDBG application, now therefore be it resolved by the Town Council of the Town of Falmouth assembled this 14th day of October 2026 that the Council supports the Falmouth Food Pantry's application for 35,000 in Community Development Block Grant funding and agrees to commit up to $15,000 toward their total local share of the required matching funds. [18:18] Councilor Mahoney: Right, thank you, Councillor Tracey. And with that, I would like to then offer an invitation for a motion, Resolution 35-2027. Again, resolution to support the Food Pantry Community Development Block Grant application. Councillor Tracey, do I have a second? Councillor Morton? All of those in favor of the resolution to support the Food Pantry Community Development element block grant application, and that is unanimous. That closes out item number three. We've got item number four, and this is the last time on the agenda, so it looks like we're going to be out of here in a few minutes, given how fast everything's been moving. Okay, let's go and move on. We have item number four on the agenda, which is the central main power project resolution. The central main power is proposing upgrades to its existing power infrastructure in Falmouth. This project, called the Great Portland Transmission Upgrades, includes replacing existing power lines, building new power lines, and clearing trees and vegetation within the existing easements. The proposal is currently under review by the Maine Public Utilities Commission to determine the need for the planned upgrades. At the September 28th Town Council meeting, many Falmouth residents raised concerns about the health, visual, and environmental impacts to their properties and neighborhoods. As the Town Council's, at the Town Council's direction, staff filed comments in support of an existing motion by residents to the Public Utilities Commission, sent a letter to the President of the Central Maine Power detailing concerns raised by residents, and drafted a resolution to oppose the currently submitted Central Maine Power proposal that is under consideration tonight. Night there is a public comment period that's been included with this item, it's up to three minutes. Before we jump into that, just want to provide again just a little bit of additional context for this. Again, it was at the, it was just the last council meeting where we did have, as I said, chance to hear a number of residents speak. We did submit that letter probably just a few days, honestly, after that meeting. We did hear back from Central Maine Power. They offered to meet with us. That letter, as we stated in that last council meeting, was drafted by Vice Chair Councilor Lisa Morton and myself. We also got a chance to get some others. The council got some feedback on that. We did submit it. They did respond back and asked to meet with us. So we met with them earlier today. So we got a chance to kind of hear some insight on that as well. To provide a little bit of helpful context too, we have Adam Causey, our Long Range Planning Director, to provide just a little bit of additional contact before we open up to public comment as well. [21:09] Adam Causey: Thank you, Adam Causey, Long Range Planning. I'm just going to provide a quick schedule update. You mentioned we filed in support of the motion of the PUC for the threshold merit the extra time to study. Unfortunately, the Commission did not approve that motion. They denied that motion. They did, however, extend the procedural schedule. So PC operates on the schedule of review. This could go until July of next year, but right now it's the initial review. They have given another week for intervener testimony that you can file at their website. I've been compiling information, some of the things that we heard from residents, but also other evidence, you know, from the town's assets, from an environmental perspective. So that work is ongoing. I'm glad we have an extra week. Probably makes the document longer, but that's great. So we'd still intend to file the intervener testimony. So any other feedback on what that should entail would be greatly appreciated, and if anyone needs any help on the PUC's website or how to file or write your comments or anything you want to upload up there. I'm happy to help anybody do that. [22:26] Councilor Mahoney: Thank you very much, Adam. Appreciate that. So with that, we're going to go ahead and extend invitation first to those who are attending here in person. Again, three minutes. If anyone would like to go to the podium, if you'd introduce yourselves, I'd offer your address and then offer your comments as well. Thank you. All right, great. Hello, my name's [22:47] Councilor Morton: Erin Becker. I'm at 10 Charlotte Drive, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Alliance for Responsible Infrastructure. So first, thank you for the steps the council's taken since the last council meeting on the 28th. We strongly support the adopting of tonight's resolution with its explicit opposition to CMP's project as submitted intact. Falmouth needs to send a clear unequivocal message that this proposal is unacceptable as it stands. We support reliable electricity for greater Portland, but CMP must demonstrate that the scale and design of this project are justified and that less harmful solutions have been meaningfully evaluated. Just as Adam just said, since we last spoke with you, the PUC has denied the landowner intervener's request for a separate phase examining the need. That decision does not settle whether or not this project is needed. Those questions remain part of the main proceeding. And that deadline, as Adam noted, is October 30th for any comment from intervener to be considered by the PUC. So we just ask that resolution reflects that date. ARI's technical team is examining CMP's load forecasts, study assumptions, possible double counting, and whether smaller upgrades could meet the actual need. So getting those answers takes really careful review of filings and discovery responses and technical conference testimony. Alongside that work, we provided the town with a preliminary assessment of potential impacts on property values and the tax base. We've also identified questions about public land, conservation areas, and future school uses. Our core working team is here tonight and we are here to answer any questions. Please call on us during your discussion. We also have Kay Aiken, our technical advisor, here to help address questions about the needs analysis and we want counselors and staff to just have a practical opportunity to talk through this work, understand it and put it to use for our town. So tonight we're asking for three actions. First, adopt the resolution with its opposition intact. Second, carry that position to the town's testimony supported by local evidence including a clear school perspective on the campus and the Merrill property. Third, identify what information is still missing and press CMP for answers and seek additional time where necessary to evaluate that information and respond. Bond, please also make clear who will coordinate this work and how ARI can support it. Tonight's resolution can establish a firm position for Falmouth and the next step is to back that position with evidence and sustained advocacy. We're ready to help the council and staff do [25:36] Councilor Mahoney: that work to protect our town. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to come to the podium. Thank you. [25:48] Ken Kagan: My name is Ken Kagan. I live in 150 Middle Street, Portland, Maine. I have been hired by the Alliance for Responsible Infrastructure to act as technical due diligence. So a little bit about my background. I'm here as a resource. And a little bit about my background is I am a grid architect by training. So I work for the U.S. Department of Energy on contract. I also work for the United Nations on grid flexibility. My main business is actually energy storage business in Lewiston, Maine. So the things we're looking at, I didn't check the time, so hope bear with me and hold me to three minutes. Things that I have found in the last year and a half of working both for the office of public advocate, as well as groups like this, is Central Maine Power's lack of data science experience in understanding forecasting, understanding probability, understanding the difference between probabilistic analysis and deterministic analysis. They look at the problem as operational only. So when they see a threshold, a number of load, they see that as that is the future period. Well, things have error bars, so I'm doing a deep dive into the forecast. Is the load actually going to happen? And a little context with that is this project originally came up in 2011, and the load never arrived, and it was denied. They're coming back again for a set of load forecasts for the massive problem they have in Portland and ISO New England, which is the base forecast for all the New England states, has continually over the last three years lowered their forecast every single year. So how are we going to expect the low going to be looking out 10 years in the future? And they're actually building for 10 years in the future. And there are, in the next 10 years, there's all kinds of capabilities, technical capabilities that Central Main Power can deploy to solve this problem. They are talking about reliability, and they're going to keep bringing up reliability. They're going to be talking about, oh, my God, we might lose a whole pile of load if a power line goes down. They also, you know, as I talked about, timing is, you know, is this going to actually be a constraint, is this actually going to affect Portland where they don't have enough power? Unfortunately, the problem is even if that is true, they didn't actually look at no alternatives, for instance, okay. [28:53] Councilor Mahoney: Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. [29:02] Roger Brothers: My name is Roger Brothers, [address]. We're just at this point trying to introduce ourselves so you know which roles we play in the impact analyses and things like that. So if you have further questions, you can ask us. I'm a Ph.D. research scientist at the University of Maine School of Marine Science. My Ph.D. is in biology, but I study spatial interactions between animals, the ocean, oceanography, climate, and all those kinds of things. And do a lot of quantitative analysis and simulation to inform fisheries policy decision making. What that means for me professionally is a lot of geospatial analysis. And