To: Herb Maine, BOS Chair From: Donna Damon, CI Selectperson Re: March Straw Poll, Concept Plans Pros and Cons Chart, Update on Medical Marijuana Ordinance Date: January 13, 2020 At the last meeting you suggested that I put in writing my edits to the Pro/Con Chart and the “Straw Poll vote. In addition, I volunteered to be on a subcommittee re: the proposed Medical Marijuana Ordinance. Marjorie said she couldn’t find anything so I have contacted MMA and had a phone meeting with an attorney today. He gave me a lot to think about and sent a memo which I will share when I compile my notes. I was hoping to find a sample ordinance that just deals with the Medical aspect. He sent me a link to Auburn He said that were heading in the right direction to just look at the medical vs “adult use” retail store as well as get clarification re: whether this is a home occupation or if it should be considered a stand alone business. I had multiple questions that I needed clarified to better understand the distinctions. The attorney was very helpful. There is a lot more to think about than might have been gleaned from Tom’s presentation. The attorney also suggested that we should start working with our Town attorney at some point. He said that their counsel is well worth the money as we go forward should the Town Meeting vote to accept the ordinance. Right now Tom can do about what he wants with 6 “patients”/30 plants, however he is not allowed to create edibles with his current license. I asked the attorney about Tom’s claim that the product can’t be transported on a boat. He actually laughed and said that it is the same thing as a road. He went to explain that the Federal government is deferring to the States when it comes to dealing with medical marijuana if folks have all of the proper paperwork. That said if someone brought a steamer trunk full of pot on a boat without documentation that is another matter. I have not heard from David or Tom, so I thought that I should try to get the ball rolling. David is heading to Zanzibar tomorrow for 10 days, and I know Tom’s baby is due anytime. I will share whatever info I discover with them via email and hopefully we can meet in person when David returns. I have an on going medical issue (nothing life threatening) that puts me out of commission from time to time, which I find is sometimes impacting my follow through. I have surgery scheduled in April so the next few months may be up and down. So while I am up I decided to work on the chart and my thoughts about the vote. I only have a pdf version of the chart and document so I am going to try to give you the edits in an understandable manner. I will include number SW/SL and pro and con. My changes are in italics. Hope this is understandable. One: SW Pro: Could be built in phases to distribute cost. Grant possibilities. 20/30-year bond SW Con: Cost of Sea Level rise mitigation not included in the concept plan. Debt burden. No lighting plan. Limited Space. May have additional capital maintenance issues. SL: Pro: Could be built in phases to distribute cost. Barge ramp delayed until Cumberland Bond retired. Grant possibilities. 20/30-year bond. Cost close to Stone Wharf cost (excluding Stone Wharf Sea level cost) SL: Con: Debt burden. Stone Wharf on going maintenance to meet needs of fishermen and recreational boaters. Two: no change Three: no change Four: SL: Con: replace will be with may be Five: SL: Con: Fishermen have no interest in relocating to Sunset Six: SL: Con: longer drive to Sunset for many residents; might impact float access and berthing CTC vessel Seven: SW: Pro: Plan includes new wave mitigation system and reconfigures floats Eight: SW: Pro: One method of mitigating sea-level rise may be able to be done in phases SW: Con: Cost of raising the Stone wharf is estimated at $6-6.5 million. Phased approach may not be practical. Nine: SL: Con: Would have to continue to maintain the Stone Wharf at a level to meet the needs of fishermen and recreational boaters. Ten: SW: Pro: …less slope, (replace) defined traffic pattern will improve traffic flow SL: Pro: Less traffic and competing uses with the fishermen and recreational boaters at the Stone Wharf. No additional parking needed at the Stone Wharf to meet of fishermen and boaters. Plenty of parking at Sunset.

SL: Con: replace “expensive and probably impossible” with difficult and will require more engineering to attempt to match… Eleven: SL: Pro: add – Retains approximately 4 acres of open space. SL: Con: Reduces overall open space, previous eel grass study identified areas of concern, both the barge ramp… Twelve: SW: Pro: strike -Keeps barging away from Sunset Landing (This makes no sense. Not sure what it means?) SW: Con: add barge ramp may need to be moved for this plan to work, which would require dredging. SL: Pro: add – Removes the majority of barging from Bennett’s Cove SL: Con: replace “rougher weather” with more exposed to wind and waves RE: The vote I understand that you may not agree with my suggestions but I think they at least deserve discussion. Edits: #2 sentence 1: add a final engineering design #2 sentence 4: Change the clauses around. I had to read it twice to understand what it was saying: On March 3 the day of the Statewide Presidential Primary/Special Referendum Election, a non-binding straw poll will be conducted at the polls asking voters which option which transportation option they prefer. This will help the Selectmen to draft a warrant article to fund final engineering plans for one site. That vote will take place at the June Town Meeting. (I really think we need to send this entire report to the public (in whatever form it ends up) rather than an executive summary. We should be including an executive summary of the concept plans; the sea level study of the Stone Wharf and the various studies done by the Sunset Committee (I think that plan has a summary that could be added as do the other Collins Plans.) We can reference the big studies and have a few copies around town but I think this document needs to go to everyone. I don’t want people coming back and saying they didn’t have enough info. I think the question should read: The Selectmen should bring a proposal to Town Meeting on June 13th 2020 to engage an engineering firm to create an engineering design for transportation improvements at: Check (X) only 1 _____A. Stone Wharf _____B. Sunset Landing _____C. Neither Site Explanation: Add after Sunset Landing in the third line 1st paragraph the following: In addition, The Town has conducted several studies to evaluate the Sunset parcel as well as a study to determine the potential impact of seal level rise on the Stone Wharf and adjacent upland. Explanation: Add after costs in line two 2nd paragraph: The goal is to choose a site to best serve Chebeague’s transportation needs for the next 50 years. Add after barging facility in the third line 2nd paragraph “or upgrade and expand the Stone Wharf and adjacent upland to meet the community’s needs.”

