Referendum should focus solely on dam removal or retention
To the Editor;
I had assumed the referendum question concerning the fate of the Mayo Mill Dam would be clear and concise. A yes vote would support the removal of the dam to be totally funded through a partnership with the Atlantic Salmon Federation and The Nature Conservancy. No monies would be required from the taxpayer. A no vote would support retaining the dam and restoring it to meet today’s regulatory requirements. This funding would be provided by the town taxpayer efforts. The cost to complete this work is estimated to be $7.5 million.
The warrant, as written, is convoluted as a yes vote now includes the capital funding for a restoration plan to be created at a later date. This action is not taxpayer neutral in that construction of new town assets like parks, walkways, and watercraft launches will require annual funds to operate and maintain them. Future capital monies will also be required to upgrade and/or replace these assets as they age.
I suggest that the reference to future restoration planning in the warrant be removed so the vote will be focused solely on dam removal or retention. If the wording is left as is, then the following should be considered being added to the warrant: The town shall establish a reserve account, funded through the ASF and TNC partnership, to offset future costs associated with any restoration activities. One million dollars ($1M) shall be deposited into an interest-bearing account to be used to meet future capital needs and annual O&M expenses. The annual interest monies gained on the account can be withdrawn and used by the town to offset any new annual O&M costs, eliminating any increases on taxpayers. If the account is not funded to the balance of $1M, then no future actions with respect to waterfront restoration shall be taken.
A final thought — If two goals are to minimize the maintenance costs associated with the existing site and restore the Piscataquis River to its free-flowing, 100-plus year old pristine ecological self, then why the push to spend $6 million to construct town “nice to have” assets like walkways and launches along its banks?
Steve Robinson
Dover-Foxcroft