so for this, I've been using GIS and a lot of publicly available data to try to measure the scale of the impact of this project. How many parcels does it go through? How many addresses? How close are the proposed lines to different buildings, residential, commercial within Falmouth and other towns. So that's basically the GIS information that's underlying the impact analysis you all got last week. And so if you have questions about kind of the data analysis, the data sets we've been using and how we've been analyzing them to get those proximity metrics that inform the tax base information, I can answer them. [30:10] Councilor Mahoney: Thank you very much. [30:20] Jamie Bautista: Good evening. My name is Jamie Bautista. I'm a Falmouth resident at 26 Stonecrest Drive. I'm one of the landowner interveners in PUC docket number two zero two five zero two seven six. I'm on the board of a RI and I am a volunteer for a RI. I assisted with the financial impact analysis for CMP's proposed routes. I'm speaking to make myself available to the council to answer questions pertaining to this component of our study. My background is in management consulting. I've done 15 years, delivered over 200 projects for public sector, Fortune 500, and NGO clients. These projects include market analysis, financial modeling, and operational planning. My core training is in economics, and economics are a useful tool for understanding the scope of this project and its impact on our communities. CMP's costs do not account for the significant negative externalities that should be factored into these project costs. For example, the health and safety of students and staff on our school campus where this project would run. The environmental destruction of conserved areas in our town and public spaces that several volunteers in this room are working to document. And then there's the impact on private property. Our base case financial analysis is that about $43 million in assessed value in Falmouth alone. $60 million in lost market value. Our base case, it could get much higher than this. We are inherently conservative in these numbers. That is Falmouth alone. Because the town's budget doesn't shrink when values fall, there's a second hit to other residents in Falmouth. The levy shifts and the loss is carried over to other taxpayers. I'm here to answer questions about how we approach this assessment, highlight both local and national analogs we used, including CMP's own data for a project in Yarmouth building from North Yarmouth to the Raven Farm substation. Thank you for your consideration. We deeply appreciate all of the engagement on this. [32:56] Councilor Hogg: Hi, I'm Peter Passetti. I live at [address]. My area of interest has been in the zoning area. As I wrote you a letter, I think, a little while ago, So I am interested in understanding the zoning laws and how they might relate to this. I have done my own research, but it's all been my own. I feel I guess my main request to the council is I think you should be looking into this understanding, and it's obviously a complex issue. But in brief, you know, the zoning was created in 1965 after the easements were granted. There was no special provision that I can find about the easements in the zoning. It's all residential. So basically this is, or at least in my area and probably most of the town, so this is basically a nonconforming use that the electric company is using right now. Nobody's protested it. Nobody protested it that I can figure out back in 65 when it in. So now the question is if they put something in or propose to put something in, And why wouldn't that be a violation of the zoning just as much as any other commercial enterprise who wish to change the nature of their property? I'd also point out that it's not their property, it's my property. And so should they be applying for a zoning exemption or am I supposed to apply for the zoning exemption because, after all, I own it. I paid taxes on it. I gave them permission to run a couple wires through. That's about all I did. Or I didn't do it, but others did. So I guess what I'm asking the council to do is to think about that. Obviously zoning, I guess just to do a little more, zoning was developed in order to protect adjacent landowners and manage their expectation of what was going to happen around them. And that has basically done a couple things. One, it's basically created value for the town to tax, if you will. bill. It's also allowed the different houses to be closer together so you didn't have to buy a whole bunch of land to protect yourself. And that's increased density, which I think we all would like to see. We're very convenient, at least in my neighborhood, into the city of Portland. And so it's an attractive area, but it's also attractive for people who don't feel they need to protect themselves by buying big piece of property. And so those are all the considerations that I think the council should be thinking about as we're all citizens of the same community and sometimes we have needs more than others and this is one of those cases where I think you know having the need addressed for a certain environment certain neighborhoods really makes sense so I guess that's why I'm here to ask you for that and I have six seconds [35:54] Councilor Diaz: Thank you. Hi. [36:03] Rita Claire: My name is Rita Claire. I live at [address] in Portland. I'm one of the residents affected by this proposed expansion. I have a background and a master's degree in biochemistry. I am also an avid birder and naturalist and I'm out in these nature trails along the Parlin corridor in both Portland and many of the nature areas in Falmouth regularly and I'm I'm helping with the environmental assessment with ARI. I will say I only found out about this project a week and a half ago, thanks in part to CMP's lack of efforts to inform affected residents. And I just wanted to bring up kind of a case study that we've been looking at as an example of environmental impacts, which is River Point Conservation Area. It is home to Maine's longest-running bird banding research project. We have two researchers here tonight from BRI who work on that research. The expansion or the power line corridor cuts directly through that property, and it is something that could significantly affect the research. This property is also surrounded on three sides by river, and there's only one small access point to get in there. So I think this is just one example of, like, you know,, how do they think that they're going to get in there and, you know, install these big towers and make all of these changes without significant destruction? And, you know, it's not just River Point. This corridor cuts through McCrayan Preserve and the Falmouth School Campus, the Woods Road Community Forest, Ledges Preserve, Pleasant Hill Woods Preserve, Presumpt Scott River Preserve, and that's not the full list. So, it's very likely that some, maybe all of these areas contain species that are on Maine's, like, threatened list, or it's called the greatest conservation need list. Some endangered species, perhaps. I can't tell you that because we haven't had enough time to really dig into that information. But I think that you know these conservation areas are really important to conserve so if you have any questions about environmental impacts I'll do my best to answer those thank you thank [38:27] Councilor Vance: you hi [38:34] Anya Peterson: Bring it down to my height I'm Anya Peterson I'm a resident of Falmouth at 10 and Stapleford Drive. This room is becoming increasingly familiar, full of familiar faces for me. The first thing I wanted to do was just to share that I'm super tired. I'm so tired, you guys, like this tired. And I know that I'm not the only person who feels that way. And that's because we are trying to do an immense amount of work in a very short amount of time. And so I want I want to acknowledge and thank everyone in the front of the room, the back of the room, and online for recognizing the urgency and the scale of the threat to our lives and future in Falmouth that this moment represents. And for jumping in with your time and your attention and your, you know, combination of unique skills and experience that you can bring to this effort. It is really quite dazzling to step back and recognize how much we have accomplished. Accomplished since many of us met at my home on august 26th to kick off a lot of this effort and that was less than two months ago and if you'll humor me i think this is a moment in history a moment in time where it is very easy to become overwhelmed to disengage to feel isolated and disconnected from your neighbors. And so I am just for the rest of my life going to be grateful to everybody in this room and online and this opportunity and experience of coming together with my neighbors, my hyperlocal neighbors who I already knew, and my neighbors in the broader, you know, greater Portland community to really stand together and fight for what we love. So we are tired. Some of us may be very tired, but we don't get to stop yet. We are sprinting forward towards this October 30th deadline in the case. And I do want to end by acknowledging all the work that the counselors and the town manager and the long-range planner have done and are doing to identify and exercise the levers that are available to Falmouth to advocate for and protect both the town and its residents through this process. So thank you, thank [41:20] Councilor Diaz: you go [41:26] Tom Perry: to the podium. Yes, thank you. Hi, my name is Tom Perry and I reside at [address]. And if we all remember the ice storm of 1998 and CMP is talking about resiliency, I think they should be talking about underground. It's more expensive, but it's a lot more resilient. Thank you. Thank you. Yes [41:49] Councilor Mahoney: if you just come to the podium be great. Good [41:55] Gwen Ellen O'Donnell: evening. My name is Gwen Ellen O'Donnell. I'm a resident of Falmouth at Three Pair Circle. I'm a volunteer with ARI and you may remember a couple weeks ago when we met I talked about the destruction of the flora and fauna that this project will do in our neighborhood. Well, I'd like to share some concerns also about the school. So I have two kids who are currently in middle school and one who just graduated. She's now a freshman in high school and a couple of years ago my oldest came home and talked about this incident that had happened in her class where a ball had been thrown up against the wall and the teacher basically sat the kids