Add: Based on the concept plans the cost of both projects are comparable, however, if sea level issues are addressed at the Stone Wharf, those estimated costs could double. The BOS will consider the results of this non-binding straw poll, when drafting the June 13, 2020 Town Meeting Warrant Article. I would be happy to talk with you if you have questions or need clarifications re: my intent. My goal is to give folks as much information as I would feel was necessary if I were trying to decide how to choose which site is the best option for the community. I really feel the status quo option needs to be there as there are many people who have talked to me who feel this way. We need to know if that is a blip or a trend. Donna

 

0  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

January 16, 2020 

 

 

   

 

Report of the Selectmen 

Report on the Concept Plans for 

transportation facilities at the 

Stone Wharf and Sunset Landing 

DRAFT 20200116 

Page 1 of 26 

 

Contents 

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 

Process .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 

Criteria and Priorities .................................................................................................................................... 4 

Uses to Support ............................................................................................................................................. 4 

A Word About Costs ...................................................................................................................................... 4 

Stone Wharf Review ..................................................................................................................................... 6 

Public Meeting: 3/23/2019 Stone Wharf Concept Plan (Meeting #1) ............................................................ 6 

Public Meeting: 4/14/2019 Stone Wharf Concept Plan (Meeting #2) ............................................................ 9 

Sunset Landing Plan Review........................................................................................................................ 12 

Public Meeting: 8/7/2019 Sunset Landing Concept Plan .............................................................................. 12 

Preparing for the 2020 Annual Town Meeting ........................................................................................... 13 

Pros and Cons Workshop September 11, 2019 ............................................................................................. 13 

Comparison of the Stone Wharf and the Sunset Landing concept plans ...................................................... 17 

Outstanding Issues and ‘Unknowns’ ........................................................................................................... 20 

Stone Wharf .................................................................................................................................................. 20 

Sunset Landing .............................................................................................................................................. 21 

Public Survey (March 3, 2020) .................................................................................................................... 22 

Capital Plan ................................................................................................................................................. 23 

Capital Plan Project ....................................................................................................................................... 23 

Stone Wharf: Existing Maintenance independent of the proposed upgrades ........................................... 23 

Engineering Design ..................................................................................................................................... 24 

Research and Pursue Funding Options ....................................................................................................... 25 

Town Meeting Warrant Article ................................................................................................................... 25 

Proposed Warrant Article Text ...................................................................................................................... 25 

Warrant Article Recommendation ................................................................................................................ 25 

Warrant Article Explanation .......................................................................................................................... 25 

Meetings Agenda ........................................................................................................................................ 25 

 

   

DRAFT 20200116 

Page 2 of 26 

 

List of Tables 

Table 1 Concept Plan Pros and Cons ........................................................................................................... 14 

Table 2 Comparison of the Concept Plans .................................................................................................. 18 

 

List of Figures 

Figure 1‐ Stone Wharf ‐ S‐03 East Cove and West Build out ........................................................................ 5 

Figure 2 Sunset Landing ‐ G04 Conceptual Layout – Option 2 ...................................................................... 5 

   

DRAFT 20200116 

Page 3 of 26 

Introduction 

Over the years the importance of providing ferry service (including emergency transport), water taxi, 

recreational boating, commercial fishing and barging services has been recognized by the local 

government. Efforts have included studies, planning, public discussion and some projects. Most 

recently, in 2017 and 2019 concept plans were submitted to the Town of Chebeague Island by Collins 

Engineering, Inc of Portsmouth, NH for the Stone Wharf and Sunset Landing, respectively.  

Stone Wharf Master Plan, December 2017, amended 5 January 2018: The goal of the Stone 

Wharf plan was to explore options for upgrades to the facility that would improve safety, 

continue to support the current uses, within a given target cost and looking out about 50 years.   

Sunset Landing Concept Harbor Plan, December 2018: The goal of the Sunset report was to 

explore the development of the site to afford similar capabilities to one benchmark option in the 

Stone Wharf plan.   

The idea behind doing both plans is to provide the Chebeague community with enough information to 

compare the sites and decide which direction to go with future transportation plans. 

This report documents the process, findings and decisions of Board of Selectmen (The Board) and the 

community as whole in determining how to proceed with needed upgrades to our transportation 

infrastructure. 

Process 

The process outlined below was used to develop criteria for an engineering design based on the concept 

plans and subsequent discussion and bring a warrant to the 2020 annual Town Meeting to upgrade our 

marine facilities. 

