Whiting voters accept proposal to buy and repair Mill Pond dam

By more than a two-to-one margin, Whiting voters approved plans for taking ownership, including maintenance obligations, of the Mill Pond dam. The vote took place during a special town meeting held November 29 at the town office; it attracted 55 registered voters. The two hour meeting, moderated by Cecil Moores, included polite but vigorous arguments. It was preceded a week earlier by a public hearing where details of the plan were discussed.
Prior to reading the second article, motions were proposed for written ballots; allowing comments by nonresidents; and to allow participants who were unwilling to enter the room to hear arguments by radio and have ballots carried out to them in their automobiles. All three passed unanimously.
Beginning the discussion on the proposal to accept ownership, attorney Andrew Hamilton of the Bangor based firm Eaton Peabody provided a detailed analysis of the purchase and sale agreement, which provides for an immediate $2,000 for the purchase of an option from the dam's current owner -- the Downeast Salmon Federation -- followed by a two year window for the town to make financial arrangements. Once those are in place, the town is allowed a four year construction period, after which the repaired dam is to be ready for the inclusion of a fish ladder.
Hamilton described alternative options, including the use of eminent domain -- which in his experience is "unpopular in small towns" and would likely be more costly, as individuals whose property is seized must be paid fair market value. The Downeast Salmon Federation will sell the property to the town, once the conditions are met, for $1.
Financial issues were also detailed. Town bookkeeper Kathi Mahar described how the town, in order to attract state and federal grant funding, needed to show "skin in the game." This, she said, will be accomplished through a $200,000 withdrawal from unallocated funds, a $300,000 bond, $75,000 from the sale of tax-acquired properties and $25,000 of tax-increment financing. These funds would provide $600,000 towards the $1,018,000 repair cost, which does not include the needed fish ladder. Including the ladder, the entire project is estimated to cost about $3 million.
Town engineer Al Nash described the current condition of the dam, terming it poor and observing that it lacks capacity to withstand a major flood. He stated that repairs could be accomplished without a major drawdown of the pond. Descriptions of the pond's aesthetic and historic value were not debated. The pond's value for fire suppression purposes led to serious but respectful disagreement, with some arguing that the position was overstated, while others insisted that the loss of the pond would lead to price hikes for fire insurance and jeopardize remote structures. One resident insisted that the insurance cost increase would dwarf the quarter mill property tax increase needed to pay off the bond.
Article two, which essentially asked the question "should we do this?" led to an hour and a quarter debate before the paper ballot yielded 38 yes votes and 17 no votes. Subsequent articles yielded similar -- but declining -- tallies. Articles three through six, which dealt with financial details, all passed by large margins and without debate. The meeting was adjourned just after 8 p.m.