down and disclosed to them that there was asbestos in the wall and that they couldn't do that. And she explained what asbestos was and so on and so forth. So I've been worried for a couple years now that my kids are in a school with asbestos in the walls. All this is to say that we need a new middle school. And my son asked me yesterday, Mom, what's going to happen? When is the construction on the new middle school going to start? Because they're excited about that. And I said, honestly, I don't know. I don't know if we'll be able to have a middle school. Maybe, Aaron, you're probably more informed than I am, but it's a concern that if this project goes through, we may not be able to have a new safe middle school for our kids, and that's a problem. So I just wanted to raise that tonight. [43:33] Joyce Perry: Hi. My name is Joyce Perry. I'm a resident of 25 Sherman Drive. I've lived in Falmouth now for approximately four years. And I'm opposed to this project as it is currently being proposed. First of all, I think this project is going to exceed $2 billion when it goes through all three phases of it, or $3 billion. The costs are going to be exorbitant. I think that PUC has been irresponsible. We point the finger at CMP, but PUC is equally irresponsible. Responsible. If they are only responsible for notifying the abutters of this project, that is horribly irresponsible, because most people don't know about this. My husband and I did attend the informational session last fall, but basically didn't hear anything after that. Thanks to the ARI people, they're very organized, and that really got me going again on this matter. I will say I had a positive talk with CMP outreach the other day and got a lot of information. Abigail was very helpful. I live right next door to the pole lines and this has been, this land has been my family that I'm living on for probably 60 years. I don't want to lose an inch of it. I feel very strongly about that. I think that there are things that CMP can be doing. I do not think that they have maintained the lines. We have pole lines that are, you know, covered with trees around, and, you know, that's a big expense that they could do more work on, and that would help a lot. We all, as citizens, could reduce our electricity use, and we need to be mindful of that. We can make a difference ourselves. I would like to see less intrusive project. I really do not want to be seeing 110-foot pole lines. I do think that CMP and PUC need to be responsible about repairing equipment that is faulty, that needs to be repaired, and we do need to think about updating things, but we need to think about that in a responsible manner. And certainly a $2 billion to $3 billion project is pretty far-reaching when we're still in the fact-finding phase. So I'm opposed to this project as it is currently written, and I do not want to lose an inch of my land. And I think that PUC and CMP has a lot to do to educate the communities. I also hope that, Falmouth, you're taking advantage of whatever legal counsel services that you have to consult so that you can help all of our citizens and ARI, because we all need to work together to make this happen. I would encourage all citizens to call their government officials. Thank you. [46:50] Hank Sarazin: Hank Sarazin, One Chandler Drive. I want to thank all you guys. A lot of you have responded to some emails, and I know that everybody has thrown this on their back, because it's pretty significant and I got to applaud the folks from ARI because I'm serious. You guys really took something and made it aware. So maybe I'm the only one in the room that thinks quite this dramatically, but I consider this pretty catastrophic for our town. I mean, I look at 15 years from now if this goes through and what are we? We're a town right outside of Boston and that's just big houses and three families and that's what we will be because people won't want to live here 110 feet tall poles it's twice the height of the buildings that are on route one and you all know how much that was not received very well twice the height so when you talk about the impact financially every yard is going to see these poles every yard in Falmouth and for those of us who are closer than that, we'll hear them. And I know that there's some health concerns as well that are there. So ARA needs help. Anybody that can help them. And I'm going to ask you guys to help. You have the most powerful voice in town. You have a website that people go to every day. I checked again this morning. There's nothing on there. And I did ask. You can put a banner up that says, go here, help here. There's a GoFundMe page. This is all costing money, guys. None of it's free. You have an email database of I don't know how many, probably at least a couple thousand people in town that have signed up to receive notifications. So I'm asking you, use that to help them because they've done really, great work. And they're doing it with integrity, honesty, and in the best interest of this town. You guys, you're the council that has this bad boy on your back, and I don't envy you that. This is significant. We will not be the same town if this happens. We will not. We won't even come close to being this great little town that I know I love and been here for 31 years. So I have those two asks. I'm sure there's rules and laws, and I get that. But please help them with that tool if you can. [49:25] Cooper Galbraith: Hello. I'm Cooper Galbraith. I live at [address]. I don't have any fancy credentials, and the place I live isn't going to be directly affected by the line. But he just said something about integrity, and I don't know if he knows CMP. No integrity. I mean, it's not a joke. Resiliency. I mean, my power's gone out two times this week. I mean, just for a second here and there, but like, what is this? I mean, we're a first world country and we have a ridiculous power grid. Our electricity is really expensive. You know, a few years ago, there was a hot topic with the CMP corridor. The whole way through, they were lying and lying and lying and lying. I don't trust them to say that this is a good project, especially when they're trying to, like, slide this through. They're trying to, you know, they're not even alerting property owners. When we talk about the destruction of the environment, that's serious. That's really serious. Like, I haven't heard anybody come up here and support it. No one is here to support it. If we don't reject this line, who are you working for? I don't trust CMP. I don't like them. The PUC and CMP are just one in the same. I know I'm coming off a little negative, but I mean, there's asbestos in the middle school and we might have to not get a new middle school because CMP wants to put up a line based on reporting that is overinflated, reporting that is outdated, reporting that came out a couple years ago that, sorry, I can't remember your name. Is it in the green shirt? Hello. Yeah, it was K. Okay. No, you're good. You're good. You brought up a lot of good stuff with that. And I had looked into that just a little bit, but they're definitely manipulating this. And I think we all know it. And that's what I have to say. We have to reject this. [51:57] Councilor Mahoney: Is there anyone else who would like to speak at this time? [52:06] Lisa Smith: Hi, Lisa Smith. I am a Falmouth resident on Gray Road. My property is not immediately impacted, but like many others here, I enjoy the natural wilderness and wild habitats of Falmouth. I can cross-country ski and hike right out my back door onto much of the property that's now in jeopardy, which I've really appreciated doing all these years. I've been in Falmouth about 35 years. I also have property in Portland, which is, and I'm only just discovering this, about 800 feet from where the power line transacts, as well as I have some property in Westbrook not too far from this. So I'm surprised I'm just finding out about this about a week ago. Go. So one, many thanks to you on the council for taking this up as an issue and being proactive about it. So I appreciate that. I also appreciate the work of the alliance in informing a lot of us citizens who would not have found out about this any other way. I've spoken to many of my fellow residents in Falmouth, people that I thought would be in the know, and none of them are aware of this. So whatever we can do to slow it down, at the very least, take an opportunity to see if what is being proposed is, in fact, necessary and if there aren't alternatives that could be considered for everybody's benefit and, you know, property value, the environment, transparency, all of those things are very important to me. [53:55] Councilor Tracy: I do appreciate the opportunity to speak. My name is James Reed. I live at [address], found with Maine. You may recall I tried to speak to a couple weeks ago and I had technology trouble, but I'm here tonight. And as we're sitting listening to the council and the different agenda items you had tonight, you helped support a nonprofit. I'm not going to come out and say support our nonprofit, but funding is a real issue for our group because it costs money to do what we're doing. And since the message is out late, as you can tell from a lot of testimony over the last few weeks, putting our name or our organization on a website, the Town of Falmouth website, you do have mailing lists of residents. Why not help at least send something out to try to gin up some interest beyond what we've already done? We need funding, and we need to find ways to do that creatively and enthusiastically and with at least tepid support from the council. So I'd ask very smart people here to come up with some creative ways to help us that wouldn't violate any laws that you might have. And I'm sure there's probably one or two or three of you that might come up with some creative ways to help this group that's worked so hard. And you can't imagine the hours they're spending. I mean, they're spending e-mails at 10 o'clock at night working around the clock to make this happen. So, again, I want to thank the council for the past support you've given. It's been very much valued by all of us to show that you haven't forgotten us. And that means a lot. It really does. So, again, thank you and appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight. [55:45] Councilor Mahoney: And is there anyone else in person who would like to speak at this time? All right. Not seeing anyone in person. We'd like to extend that invitation to anyone who is attending