1. Select a site: 

a. Establish a steps goal, steps that includes the public, general priorities and criteria. b. Review the Stone Wharf Plan and refine a concept design. 

c. Review the Sunset Landing Plan and refine a single concept design. d. Consider the risk/benefits of a hybrid approach (i.e. developing/supporting different 

functions at both sites). Develop options for public consideration. 

e. Choose a method to present and get community wide support for a single approach. 

f. Develop design criteria for the project.  2. Raise funds in the Capital Plan for an engineering design (June 2020 Annual Town Meeting). 

3. Develop design criteria and engineering design. 

4. Seek Grants. 

5. Raise funds in the Capital Plan for the project (June 2021 Annual Town Meeting). 

   

DRAFT 20200116 

Page 4 of 26 

Criteria and Priorities 

The following list is a prioritized set of criteria used to evaluate, edit and compare final concept plans for 

Both Sites. 

1. Safety – traffic flow, handicap, lighting, gangways, protection from weather 

2. Cost – Long Term (impact on indebtedness), Short Term (tax rate). 

3. Capacity – Meets capacity needs for a fifty‐year life expectancy 

4. User Experience – convenient, Freight and Dunnage, elderly, disabled and infirm 

5. Environmental Impact  

6. Operational/Maintenance burden – snow/ice removal, general maintenance costs 

 

Uses to Support 

The following is a list of uses and features both plans envision: 

  Berth  Tie‐up 

Transient Tie‐up 

Parking  Reserved Parking 

Power  Boat Ramp 

Haul‐offs 

Enclosed Shelter 

Staging Area 

Ferry Service   Barging  Commercial Fishing  Emergency Services  Water Taxi  Recreation  Harbormaster  Handicap  ADA 

 

Notes: 

Other uses may include: emergency utility access (phone, power), non‐barged freight, recreational or 

commuter bicycling, recreational fishing. 

Parking may include commercial vehicles, trailers, ATV’s, motorcycles and cars. 

A Word About Costs 

Costs in this document are based on the concept plans and other preliminary documents and are 

primarily for planning purposes. The concept plans, as they are drawn described are intended to show 

the feasibility of each site supporting major uses and how the two sites compare based on several 

criteria. Ultimately the project that we undertake may look very different and cost more or less than the 

costs show in this document. The costs show here are intended to be an aid in site selection.  

A major factor in what we can ultimately build is how much assistance we can get in the form of grants 

or other programs from the State and Federal governments. Before we can pursue any type of 

assistance, we need to have the project design completed and fully engineered. 

See Table 3 on page 19, the section titled “Outstanding Issues and ‘Unknowns’” on page 20 and the 

section titled “Stone Wharf: Existing Maintenance independent of the proposed upgrades” on page 23 

for costs and ‘unkowns’ that may affect costs. 

DRAFT 20200116 

Page 5 of 26 

   

Figure 1‐ Stone Wharf ‐ S‐03 East Cove and West Build out 

Figure 2 Sunset Landing ‐ G04 Conceptual Layout – Option 2 

DRAFT 20200116 

Page 6 of 26 

Stone Wharf Review 

Public Meeting: 3/23/2019 Stone Wharf Concept 

Plan (Meeting #1) A public meeting held on 3/23/2019 had approximately 36 members of the public representing fisherman, CTC and the general public. The goal of the meeting was to review the Stone Wharf Master Plan, December 2017, amended 5 January 2018 Collins Engineers, Inc. and to refine a single selected plan option.  Page references in this section are to that document.  The figure used for the basis of the discussion was S‐03 East Cove and West Build out. 

This section presents the results of the meeting. At the conclusion of the meeting it was determined that two topics need more discussion: 1) Barging and 2) Fisherman. The Board came to a consensus that Herb Maine would discuss barging with boat captain Matt Ridgeway and that Mark Dyer would approach members of the fishing community for input. 

 

1. Sea‐Level Rise  

After discussion regarding Collins’ recommendation for a 3 ft increase (P 18) in the Wharf height based on a projected 2‐foot increase in the 50‐year time window, there appeared to be consensus that we should make Sea‐Level Rise a prominent requirement in any design.  

The impacts of an increased height on the current plan include: 

Probably makes the current boat ramp unusable without 

alteration 

The widened surface in the plan is elevated by 3’ but the 

extension is not on p 37 a ramp is proposed (not show on 

the plan) to get down to the existing extension surface1 

A rise of 3 ft in elevation exacerbates the gangway angle 

that the proposed longer gangway attempts to mitigate 

A rise of 3 ft makes the Westerly face of the wharf unusable by fisherman in the manner 

they currently use it 

2. East Cove Build‐out  

A discussion focused on the proposed East Cove Build out led to the following requirements for a design: 

circular traffic flow is a priority and will require an enlarged footprint 

The extent (and cost) of enlarging the footprint may be mitigated by using the, so‐called 

‘golf course parcel’ to provide some parking 

                                                            

1 Although the discussion at the meeting assumed the plan being discussed included an elevated platform this was determined to be incorrect in a documented phone call on 12/18/2019 between Select person Donna Damon and consultant Dan O’Connor. None of the costed options or figures include Sea‐Level Rise.  

DRAFT 20200116 

Page 7 of 26 

The current plan doesn’t adequately address pedestrian safety – reference was made to 

other plans that provide pathways around the outer edge of the build‐out 

 

3. Ferry Berth and Access 

There was consensus in the room that the plan adequately addressed the ferry berth, gangway, shelter and vehicle access. Notwithstanding the discussion under Sea‐Level Rise. 

