North Road water, sewer expansion debated

By Joseph Cyr
Staff Writer
    HOULTON — A water and sewer improvement/extension may be coming to the North Road this summer.
    In June, voters in Houlton will be asked if they wish to spend $1.6 million in Tax Increment Finance (TIF) funds to extend water and sewer lines along the North Road. If approved by voters, it would mark the second time water and sewer has been extended on North Road.
    In March 2011, the Houlton Water Company funded the first phase of the North Road water sewer project, with town TIF funds placed into a reserve account. Much of that extension was to accommodate a parcel of land that turned into the Tractor Supply Company, but it also created additional retail expansion opportunities in that area.
    At that time, then-Town Manager Doug Hazlett said the council had been weighing the extension of services on the North Road for at least five years. The town instituted a TIF program about six years ago, but has not had an opportunity to use the funds associated with that program until that project came about. There are several TIF districts within the town. The North Street district was created in 2005 and has about $526,000 in its account, according to Interim Town Manager Cathy O’Leary.
    The second phase of the extension would also be to accommodate a business, this time a restaurant on the North Road. Several additional parcels of land could be developed as a result of the project, but those parcels are not currently for sale.
    Because of the large cost of the project, a referendum vote is required, even though it will not have any impact on a person’s property tax bill.
    “We are putting this out to referendum so that the final say goes to the people of the town of Houlton,” council chairman Paul Cleary said.
    That referendum will take place June 12.
    Walter Goodrich, chairman of the Board of Budget Review, stated his board was in complete support of the project.
    “We strongly encourage this project to go out to referendum,” Goodrich said. “The money in the TIF account is designated for these kinds of projects. It isn’t money that you can take out to reduce taxes. This is definitely a good project and I hope the people in town realize there will be no increase in their taxes because of this project.”
    Resident Phil Bernaiche asked if there would be any additional public hearings on the project.
    “I think there are a lot of people who would like a forum about what’s going to happen,” Bernaiche said. “We would certainly like to hear more about this and discuss it.”
    The council will hold a public hearing on the referendum question on Tuesday, May 29 for the public to ask questions on the project.
    Cleary and several other councilors had an issue with a state statute that required the council to endorse the project on the referendum.
    “It doesn’t matter what my opinion (on the project) is,” Cleary said. “It is up to the people of the town to decide. When we put something out to voters, I don’t think we should be endorsing anything.”
    “I don’t want to recommend someone should vote ‘yes’ on anything,” said councilor John White. “I think people should decide for themselves.”
    O’Leary said the council was required by state statute to place its recommendation for the project on the ballot. The Board of Budget Review’s recommendation will also appear on the ballot.
    Dan Nelson, the town’s attorney, addressed the matter.
    “What the council has to decide is what to put on the ballot,” he said. “The council can recommend a ‘yes’ vote or a ‘no’ vote. But it is required by statute that the warrant indicate if the council approves or disapproves of it. You are not just putting it out to the people. You are required to decide whether you are in favor of this or not.”
    When it came time to execute the warrant, the council was deadlocked, with councilors Rob Hannigan, White and Mike Jenkins opposed. Councilors Sue Tortello, Nancy Ketch and John Fitzpatrick supported the measure. Because the matter resulted in a tie, Cleary was required to cast his ballot. Under the town council’s charter, the council chairman may only vote to break ties, and then, may only vote in the affirmative.
    Cleary refused to vote in the affirmative, causing the motion to die.
    O’Leary said if the council was not in favor of the project, it needed to give its recommendation as “no” on the warrant. Councilor Fitzpatrick asked if it was Cleary’s intention for the council to recommend a “no” vote.
    “Correct,” Cleary said.
    “Why would we put it to the voters if we don’t think it’s a good idea?” asked Ketch.
    Cleary did not elaborate at the meeting why he did not want to recommend the project.
    “If we don’t give a recommendation to the voters of ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ this isn’t going to go forward,” Nelson said. “The bond bank requires the statute to be followed. I recognize you don’t like the idea of having this obligation, but the town voters gave it to you. You have to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ or it’s not going anywhere.”
    Councilors then opted to re-vote on the subject. This time the measure passed 4-2, with councilors White and Jenkins opposed. Hannigan changed his vote to ‘yes.’
    Following the meeting, Hannigan clarified that while he was still opposed to having the council’s recommended vote on the ballot, it was necessary in order to get the ballot in the hands of the voters. He added he didn’t want to send a confusing message with the Board of Budget Review recommending a ‘yes’ vote, with the council recommending a ‘no’ vote.