remotely, if you would raise your hand. We have Daniel, if you will go ahead and unmute yourself, please. [56:14] Daniel Funk: Hi. Hi, can you hear me okay? Yeah, we sure can. Okay, great. Hi, everyone. My name is Daniel Funk. I live at [address]. My neighbor, Hank Sarazin, just spoke, and he and I are very, our family is very passionate about this. Obviously, we're against this CMP proposal. My family and I have lived here for over 20 years. We've had three kids that have gone through the Falmouth schools. We've been very active in our Falmouth community. community. My wife ran the children's department at the Falmouth Memorial Library. I've personally been involved with the vestry at St. Mary's, Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, middle and high school after-ski programs. There's soccer, the Falmouth youth soccer programs, the Falmouth swim programs, the list goes on. So you get the picture of kind of who we are here. We're here. We love it here. We want to stay here. This proposal is going to go right through my backyard and absolutely ruin my property. We enjoy our home. We enjoy our Falmouth location. And I just want to express to everyone that my family and I, along with many others that you've heard tonight, are very strongly against the CMP proposal. Thank you. [57:29] Councilor Mahoney: Thank you. And is there anyone else who is attending remotely who would like to speak? If you would raise your hand, please. And yeah,, Jack, if you would unmute yourself, please. [57:46] Jack Eminski: Yeah, good evening. Jack Eminski, 7 McKenzie Lane. I'm president of the Falmouth Woods Homeowners Association. We have four homes in our subdivision. Two of the homes at 9 and 10 are right up against the power line. And it looks as if that's seriously going to affect their property. So we've gotten together. we hired a drone photographer to take pictures to submit to the Alliance. And so it's going to cost us some money, but we're definitely interested in contributing our share to resolving this issue. Thank you very much. [58:32] Councilor Mahoney: Thank you. And is there anyone else who's attending remotely? If you'd like to raise your hand, please. One more moment here. Okay,, not seeing any hands raised. I'm gonna go ahead and bring this back to the council. So for our own comments, deliberation on this. I can kinda get the ball rolling. I know Councilor Morton was able to attend a meeting we had earlier today with CMP that was again in response to the letter that we submitted that came out of our most recent council meeting. and I think some of the things that we wanted to address were that the one is that we had heard from many voices in our community who would who had put in a lot of effort and concern around this issue and we wanted to make sure that they knew that those voices were being we were hearing those voices in our community and those voices were many and that you know I think we were wanting to kind of get a little bit of a sense of the location of where these power lines were going and how movable were those, and also were there any alternatives in terms of the technology that was being used. And it sounded like there was maybe slight wiggle room, but I think they were going to kind of come back with some things. but yeah we you know we kind of laid out that we were you know that we were concerned about the impact that would have on residents on the environment on the schools we did have two members of the school board as well as our school superintendent attend the meeting as well and they were able to highlight their concerns as well one of the things that was raised which was something that was brought up earlier is that we have a new middle school that's kind of be in development and then the campus is growing and that this needs to be taken into consideration and it seemed like that they took that pretty seriously and would want to be working with the school with the school board with the superintendent moving forward on that so I was encouraged by that we did relay also that there's just been a lot of frustration around communication that talked about how a lot of people didn't really know about this project until in many cases maybe a day or two before the meeting that we had again this Most recent meeting on the 28th, and you know, just kind of relaying even the seriousness of this, that we, you know, that we had heard that residents were can even considering moving because of the, because of this project and the impact that it would have. We were really just trying to kind of relay the seriousness that our residents were speaking to. In terms of kind of thinking about the technology adjustments that we made, they did say that they were gonna try to put together polls that would be as concentrated as possible. We did raise the point about underground lines. They said that there's possibilities on a localized level, but that they wanted to kind of look into that a little bit further because they said that to do that across the entire project would be a six times the price of the current project, at least those are the estimates that they gave us. They, I think one of the things we wanted to know is how much impact in terms of the energy infrastructure would go to Falmouth residents, and what they relayed to us is that every Falmouth customer for CMP would be impacted by this project, so at least that's what they relayed to us. We also relayed our concerns around things like pesticides and herbicides, and then also in Falmouth, we've recently put together an ordinance and that we would try to work with in conjunction with some of the stipulations that have been put forth within our own community. They said that they would try to work with that on that front as well. As many of you know that on November the 5th coming up, there's going to be kind of an open house. Will there be an opportunity for folks from CMP to solicit questions, concerns? There's going to be, and I know I had to leave, unfortunately, a little bit earlier before that meeting. I don't know if any logistical details were ironed out on that. I know that was something that we looked at wanting to make sure that people had an opportunity to hear from ARI and the concerns relayed, you know, anyone who's coming to that event as well as chance to hear the questions answered by CMP. Was there anything from a logistical or tactical standpoint that were offered because I did have to leave that mean [1:03:39] Amanda (Staff): Just a little bit early. Yeah, I'll just share part of that conversation. Jamie reached out the last couple of days asking for an opportunity for you folks to have an open house as well before the CMP open house. And we late in the day, about an hour, well an hour or two before this meeting, we found out we could reserve the space for you folks. They have it reserved at 6 30, and so we wanted to allow 15 minute turnaround time, but I think there's time to talk about that and one suggestion that was made to CMP today is as this is evolving, you know, I, is that the most effective use of our time and format for you to have an open house and then them to have an open house? What does that really mean? And there was even a suggestion, you know, it's going to be up to them, you know, how about a facilitated conversation, you know, not a debate but a facilitated conversation. And so they were absorbing all of that and we're going to think about it and get back to us. So we'll stay in touch Jamie as long as you remain our point of contact on that, we'll stay in touch as we hear that [1:04:46] Councilor Mahoney: keep you updated. And then also again, Counselor Morton was attending as well. I like to have give you an opportunity to kind of offer some of the conclusions that you had coming out of that meeting as well. [1:05:00] Councilor Morton: Thank you. And thank you to everyone who has joined us this evening, both in person, virtually online, who have contributed to the conversation and are engaged in paying attention, because that's critical. So it's going to take all of our attention. With that being said, before I dive into that I'm gonna say three things. One, the importance of submitting public comment this week, next week, now going to the Public Utilities Commission. You can easily do that. The case number again is two zero two five dash zero two seven six. I strongly encourage people once you gather your thoughts and information and know the position and the key messages that you want to deliver for the Public Utilities Commission to do so, to submit public comment and do that sooner than later. The second, again, November 5th, have that on your calendar. It's going to be at the Falmouth elementary school from 7 to 9. I think the structure of that could change. As of right now, CMP is promoting it as enjoy friendly conversations where you can ask questions and share your perspective. So that's kind of setting the objective of the evening. But then also, I'll mention StopTheCMPLine.com is an incredible resource that the Alliance for Responsible Infrastructure has created. While they are an established entity now, I want to just applaud that this entity is made up of individual residents who saw something coming and quickly organized and have done so in just a manner that is mind-blowing and so impressive and so for those who are looking to get more up to speed I do recommend you go to stop the CMP line com with that being said for today's meeting with CMP I do recommend folks to also go to tonight's agenda where you can see a copy of the letter that council submitted to CMP so you can really see the position that we took with them, the questions that we asked. I think what I garnered from today's conversation, one is that the dialogue between CMP, the town, and schools was solidified, something that, in my opinion, should have happened much, sooner. With that being said, those lines of communication are now open, and the hope and expectation is that they remain open, and I'm hoping that we actually have some of those who are in today's meeting and around that table are listening and right now. And the expectation was set, and the intention that they set was that they want those lines of communication open and that they're going to be two-way. So I appreciate that, and I want to go on record saying that was a message that was delivered to us today, and I look forward to CMP holding that to be true. I would say the areas that, you know, flagged kind of my attention, one is that, thus far, they have not identified