 

 

 

4. Barging 

 The consensus was that the plan, as presented in the Collins document, exacerbates the problems already present and provides no design components to improve barging. 

The impacts to barging operations in the plan include: 

the proposed 3’ elevation (see Sea‐Level Rise above) could make the ramp unusable without significant alterations 

there is less room for maneuvering large vehicles at the head of the ramp. Particularly for turning required when backing on or off the barge 

staging of vehicles would be similar except that anticipates no parking along wharf road to allow large vehicles and vehicles with trailers 

While many ideas were discussed, including relocating the ramp on this site, moving commercial barging elsewhere on the island and using the additional parking that may be afforded by the so‐called ‘golf course parcel’ to provide more room for barging, there was no clear consensus on any of these options. 

   

DRAFT 20200116 

Page 8 of 26 

5. Commercial Fisherman 

The plan envisions moving all commercial fishing operations to the wharf extension.  

The only clear consensus that emerged from the discussion was that the we needed more input from the fishing community regarding how the plan, as presented, impacts the fisherman. 

There did appear to be broad support for the idea that the Town should support the commercial fishing community and either improve upon or have as little impact on the fisherman as possible. 

One topic of discussion that seemed to be appealing to the group left in the room at the time of the discussion was to propose a float system in the location pictured above that would be dedicated to fisherman access, gear storage and other commercial fishing activities. 

  The loss of access by commercial fisherman to the westerly of face due to accessible parking, pedestrian walkway and a 3’ increase in elevation may not be acceptable but no consensus was reached. 

 

 

 

 

6. Recreational boating 

The discussion about recreational boating use of the facility included a discussion of improved protection of the tie‐up area. Areas of consensus were:  

Supporting recreational boating at the 

facility is important. 

Protection of the boats from weather 

hasn’t been adequate and improving that should be a requirement in a design. 

Use fees make sense at this facility. 

 

   

DRAFT 20200116 

Page 9 of 26 

Public Meeting: 4/14/2019 Stone Wharf Concept Plan (Meeting #2) At the conclusion of the public held on 3/29/2019 it was determined that Barging and Commercial fishing may not be adequately addressed in the Collins concept study and that a second meeting was required to discuss further. 

After a summary presentation of the results of the 3/29/2019 the following topics were discussed. 

1. Commercial Fisherman 

Report: Selectmen Mark Dyer was tasked to contact members of the fishing community. He reported talking to Jeff Putnam and Hank Whetham as well as less in‐depth conversations with Steven Johnson and Andrew Todd. Consistent with past efforts made by the Board he found that there was no consensus for how to best support commercial fishing at the Stone Wharf and that, at least, at this point in the process there isn’t a strong desire to participate in the process.   

Discussion: The Board will continue to solicit input from the commercial fishing community as we move forward but at this point, we have little basis for modifying the concepts presented in the Collins plan. 

 

2. Barging 

Report: Selectmen Herb Maine was tasked with contacting captian Matt Ridgeway who has attended meetings (but was not present at the 3/29 meeting) and is one of the Barge operators for the Chebeague Transportation Company. In a single interview Matt agreed with the finding of the 3/29/2019 meeting regarding the concepts set out by Collins for barging. 

From this conversation it appears that the concept that would have the most positive impact at the Stone Wharf would be to provide a better staging area. A simple approach might be to use the parking spaces along the South face. 

Discussion: There were three formal presentation of ideas and many less formal ideas. The consensus of those present was that the following concepts to be applied. 

Barging at this location is a requirement. There was no consensus that barging should be 

discontinued at this site. Considerations include the maintenance dredging agreement we 

are entering with the AC at this location and access to Cousins island. 

A staging area is important but should probably be done off‐site. A location could be 

disignated on South Road, at another location or a better communication system could 

allow vehicles to wait whereever they are until given a signal by the barge operator. 

DRAFT 20200116 

Page 10 of 26 

The current Collins plan, compared to 

existing conditions, reduces the 

manuverabiliy of vehicles needing to turn to 

back onto or off of the barge. Any design 

should at least maintain the existing level of 

manuverability.  

While cost isn’t the primary focus in concept 

plans it will be a large factor in any 

engineered solution. All of the concepts discussed require some level of buildout or 

increased footprint which is likely to be one of most costly aspects of any solution. 

Consideration should be given to minimize buildout and explore an incremental or phased 

approach to the overall solution. 

 

3. Other Presentations 

Herb Maine, based on 

discussions with Matt 

Ridgeway, brought 

forward a 

modification to the 

Collins plan that 

envisioned a 

designated staging 

area for barging 

traffic and increase 

parking.  

The presenter used 

paper cutouts to 

overlay on the Collins 

drawing. The figure at 

the right was created 

for this document based on the presentation. 

Key Features include:  

o (A) Remove spaces from the South face and use for staging for the barge which 

could extend up the road. Reorient the barge ramp and lengthen some in each 

end to mitigate elevation rise. 

o (B) Reorient the parking from the Collins plan parallel to the existing traffic flow 

and build out to include one or two more rows. Two rows would provide 100 

parking spaces in the new build out but almost doubles the buildout area. This 

assumes use of a portion of the golf course parcel.  

o (C) Another 24 spaces could be placed out of the property at a later date. 

 

B

C

A

DRAFT 20200116 

Page 11 of 26 

 

Jay Corson, based 

on information 

from the proposed 

parking designed 

by Sevee & Maher 

Engineers and the 

Collins study 

presented an 

incremental 

solution. 

 

Key elements of 

the plan are:  

o Provide 

improved 

traffic flow 

o Reduce costs by minimizing the buildout utilizing Golf Club property for 

additional parking, 

o Using a shorter gangway and different placement, 

o Raising the elevation in phases, as needed, perhaps a foot at a time using fill (if 

the wharf supports it) 

o Using costs from previous reports the cost could be $1,250,000 or less 

o The development of off‐site parking 

 

Donna Damon, based on the idea that 

there was little will in the community 

to spend money on this project and 

that safety was primary objective, 

presented an incremental solution. 

The figure at the right was not 

presented by Donna but developed for 

this document based on the 

presentation. Key features are: 

o A traffic circle to improve 

traffic flow and safety. If space allows it could be two‐lanes providing more 

cueing space. The circle would be designated using painted lines and other 

means that didn’t preclude access to the extension and ramp as they are 

currently used. 

o (A) and (B) in the figure represents parking that would be eliminated to provide 

for the traffic flow, 

o Use the golf club parcel to re‐locate and increase parking as per the Sevee & Maher Plan,  

o  (C)  in the figure indicates handicapped parking.   

DRAFT 20200116 

Page 12 of 26 

Sunset Landing Plan Review 

Public Meeting: 8/7/2019 Sunset Landing Concept Plan According to the Boards defined process, after review of the Stone Wharf concept plan review a similar review would take place of the Sunset Landing concept plan.  

A citizen petition to place a warrant item on the annual town meeting that would limit development of the Sunset Landing property put the public meeting on hold until after the town meeting voted on warrant article. The article failed to pass at the 6/8/2019 town meeting, so a meeting was held on 8/7/2019 to continue the planned process. 

In attendance were approximately 28 members of the public representing fisherman, CTC and the general public.  

The goal of the meeting was to review the Sunset Landing Concept Harbor Plan, December 2018, Collins Engineers, Inc. and to refine a single selected plan option.  Any page references in this section are to that document.  The figure used for the basis of the discussion was G04 Conceptual Layout – Option 2. 

This section presents the results of the meeting. 

1. Option 2 plan 

The meeting opened with a recap of the multiple workshops we have had for both Stone Wharf and Sunset Landing, a review of the 7‐step process presented in this document and a review of the criteria and priorities list also presented in this document.  

 

2. Commercial Fisherman 

There was consensus in the room that a fisherman access area is not a top priority in this concept plan. 

 

3. Sea‐Level Rise  

There was consensus in the room that Sea‐Level Rise will not be an issue at Sunset Landing. 

 

4. Recreational Boating 

There was consensus in the room that a recreational boating area is not included in this concept plan. 

 

5. Barging 

Questions and opinions raised included: 

Why is the ramp so long? 

Traffic flow discussions 

Do we need an all tide ramp? 

6. Ferry Berth and Access to the Ferry 

DRAFT 20200116 

Page 13 of 26 

Questions and opinions raised included: 

Distance too long between boat and the parking area. 

ambulance access? 

do we need double ramps? 

Is there a covered walkway? 

Wheel chair access is addressed by 80‐foot ramps. 

More information on freight handling. 

7. Parking 

Should parking spots rearranged because of archeological sites? 

There was general agreement that the amount of parking provided in the plan would 

meet our needs. 

8. Other comments 

A question regarding maintenance and operational costs revealed that the topic hasn’t been addressed in the current plans. 

have projections been made for future use including parking requirements 

tax impact: An 8 million dollar project would be an approximate increase of $900 yearly for a house valued at $250,000 for the life of the bond. It appeared that a majority of the room was concerned about financial burden.  

Stormwater runoff 

 

Preparing for the 2020 Annual Town Meeting 

Once the two concept plans had been reviewed by the Board and the public several ideas for 

summarizing and comparing the essential details of the plans were discussed.  This resulted in the 

compilation of the two tables presented in this section. The Board also decided to hold a non‐binding 

referendum vote March to help develop a warrant article for the annual Town Meeting in June, 2020. 

Pros and Cons Workshop September 11, 2019 For the Board to assess where to place future development efforts regarding a marine facility the established criteria were used to list the pros and cons at both sites relative to each criterion. The first eight items in the table were taken directly from a memo from The Board to Collins Engineering dated October 18, 2017. The last four items have been added in workshop discussions. 

Table 1 was compiled by the Deputy Clerk based on the Board’s discussion and represents a synthesis of the views for discussion purposes.  Table 1 reflects the opinions voiced by the public and the Board of Selectmen which may or may not represent the opinions of the majority of the Town. 

 

 

DRAFT 20200116 

Page 14 of 26 

 

Table 1 Concept Plan Pros and Cons 

  Stone Wharf  Sunset Landing 

  Pros  Cons  Pros  Cons 

1. Cost  Considering the Town’s current and expected debt service the Board recommends local funding of the proposed project be capped at approximately $4,500,000, Short Term (tax rate). 

Could be built in phases to distribute cost. Grant possibilities. 20/30‐year bond 

Cost of Sea Level rise mitigation not included in the concept plan. Debt burden. No lighting plan. Limited Space. May have additional capital maintenance issues. 