any environmental impacts that would prevent the proposal as currently submitted. We were not able to garner more information or studies or research around potential health impacts or confirmation that we shouldn't be concerned and so that's something that we have asked for additional information on of knowing that this is their area of expertise and they have clearly thoroughly analyzed a lot of different facets of projects of this nature I look forward to receiving more information around the due diligence that they've done from a health and safety impact the other area That we've asked for more information is around the alternatives, and it was expressed that a couple other alternative paths were explored, but they have decided to not further pursue those, and that's why we are now looking at the proposal as submitted as this one. And so we have also asked for specific information of what were those alternatives, what was assessed, and the details and specifics around that. And so that was another other deliverable that they said that they would be providing the town. So again, look forward to receiving that information from CMP. I'm sure I will speak more as we continue this conversation, but again, thanks to everyone and looking forward to continuing it. Right, thank you, Counselor Morton. [1:09:37] Councilor Mahoney: And would like to extend invitation to the rest of the council, anyone like to provide any additional comment, thoughts at this time? Yes, Counselor Vance. Thank you very much. [1:09:47] Councilor Sharp: Council Rock, so I think it'd be useful to get perspective from staff on two of the questions that were raised in public comment. Now I think Mr. Reed from Alan Ave spoke about, you know, the sort of the town outreach around these pieces. I do see that this is on the front page of the landing for the town, the CMP project, you know, in general is the is the top item, so I think that is covered. But I don't know what sort of constraints or limits exist on directing, you know, interested folks in the town to sort of civic and groups around this like a RI and things like that is are we limited in any way from linking to you know a set of groups in that way it is a constant an endorsement in some [1:10:35] Amanda (Staff): way, etc. Yes and yes. So it's it's once you start providing that kind of access to the town's website, it becomes a public forum. You now have to allow access for free speech and others advocates to be even if you endorse and are in partnership. So the advice really more is you can post your information, your resolutions, your, you know, official town information, you can point people to that's why we've been pointing people to the PUC site and, you know, just like not pointing them to ARI, we don't necessarily want to point them to CMP as well. So, yeah, and you're also subjecting yourself to if there's any inaccurate information that you haven't checked or control as a municipality. So for those reasons and others, you really, you know, it would be not advisable to go down that road. [1:11:32] Councilor Sharp: But we can link to public meetings where these issues have been discussed, such as the 28th, I believe, and, of course, this evening. [1:11:40] Amanda (Staff): Absolutely. So they can get there indirectly. [1:11:42] Councilor Sharp: And where there is record of some of these things, you know, that have gone on public record from Councillor Morton and others who have mentioned it. So, okay. That sounds great. So if we don't link to those agendas, it would be great, and recordings, to do that. The second question, I believe, is from Mr. Bocchetti from Staple Forge, who asked around zoning. You know, were we to consider changes to zoning ordinance? Two questions. One, I mean, I assume that's going to take some time. Those are not, I'm guessing, fast-tracked processes for us. And two, what is your interpretation of what PUC and C&P's relationship to our zoning ordinances in terms of the ability to override them in these sorts of cases? [1:12:26] Amanda (Staff): I'm going to redirect to Adam Causey if that would be okay with the chair. Sure. That would be fine. Hello. [1:12:36] Adam Causey: I'll do my best. I'm not your zoning administrator. But there are some hurdles. If we were to, let's say, enact some ordinances, there's state law that allows ZMP and other utility providers to go to the public utilities commission to get waivers. So even if you pass something, it could be more of a temporary thing. But happy to do more research, you know. We haven't, I don't think we've asked any legal, you know, in town attorney yet about that question, but just knowing that there's state law that preempts some of that and then gives utility providers an out by going to the PUC. Now that is, they do have to request that, and they have to do a whole another process of testimony with the PSC, PUC, so there's a time issue involved in that request, but they, that's something they could avail themselves of. [1:13:24] Councilor Sharp: Up, okay. Yeah, I'd be curious how the timelines might look, you know, if we're racing on either side of that were that to be something we would want to consider, but I look forward [1:13:35] Adam Causey: to hearing from you beyond the local zoning requirements that we have for, yeah, you can [1:13:39] Councilor Sharp: imagine we started a zoning amendment process and we're essentially then racing, you know, their need to get, you know, some sort of variance right granted or something like that. Last thing, and I promise I'll shut up, I just want to say the resolution looks very good as written as well, so I appreciate whoever put that together, so thank you very much. Thank you. And do [1:14:03] Councilor Mahoney: we have any other comments, questions, thoughts from the council? Yes, Counselor Tracy. Thank you. [1:14:09] Julie (Clerk): And I, you know, reviewing all the materials, I appreciate that, Adam. The memo you've got here is, you know, I think pulls it together well. I mean, obviously I wasn't in the meeting with you guys today, but it sounds like you covered a lot. I appreciate that Superintendent Nolan was there. I think that's a big part of the conversation. I think he made some great points that are in this memo from Adam. So I'm, you know, I'm happy to see, you know, Family Land Trust is going to put in some more information. I Assume they're, you know, I'm sure similarly sprinting to try to come up with further detailed information, but I appreciate that all of the impacted departments and groups are working together, and I think it's a, I think it's a, it's a really good wrap-up of everybody, and I appreciate that you guys were there with Steve and keep working together. [1:15:07] Councilor Mahoney: Thank you, Counselor Tracy. Yes, Counselor Sharp. So just maybe a follow-up on the [1:15:13] Councilor Vance: Kind of outreach communication, so that I'm looking at the website now, and there's a sort of very factual under, hopefully, banner about this project. Could we, could we say, put it here that the, that the council passed a resolution opposing the project is currently, and perhaps some color as to as to why? I think that would make it clearer where folks stand and perhaps draw a little bit more attention. Great, thank you, Councillor Sharp. Yes, council, Councilor Mahoney. Go ahead. Go ahead. No, go ahead. [1:15:46] Councilor Diaz: No. No. Councilor Diaz. Just a minor point. Since we're not allowed to, or it would be a bad idea to turn the website, our website, into a public forum, and yet we see the need that ARI has to make their existence known to others. And I'm working off memory from the draft resolution that I saw. Do we mention ARI in the resolution, and do we provide a link in that resolution to their website? And if we were to do so, do we run any of the risks that you were just talking about? Because if we don't, we might as well make a minor tweak to the resolution to introduce the name of this organization and a link to their website. [1:16:40] Councilor Mahoney: Nathan, did you want to jump in on that one? Yeah, so [1:16:42] Amanda (Staff): For the record, I'm not the town's legal counsel on this, but I've done this for a long time, and I've talked to the town attorney about a number of things related to public forum, and I can't give you a legal opinion on that, but I can tell you I feel really confident that you would get a legal opinion that says don't do that. Yeah, thank [1:17:04] Councilor Tracy: You counselor Diaz, counselor Mahoney. Yeah, first, thanks for being here tonight, folks. Had a couple of concrete suggestions and then just wanted to make a couple observations, reservations. One, I agree with Nathan. We have to be very careful about endorsing something, but I do think we can do something. So I do think linking to what we filed, what we've sent to the CMP and to the resolution tonight would be good. I think we could also link to the Portland Press-Herald story that came out yesterday that did a very good job at laying out what the issue is and introducing people to the fearsome foursome standing by the transmission line. I also, I think just as a general observation, you know, a couple of things. One, this is a multi-step process, right? So the PUC has one process where it's going to decide on the CPCN, the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, and then there's a totally separate process that is going to deal with the impact that the line would have on the face of the earth. That's going to be before the DEP and before some of the federal agencies, so Army Corps of Engineers, maybe EPA. That's no comfort to you all who are finding out about this or really getting engaged in this, you know, two months or three months before for public comment is, but it's important to keep that in mind, particularly as a number of transmission projects in the state have had to go through those processes, and you can learn, we can learn from them. I also think it's important to be clear, I think it was Cooper. The PUC is very different than CMP. I think it's important to keep in mind that the people who work at the PUC are doing their best to follow what the laws and regulations are concerning what constitutes meeting the CPCN requirements. The PUC, just the other day, the PUC is not CMP, the PUC just the other day rejected CMP's request for a temporary rate hike for the year. They are not a rubber stamp, I can tell you that personally. So I think that's an important piece to remember, and I think it's also important to put into context what the town can do as an intervener. The town can put information in about whether or not the project from the town's perspective, based on the input we're getting from residents and from staff, meets Those conditions of the CPCN, but the town does not have the power to just say you can't build this, so it's going to, it's going to be a long process. There's a fire drill happening right now, and that's really unfortunate, and it's, I think, one of the biggest problems for this whole project. There should have been a far more intensive effort to connect with individual homeowners on a person-to-person basis, as opposed to mailers or a public hearing that doesn't get a lot of publicity or the like. So, that is definitely on the company, and they need to figure out quickly how they're going to fix that. I would look forward to the public meeting on the 5th, and would urge thinking creatively, like you've already thought creatively in your messaging and your website and the like, how best to use that time and that in that venue, so that's, and as I said at the beginning, I support the resolution as it's currently drafted and appreciate the work that the chair and co-chair and staff did in pulling that [1:21:35] Councilor Mahoney: together. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Mahoney. Yes, Councillor Sharp, if I'm [1:21:42] Councilor Vance: asking you to talk out of school, you can defer. What was there any, what was the response to comments about the quality or lack thereof in communication [1:21:50] Councilor Mahoney: to residents? It's a good question. I think they talked about how they held a public meeting that they opened up to the public last year, and there was lightly attended, which they think they took as things look like things are going well, and I think that was kind of where we kind of did a bit of a rebuke, saying that's not enough. You know, they said we sent mailers, and we said that's not enough. I think like even right up the point that I think Counselor Vance and Council Mahoney, I can relay, is that you don't send a mailer, you have to go door-to-door, you have to knock on people's door, you have to make that human contact. This is not going to cut it, and you know that a lot of people again didn't know about this project until, or still learning about it as we speak, and that was a major, a major drop, and that, you know, it just feels like we're kind of catching up, you know, because we're on a run as railroad track that's going really fast and we're trying to get on to what's going on and a lot of People still don't know what's going on, and we kind of relayed to is that the town's initial role or the take on this was that we were going to be a kind of a data and information facilitator, and that as time went on, we were just not getting the information, residents not getting the information they needed, we as a town weren't getting the information we needed, and that we needed by necessity take a more aggressive step. And I will give, you know, I will give CMP some credit in the sense that they did respond back quite quickly to the letter that we had sent, and the fact that we were able to meet with them relatively short order to me was a bit, was a bit encouraging. And I like you, counselor Mahoney, I'm really intrigued to see what happens on November the 5th at the elementary school, and I'm glad to know that they are, I will be there to provide perspective as well. I think that's going to be very helpful because I said right now it seems like CMP's got some information the rest of us don't have the same, we all need to be on the same page here, and to have an even, to have an intelligent conversation, because right now it's, it's a game of catch-up under a very short timeline, and that doesn't feel good to anybody. And when there's gaps of knowledge of what's going on, it's human nature to fill in those gaps with, you know, with what your great, your great concerns, and i completely understand where everyone is coming on this, and they have an opportunity to provide better information and communication moving forward, and I think that they listen to that this morning, and hopefully we'll be able to move forward, but yeah, people's concerns are still valid. Anything you like, oh [1:24:45] Councilor Vance: yes, counselors, one follow-up, I mean, I think I think we kind of characterize this as hey, we sort of established the dialogue going forward from here, are there planned future conversations with those same representatives or other representatives from CMP and the folks that were with you in the room [1:25:00] Councilor Mahoney: today, they said that they are welcome to talk with us, and they said that as counselors as well as residents, and provided some information, some, you know, there were I think four staff there including the president, they said they'd be happy to do that, which is a marked contrast from what I think what we've been operating with, so but a welcomed, we'll see where this plays out I guess I [1:25:27] Councilor Vance: I just would say and then forget and I'll stop, forgive me, but like I would, I would take that and to say hey, we'd love to, we'd love to meet with you every two weeks until the trees [1:25:37] Councilor Mahoney: start coming down, the leaves, the leaves start, yes, yeah, so that's, but they were, you know, pleasant and wanting and engaging, so, and that was the way they, yeah, let it go with that, anything else, anyone, so we do have, yes, I know we have a resolution, yeah, if you have some additional comments please feel free, I actually, I know that we have a room full of [1:26:07] Councilor Morton: expertise, and so I actually wanted to see if we as a council could benefit from the research and information that has been gathered, and knowing that again we have that expertise in the room, so I actually didn't know if it's an opportunity to ask some questions that I have of the work that [1:26:25] Councilor Mahoney: has been done thus far, yeah,, we can go ahead if there's various, yes, specific questions [1:26:31] Councilor Morton: that might inform people's perspective on the resolution and how we're proceeding, so I want [1:26:37] Councilor Mahoney: to make sure that, yeah, if, yeah, if you've got some, have some specific questions, you're welcome [1:26:41] Councilor Morton: to, well, in part of our meeting today again, and knowing that the need has to be established for the certificate to be issued. I was curious, and, Kay, maybe this is a question for you, just with your expertise, if you could maybe just talk about... My understanding is, again, CMP said that they've looked at three different alternatives. Two of them they're not pursuing. They will be providing additional information on what was assessed and have that package, but it sounds like there is some effort on establishing what those potential alternatives could be. But also maybe just helping us understand myself, because this is not my area of expertise, to talk a little bit about the difference between total capacity versus reliability and how that can inform need or not and how we maybe need to be thinking about it. And I ask this because I think it will also help inform the town's testimony as an intervener that will be due and delivered in advance of the deadline on the 30th. [1:27:46] Ken Kagan: Sure, I can answer stuff. Can I start with a little, there's a couple of things that were said that are factually, either you were told this or are a little bit different. So one of them was undergrounding does not cost, well, I can't say exactly because it's confidential. When they told you six times more, that is not what they have in the confidential record. That's number one. One. The second thing is, what was the other one we were? [1:28:21] Councilor Vance: With outreach from CMB. Oh, yeah, [1:28:23] Ken Kagan: the outreach. So when I was questioning Central Main Power, one of the most contentious parts of this was the outreach portion. And I questioned them saying, well, how did you do outreach? Well, we sent letters. Well, what kind of letters? Well, we sent to the Butters and we sent to Falmouth. And I said, so you outsourced your outreach to the town of Falmouth. Oh, we don't like that argument. And we actually went in about a 10-minute objection back and forth between the examiners and the lawyers for CMP disagreeing with my characterization that they basically outsourced outreach. So just to level those things, so you want to talk about need, Vice Chair, so I've been doing this for about two years right now, and probably more than that. So there's something that happened called the integrated grid plan. All right. That was done by a couple of community groups, mostly the National Resource Council of Maine, to do a better job of planning our grid over a long term. So instead of looking at one or two years in the future, start looking at 10 years into the future. And a part of that is load forecasts. That law was put in 2022, and there was four years of stakeholder decision-making on how forecasts are made. Central Maine Power generally look at the problem as, when I said before, a deterministic problem. So the difference between probabilistic and terministic, when you look in the future, there's a probability curve. It could happen. It may not happen. So there's continuing error bars as you go out three, four, five, six, ten years out in the future. And this is a project that is 10 years out in the future. They literally in, well, eight years now, but when they started planning it was 10 years. They were looking at the need being 10 years out in the future. Well, when you start looking at what ISO New England does, so ISO New England is the independent system operator of New England. This is the grid operator for all the New England states. They do forecasting every single year. They have a whole forecast group. And what we found, I just actually dove in deep into their data, is that for the last three years, they keep lowering the forecast. So they're basing all of the need on a forecast that is likely not going to happen. And the same thing happened in 2011 when they first put this plan through. At the time, it was, I think, about $500 million. It's now $500 million for only one half of it. That's how much the price has gone up. And with the pricing of wires, transformers, and everything else, this could be, someone suggested, a billion dollars. It could be $2 billion. If that happens, not only will Falmouth see the impacts physically, all