Could be built in phases to distribute cost. Barge ramp delayed until Cumberland Bond retired. Grant possibilities. 20/30‐year bond. Cost close to Stone Wharf cost (excluding Stone Wharf Sea level cost) 

Debt burden. Stone Wharf on going maintenance to meet needs of fishermen and recreational boaters. 

2. Safety  Public safety considerations include pedestrian and automobile interactions, emergency vehicle access, lighting, dunnage handling and pick‐up/drop‐off solutions 

Improve traffic flow, ADA gangways, easy access, separate pedestrians vs. vehicles, safety will be improved, all plans improve traffic flow. 

Still a congested area, barging would need to be moved, no room to expand, proposed height difference from parking to neck may not work. 

Plans separate pedestrians and vehicle traffic well, lots of room to develop appropriate vehicle safety lanes, plans call for ADA gangway.  

How to deal with dunnage, distance/slops could be a burden in winter to keep pedestrians safe. 

3. Parking Capacity Current parking capacity is 98 cars, including 5 accessible spaces and 7 spaces seasonally restricted for commercial fishing access, should be maintained or possibly increased based on projections. Long Term, large vehicle parking options should be addressed 

Option still available to use golf course parcel, other options to increase footprints, proximity to parking is good, more handicap spaces. 

Still finite space, if the 50 year requirement is underestimated we will need a satellite parking lot, public transport or other options will be required. 

Plenty of room and potential to expand even beyond current 50 year projections, potential for long term parking and large vehicle parking. 

Long distance from stern to car, a lot more area to maintain, plowing could be tricky, might need a shuttle, dunnage transportation. 

4. Traffic Flow traffic flows should reduce congestion and confusion. Queuing for barge and boat ramp should be addressed 

Several options presented to improve flow with circular one‐way direction. 

Facility could be stressed beyond its limitations, bottle necking not resolved, large vehicles for barging will have difficulty turning around, does not separate barging traffic from boat traffic. 

Barge traffic solved, plenty of space to route traffic in a safe manner. 

Distance difficult to get close to gangway head, freight handling system may be required to carry dunnage. 

5.  Commercial Fishing gear load outs access to vehicles by land‐based services such as mechanics, welders, divers, electrical (110 Volt) power access and tender (punt) tie‐up services 

Plans don’t include it but we could add some amenities as part of the project, logical place to continue, existing services work, fisherman would have end of wharf to themselves, historical site. 

Change in access could negatively impact commercial fishing, gear has to go through parking area. 

N/A Commercial fisherman would stay at Stone Wharf. 

Fishermen have no interest in relocating to Sunset. 

DRAFT 20200116 

Page 15 of 26 

6.  Ferry and Water Taxi facilities should be enhanced to the extent possible to facilitate passenger embarking and disembarking and dunnage handling. Other considerations are secure foul weather tie‐up and electrical (110 Volt) power access 

Continuation of the same service for the community, gangways longer and safer, closer for handicapped and elderly, medical transportation. 

Doesn’t solve dredging issue, no new amenities, vehicle waiting area could be hectic at times. 

Adequate room, new facility, 80ft ramps, waiting shelter, most areas of concern have been included. 

Dunnage to cars, walking distance, longer drive to sunset for many residents, some new dredging required, not clear how foul weather might impact float access and berthing CTC vessel. 

7. Small Boat Usage number of boats currently supported as transient and seasonal tie‐ups should be maintained. Alternatives should be sought for the existing wave‐break 

Plan includes new wave mitigation system and reconfigures floats 

Need to upgrade wave break.  N/A  Likely to remain at Stone Wharf. 

8. Sea‐Level Rise mitigation Sea‐level mitigation should be addressed  

The Stone Wharf will likely require some significant upgrades in the 50 year window to mitigate Sea‐Level Rise, One method of mitigating sea‐level rise may be able to be done in phases. 

Cost of raising the Stone wharf is estimated at $6‐6.5 million. Phased approach may not be practical.  

Should not be an issue, plenty of land elevation and the design takes it into consideration from the start. 

None 

9. Operational/Maintenance burden snow/ice removal, general maintenance costs 

Concept design would be favorable to maintain, circular traffic may assist in snow removal. 

Plan doesn’t address how to remove snow, gangway would be 2 times as long, larger parking area to maintain. 

Room to stockpile snow in parking area, new facility. 

Would have to continue to maintain the Stone Wharf at a level to meet the needs of fishermen and recreational boaters. 

10. User Experience convenient, Freight and Dunnage, elderly, handicap and infirm 

Familiarity, user friendly design, less walking required, ramps will have less slope, defined traffic pattern will improve traffic flow  

Character of the wharf is likely to change, still might have bottlenecking and congestion. 

Less traffic and competing uses with the fishermen and recreational boaters at the Stone Wharf. No additional parking needed at the Stone Wharf to meet of fishermen and boaters.  Plenty of parking at Sunset. 

expensive and probably impossible” with difficult and will require more engineering to attempt to match the currant access to the boat, handicap spaces are a greater distance to the ferry, dunnage movement, long steep access to wharf and parking. 

11. Environmental Impact eel grass, open space  

Minimal Oceanside impact, minimal impact on environment.  

More dredging for deeper access, impact to Holmbom family. 

New site with adequate space provides options to mitigate impacts, preserves an archaeological site, and goes over eel grass. Retains approximately 4 acres of open space. 

Reduces overall open space, eel grass is a big unknown and may impact costs, both the barge ramp and wharf have been designed around existing eel grass. 

DRAFT 20200116 

Page 16 of 26 

12. Barging staging larger vehicles, turn around for larger vehicles near wharf head 

Maintain existing access to Cousins by CTC, keep barging away from Sunset Landing. 

No staging area, part‐tide access, no real Improvement to staging area. barge ramp may need to be moved for this plan to work, which would require dredging. 

Full tide access, room for dedicated staging area with turnaround, could solve all barging problems. Removes the majority of barging from Bennett’s Cove 

Longer distance for some barging operators, length of barge ramp is very long, expensive, more exposed to wind and waves. 

 

DRAFT 20200116 

Page 17 of 26 

 

Comparison of the Stone Wharf and the Sunset Landing concept plans    

Table 2 is a two‐part comparison of the two concept plans. The first part presents questions about the facilities and draws from the concept plans to compare how each plan addresses the question. The second part presents costs associated with generally comparable components of each plan. 

The Board discussed these topics at November 13, 2019, December 18, 2019, January 8, 2020 and January 22, 2020 meetings. 

The scope of the content in    

Table 2 is limited to the specific options being compared: 

Figure 1‐ Stone Wharf ‐ S‐03 East Cove and West Build out and  

Figure 2 Sunset Landing ‐ G04 Conceptual Layout – Option 2 

 

 

 

DRAFT 20200116 

Page 18 of 26 

   Table 2 Comparison of the Selected Concept Plan Optionss 

          

Comparison of Selected Plan Options

Stone Wharf Plan. East Coast and West Build out Sunset Plan Option 2/Parking Alternative 1

(18-foot-wide pier) Overview of Facility Stone Wharf Sunset

What services will the facility provide?

The plan will provide all existing services: ferry, water taxi, recreational boating, fisherman staging, barging, and parking.

The plan would provide a facility for ferry, water taxi, parking, and barging.

Is safety improved? Yes. The overall safety is improved by defining use areas and circulation patterns and relocating some operations (pg. 33)

Yes. Parking area is separated from the barge area and the wharf.

Are barging operations improved? No significant change to barging operations Significant improvement: separate staging area, barge ramp is separate from wharf, all tide ramp.

How many parking spaces are included in the plan?

89 (Table 11, pg. 36) 136 parking spaces (pg. 19)

Can the parking area be expanded in the future?

Yes, possible use of Golf Course land. Could add 25-30 parking spaces. Not recommended by Collins (pg. 42)

Yes, parking area could be expanded to over 200 spaces

What is the distance from passenger drop off to stern of ferry?

Approximately 150 feet Approximately 200 - 250 depending on if drop off is in parking area or at head of pier

Is there a waiting shed for ferry passengers and freight?

Yes Yes

Is there safer access to the ferry float?

Includes 2 80' ramps (ADA requirement for 80-foot ramp, pg. 37) Includes 2 80' ramps

What is the distance from parking lot to the stern of ferry?

Approximately 175 feet to 700 feet (does not include distance to parking on Stone Wharf Road)

Approximately 300 feet to 1230 feet (farthest point depending on how the parking lot is configured)

Does the plan improve queuing time for drop off?

Queuing time improvement not specified in Plan (pg. 36) Queuing time would be improved over the existing conditions at the Stone Wharf (per Collins, p. 20)

 

 

 

 

 

DRAFT 20200116 

Page 19 of 26 

 

 

Table 3 ‐ Concept Plan Estimated Costs for Comparison 

Costs Stone Wharf (Page 43) Sunset (Option 2, page 1)

Wharf and parking area construction

Build out on east and west side to accommodate more parking and access to ferry. Upgrade and add recreational boating ramps/floats, relocate fishermen to pier head, new wavescreens, additional parking, designated pedestrian walking zone

$6,150,000

Develop approximately 4.5 acres for wharf, parking, and interior access roads (half the land on the parcel).

$ 2,850,000

Barge ramp construction Unchanged All tide barge ramp is separate from the wharf with separate access.

$ 2,400,000

Parking Lot 89 Parking spaces are included in wharf costs above Alternative 1 is 124 vehicles. $ 900,000

Design, permitting, consulting $350,000 $ 350,000

Dredging

Approximately 17,000 square feet at pier head for relocation of fishing fleet. This is in addition to the dredging plan already approved by the Town of Chebeague

$160,000 2,700 square feet (24'x60' and 18'x70') $ 50,000

Access Road Plan does not include any improvements to the Wharf Road

1,300 Linear Feet, 24 feet wide $ 180,000

Concept Plan Estimated Total Stone Wharf $6,660,000 Sunset $ 6,730,000

 

 

Outstanding Issues and ‘Unknowns’ 

There are technical challenges at the both sites that were not considered in the compared options and 

can’t effectively be addressed until engineering design is completed. This section is The Board’s 

assessment of major topics that were not explicitly addressed in the two concept plan options being 

compared. These items should be considered in the criteria for an engineering design. 

Stone Wharf 

Access Road to facility The concept plan notes that currently approximately 35 cars can park along the West side of Stone Wharf Road. The engineering design criteria should determine future uses of Stone Wharf Road which may include parking and staging vehicles for barging and how to minimize the risk inherent in allowing four golf course fairways to cross the road. 