right, and probably tax base, but you're also going to see the rate increases. And based upon the current rate case that is going through right now, if that gets fully approved and this and the second phase get fully approved, we will have the second highest rates in the country behind only Hawaii. We will actually be a higher rate for distribution than California, all right. So I hope that partially [1:32:29] Councilor Morton: answers the question. It does, thank you very much. Okay, I appreciate you being here. Anything else? [1:32:35] Councilor Vance: thank you appreciate that yes councillor sharp i guess i'm thinking on my feet here always dangerous so I speak for myself I would benefit from receiving more information both from CMP and from the folks who have been working on this from the other side and I guess what I'm wondering is there a way that we can hear from people who have that information I know that if there's more than three of us in a room that becomes a public meeting and so we'd have to think about how to kind of navigate all that, but to do the kind of thing that you just did in a more sort of formalized, organized way. And again, I, you know, I would open it to all parties so that it's not, we're not hearing from only one, group. But I, for one, would welcome the opportunity to do that. So I guess it's a question and an ask, and that you're seeking something above [1:33:42] Councilor Mahoney: above and beyond the open house on the 5th, kind of more of an... [1:33:47] Councilor Vance: Yeah, it would be our event. [1:33:49] Councilor Mahoney: Yeah, because I know that we want, ARI is going to be there as well. [1:33:54] Councilor Vance: Yeah, so maybe that's the place. But I guess that as an efficient way to educate the seven of us, some of whom know more than others, and I'm maybe in the low end of the curve, is that something that we could do? Hey, here's questions. Here's data we're interested in. I'd love to hear from CMP. How tall are the towers, really? And have that have that conversation. Yeah, so okay, I'm not quite sure how we'd navigate it, but that would be, I would be interested in attending. Yeah, okay, thank you. Turn to Nathan. [1:34:23] Councilor Sharp: Any thoughts on what Counselor Sharp is suggesting in some respects? I think that was [1:34:28] Amanda (Staff): sort of going down the road of what we were suggesting today, you know, and thinking that it would, to have that conversation and to keep it at the conversation and not debate and have a facilitator actually facilitate it. But it could be, like you said, your event. CMP seemed very open and welcoming to have these conversations. We could ask them. I'm sure ARI would be more than happy to have that conversation. I can't speak for them, and I know Jamie's raising his hand. I don't know if you want to call him, but. [1:35:11] Councilor Sharp: We have a pretty good question, right? [1:35:16] Councilor Mahoney: Yeah, we do. Yep. Yes. Yep. Councilor Mahoney. [1:35:22] Councilor Tracy: One suggestion might be to invite the Office of the Public Advocate to come to a meeting and provide a briefing on kind of how the OPA, I'm sorry, on how the OPA is approaching the case. [1:35:43] Councilor Mahoney: Thank you, Councilor Mahoney. Yes, Councilor Vance. [1:35:46] Councilor Sharp: I'm pretty sure that would be ex parte though, right? No? [1:35:51] Councilor Tracy: No, the Office of the Public Advocate's an intervener. [1:35:55] Councilor Sharp: Oh, because they're an intervener as well, so they're basically a joint intervener. [1:35:57] Councilor Tracy: PUC, if you're talking to a hearing officer at the PUC, the expiry so the OPA would be it would be appropriate for them to be yeah and [1:36:11] Councilor Sharp: just to repeat briefly when I said sidebar to it's counselor Hawk I mean we do have a fairly robust write-up from a RI that should be in your inbox but yes I think we only have one slide from CMP is this sum total of released information on their website so which is basically a picture that's it yes [1:36:30] Councilor Mahoney: council thank you counselor vance any other comments here yes counselor martin [1:36:37] Councilor Morton: Did you have, I'm going to leverage the expertise in the room again. Oh, sorry, Dose, if you have [1:36:45] Councilor Diaz: something, please just so we're clear, we've had several residents talk about the amendments to the zoning laws and we had Adam answer the question, but could we have a resident expert on ordinances and setbacks take a look since it's a topic that's come up several times? I mean, my understanding is that whatever setbacks we may have, eminent domain would take care of it if they're there, right? So I'm not sure that whatever setbacks we could come up with would matter much if this project is allowed. but since the question has been asked by multiple residents and we talked about it briefly during our last meeting could have someone take a look at what if anything would benefit there is to taking a look at setbacks or do we think that 's not needed so [1:37:44] Councilor Mahoney: It's a good question and [1:37:51] Councilor Diaz: I guess I'm, what I'm suggesting is to have Ethan go ahead, I'd make a suggestion, I [1:37:57] Councilor Tracy: don't want to provide legal advice, it wouldn't be a bad idea to get legal Council just to weigh in on what role, just to, just to, just to clarify it and put it to bed, whether or not local zoning ordinances can, how that plays with the CPCN process and the DEP process, it played out with the transmission line that was approved from Quebec down to Lewiston, so many of the communities there were involved and did pass ordinances or zoning pieces, but ultimately they were not, they did not prove successful in putting any additional burdens on to the project. [1:38:56] Councilor Mahoney: Yeah, do we have any other, all [1:39:04] Councilor Sharp: right, Nathan look like, so make sure, well there was a suggestion that we have our [1:39:11] Amanda (Staff): resident expert Ethan and our town attorney take a look at the way I would describe it as what's currently in play with the ordinances and what could be put in play and report back to the council, is that what I'm hearing, that's right, and is, if I'm not asking for a vote, but is there any objection to that, and I'll, if I don't hear any objection [1:39:33] Councilor Sharp: then I'll proceed with that, okay, that'd be great, thank you, okay, councilman did, is there [1:39:41] Councilor Mahoney: something you else wanted, I want to make sure you have an opportunity, no, I appreciate, I did, I [1:39:45] Councilor Morton: Again, having a room full of experts, I do know that PUC has to evaluate public need. They have to consider reliability, economics, public health and safety, proximity to homes and other statutory factors. And I heard that there was mention of potential impact to Falmouth, $43 million up to $60 million of loss of value. So I was just curious if we could maybe hear about the methodology that was used To come to that, so that we can have an understanding of that, if there's someone, if that is, yeah, so yeah, Jamie if you come to the [1:40:22] Councilor Mahoney: podium and offer Your expertise and how you came to those numbers. Thank you. Thank you [1:40:29] Jamie Bautista: Thank you for having me. Maybe one quick statement before diving into this specifically, and I will keep it to the economic side. I want to draw attention to the difference between the role of what the assessor can do in this versus what the role of future forecasting and economics plays. It is really important that the town consult the county assessor, and I know that you guys are on top of that. The assessor is going to look retrospectively. They're going to look at what sales have occurred, how close together are those sales on an expected ratio. Are we seeing drift in terms of the economic values on a unit economic basis for certain houses with certain considerations within certain proximity to the line? They're going to run those numbers, and I have run the numbers, and I can tell you the thing that C&P is going to tell you first, which is the cost of the easement and the cost of the existing line is baked into houses. That part is factually accurate. Houses that sell near the line and sell at the same multiple on average within a median drift that is acceptable for them to make that claim, what is different fundamentally about this and this connects to our data set, their proposal fundamentally changes the easement and it changes the economic consideration. This is where we can bring in economics is about looking forward predicting behavior predicting unit cost predicting return of value on economic activity. The Assessor's data cannot do that. Well we can learn from other data sets where similar projects have played out or have been planned. The gold standard for this data comes from a couple of real-world evidence pools. So one takes place in New Zealand, one takes place in Montana, one takes place in Quebec. These same data sets will be referenced wherever you look across this market. Every economic expert looks at these data sets. They tell us that the primary impact on value is visual impairment. Can you see it from where you live? The secondary impact is the utility of the land. Can you do something, can you do less with it than you did before? That is objectively and unequivocally the case in this, in this instance. There will be a widening of the right-of-way, tree covering canopy comes down, taller second line is introduced to the right-of-way above the trees. The ability to see the line is fundamentally and completely transformed after this goes forward. They will tell you that the cost is baked in. But they're talking about a different project. This is a completely different reality. So when we apply our data set, again, connecting to the work that Roger Kay, other technical experts have been working on, mapping the line, understanding how various factors play into each other. Where does it go? How far away is it from buildings? We're measuring a couple things. We're measuring how close are the buildings to the new line, as they say in their proposal? How visible are the lines, again, based on the GIS data? And how does that work out in relation to the value of people's homes? So essentially, from the perspective of the worst impacted, the people who have bought the line, or the line crosses your property, you will unequivocally lose 15 to 34% of your value. That is a given. Once you get further away from the line, the effect dissipates. However, in this particular case, because of the amplified visibility, you will see the line from further away. The reason our data set skews conservative is, again, to take an economic perspective on this, we mapped our data to if you're a house 100 to 300 feet away from the line, you're in a different bucket than if you're 99 feet away from the line. But if you are 100 feet from the line, you're going to see the same thing someone 99 feet away from the line is going to see. In the document that we provided in the appendix, you can see the sensitivity analysis that we performed where, depending on the visibility of the line, depending on the distance, you get bucketed into areas of impact. I'm happy to talk more about that if there are questions, maybe a couple of highlights from that, if you wouldn't mind. So the loss rate at abutting for abutters ranges from 15% to 34%, from 100 to 300 feet, 9% to 17%. Loss rate at 300 to 50 to 500 feet, 3.5 to 9.5. Loss rate from 500 to 1,000 feet, 0% with no visibility, and 9% with visibility. Now, we corroborated this data with real-world evidence from Yarmouth. Again, this is data that CMP will tell you to look away from, but it exists in MLS data that you can get from any realtor in Maine. The North Yarmouth to Raven Farm Station is a slim sample size. What we did was we looked retrospectively at the time before the build. The time during the build and the time after the build to see what we can learn about the veracity of our data bands. What we can say, so North Yarmouth doesn't have any parcels in the abutting bucket, or there may be one or two. So there just isn't a statistical significance to that data set. The true impact that we can see between 100 feet and 500 feet where there was increased visibility was a 20 percent decline in home values. This is measurable. It exists in MLS data. Once you go further than that, there is a decline in the North Yarmouth data set. However, these poles are 75 feet tall. It was an additional build on an existing right of way. The visibility constraints are nowhere, or the visual impact is nowhere near what we are talking about here they are these polls are 33 percent taller than the ones in Yarmouth so to sum that all up again and we're taking an academic approach here we don't want to be salacious but this is CMP's data so again if you haven't had time to look at this please call me email me I'll walk you through it we 're happy to share our data set. We want to be sensitive to not destroying homeowner value, so we don't want to publish individual properties. And I guess the closing point that I would make on this is that Nathan and Adam have done a tremendous job in a short amount of time coming up the curve on this, but the specific language and testimony matters. And Sean, you're a lawyer, you know this better than most of us here. And tying it to your point, Councilor Morton, the specificity of assessed value that the town is going to consider, which again, the assessor can help determine, versus the homeowner value. And that is who we as ARI represent in this case. So as much as you can, the assessor is going to come back and they are going to give you county data on the crosswalk from what is the assessed value to what is the real market value. Their data is from 2022. And their multiple for calculating market value is 1.16. So 16% increase in assessed value over in market value over assessed value. Again, and looking at Falmouth data over the last two years, we know the actual number is 1.42. I just want to make sure I'm getting that right. Yeah, 1.42. And we know that because there's an acceptable statistical drift in the data set. That. The National Association of Assessors looks at a consistent set of data to determine, are these numbers real, and can we believe them? Foulness data falls into that range. So all this is to say, I think I would encourage you to use market data, not just the assessor's data, when thinking about not just the impact on the town, which is the assessed value, but the impacts on the landowners which is the market value so I know that was [1:49:44] Councilor Mahoney: very long I apologize thank you thank you for that and thank you for that and [1:49:51] Councilor Morton: thank you to counsel for entertaining that question but I think that additional information is helpful when we are considering the testimony recognizing the PUC does consider economic impacts in their decision right [1:50:05] Councilor Mahoney: Right, so I think at this point, again, if you go back to the agenda of our meeting here for item number four, is that we were to put forth a resolution, again, the Central Maine Power Project Resolution, 36-2027. Councilor Tracy, I know you are so good at reading resolutions. and i know sean really wants to listen to it okay well then you'll have the luxury of hearing council tracy here you go all right so council tracy if you could read the resolution [1:50:47] Julie (Clerk): that would be wonderful. Thank you. Resolution number 36-2027 opposing the issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the Central Main Power Greater Portland Transmission Upgrades as submitted, whereas Central Maine Power has proposed major infrastructure construction as part of the Greater Portland Transmission Upgrades Project, and whereas the Central Maine Power Upgrade Project is currently under review by the Maine Public Utilities Commission for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, and whereas the Town of Falmouth is an approved intervener in the case, allowing the town to participate in official hearings, review filings, and submit testimony to the Maine Public Utilities Commission. And whereas at the September 28, 2026 Town Council meeting, Falmouth residents raised concerns about this project during more than two and a half hours of public comment. And whereas Falmouth residents voiced concerns regarding the proposal's impact on their homes including potential health and safety implications for children and families, significant tree loss, lasting environmental impacts, changes to established neighborhoods, probable decline in property values, effects on public and conserved lands, and impacts on the school campus and its current and future uses. And whereas Town Council at the September 28th, 2026 meeting unanimously voted to submit comments in support of the motion to establish a threshold merits phase on load forecasting filed by the Alliance for Responsible Infrastructure and other resident interveners, which asks for further study of the underlying data assumptions made by Central Maine Power for this project. and whereas at the same meeting town council voted unanimously to submit a letter to the president of central main power requesting more information about the proposal and outlining the concerns of falmouth residents and the council and whereas town council is troubled by reports that affected property owners and other key stakeholders have received little or no direct communication from central maine power on this project and whereas while central maine power may hold additional public forums Town Council remains concerned that information provided close to or after the October 30th, I assume we'll, we'll update the October 30th, 2026 Maine Public Utilities Commission intervener testimony deadline leaves insufficient time for the town and other interveners to evaluate that information and address it in their testimony. And whereas the Maine Public Utilities Commission must evaluate public need and non-wires alternatives, and Central Maine Power's application must describe relevant impacts and justify its selected route through comparison with environmentally, technically, and economically practical alternative routes. And whereas the Town of Falmouth plans to submit intervener testimony regarding the proposal's effects on public health and safety, the town's environmental, scenic, historic, utility, transportation, economic, and recreational assets, its proximity to inhabited homes, and its impacts on the safety, access, current uses, and future development of the Falmouth Schools campus. And whereas Falmouth Town Council believes additional information is needed to evaluate their proposal's need, scale, alternatives, and local impacts, and sufficient time is required to review that information and respond meaningfully. Now therefore be it resolved by the Town Council of the Town of Falmouth assembled this 14th day of October 2026 that the Council opposes the issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the Central Main Power Greater Portland transmission upgrades as submitted and urges the Main Public Utilities Commission to further examine the need and scale of the proposed improvements, consider practical alternative solutions and routes, include non-wires alternatives, and carefully assess the proposal's impacts on Falmouth residents, private property, public and conserved lands, and the school campus. Be it further resolved that the Council calls on Central Maine Power to provide clear answers and supporting information regarding the project's need, route, and design choices, alternatives, and local impacts, and to engage directly with affected property owners, town and school leadership, and other key stakeholders. Be it further resolved that the Council requests sufficient time with the PUC proceedings for interveners to review and respond to relevant information, including reasonable adjustments to the procedural schedule where warranted, and meaningful opportunities for affected residents and rate payers to understand the proposals and provide input be it further resolved that the Council directs the town to submit this resolution to the Main Public Utilities Commission in the pending proceeding provide a copy to Central Main Power and ensure that the Council's position is clearly reflected in the town's intervener testimony and participation in the review thank [1:56:13] Councilor Mahoney: you Councillor Tracy for that so with that any last comments would like to then ask for a motion order 36-2027 Counselor More do I have a second Counselor Vance all of those in favor of the Central Main Power project resolution that is unanimous and we can't have applause so just let you know just so with that closes out item number four on the agenda and at this point we'll just ask for a motion to adjourn do I have Counselor Mahoney do I have a second Counselor Tracy all of those in favor that is unanimous thank you and good night