Future expansion of parking facilities In 2016 the Town responded to an offer by the Golf Club to consider property for extra parking. The Town contracted with Sevee & Maher who created a site plan to develop the property owned by the Golf Club on the Northerly side of Stone Wharf Road adjacent to the Town Property.  The plan identified a capacity of about 40 vehicles if the property was rezoned from “Limited Commercial” to “Commercial Fisheries/Maritime Activities”. The property and proposal were considered by Collins but not included in the improvement plan. The Club property, by itself, would not significantly improve safety and traffic flow. (pg. 42) 

Sea level rise (SLR) While the compared options don’t address SLR directly the topic is discussed for the Stone Wharf facility in general in pages 12‐ 18 in the document. In the opening paragraph of Collin’s report justification is given to expect approximately 2 feet of sea level rise over the next 50 years. 

The summary paragraph states: “Elevating the finish grade of Stone Wharf and a portion of Wharf Road to minimize SLR impacts should be incorporated as much as practical into the design of modifications to the facility. An increase in the Stone Wharf elevation of 3 feet is recommended.”  

To completely meet this recommendation could cost up to $6,000,000 (based on an informal estimate from Collins).  Exactly what is “practical” and how it will be accomplished are matters for the engineering design criteria.  

Barging

In the option selected for comparison the barge ramp is unchanged, however the parking and the traffic patterns immediately adjacent to the ramp are altered. The engineering design should carefully consider the need for staging and turning large vehicles.  

    

DRAFT 20200116 

Page 21 of 26 

Sunset Landing 

Access Road to facility Collins Engineering was directed by the Board of Selectmen to limit the discussion of access to the Sunset Landing property to a basic cost to build an appropriate gravel road over the existing conditions.  The Board is aware from previous efforts by the Sunset Landing Committee that to secure an appropriate easement for the proposed use will require more work. The extent of that work is unknown but should be negotiated early in the process for the design. 

Eelgrass permitting Eelgrass is depicted on Figure 2 on page 5 and is mentioned extensively throughout the Collins’ report because it figures prominently in design criteria. Correspondence from the Army Corp of Engineers and Maine Department of Environmental Protection to Collins Engineering from October 2018 are included in the Design Criteria section of the document (pg. 46).  The primary unknown is if these agencies will both grant the required permits for the site because of the eelgrass. Design criteria is critical to meet regulatory requirements. 

Future expansion of parking facilities While some options of the concept maximize the parking to over 204 spaces (for an additional cost of about $800,000) the plan does not take into consideration the archeological features identified in the planned area of expansion. It is unclear if the community would develop the parking to the maximum amount. 

User Experience The option used for comparison assumes an 18‐foot wide wharf that does not allow most users to access the head of the gangway easily from their car. At a public meeting there was consensus that design features that attempt to recreate the “user experience” provided by the Stone Wharf options should be considered (pg. 9). Collins’ response was to offer two options for a wider wharf enabling traffic (plus a pedestrian lane) to allow all vehicles to get closer to the head of the gangway. It is unclear how important this design criterion is to the community, but it should be discussed in depth when developing the design criteria. 

   

DRAFT 20200116 

Page 22 of 26 

 

Public Survey (March 3, 2020) 

Efforts over the past several years regarding improvements to our marine infrastructure have focused on providing the Chebeague Island community with enough information to compare the sites and decide which direction to go with future transportation plans, the Stone Wharf or Sunset Landing? 

The next major task in the infrastructure improvement is to undertake an engineering design. The Board has determined that, due to the costs associated with engineering designs, our efforts need to be focused on one of the two sites that are the subject of this report. To help the Board in developing a warrant article that voters will support The Board plans to distribute a simple survey in association with the Statewide Presidential Primary/Special Referendum Election on March 3, 2020.  

Pre‐vote materials for voters (about one‐week prior to vote) Send to all active box holders an executive summary of this document and a cover letter that includes the maps on page 5 and  Table 2. The cover letter should explain how to obtain the whole report (an interim version) and any other material. 

   

PROPOSED SURVEY QUESTION:  

The Board of Selectmen will consider the results of this non‐binding straw poll, 

when drafting the June 13, 2020 Town Meeting Warrant Article. 

 

Question: Should the Board of Selectmen bring a proposal to the Town Meeting on June 

13th, 2020 to engage a consultant to create an engineering design for our primary 

transportation improvements facility at: 

 

      (Check only one) 

 

Stone Wharf  

Sunset Landing 

Neither Site 

Question Explanation The next logical step after a concept plan is an engineering design.  The 

Board of Selectmen doesn’t envision undertaking engineering designs for 

both sites because of costs. Therefore, the time has come to determine if 

our community intends to develop Sunset Landing as its primary 

transportation facility, to upgrade the Stone Wharf or to take no action.  

Figure 3 ‐ Proposed Survey Question 

DRAFT 20200116 

Page 23 of 26 

Capital Plan 

The projects contemplated in this document will easily meet the criteria for a capital project given in The Chebeague Island Capital Plan.  The results of the non‐binding referendum vote will help the Board determine how to define the request for funding to the Town for marine infrastructure improvements as a capital project.  During the capital planning process the project will be considered in the context of the Town’s financial capacity and prioritized with all the other capital projects. 

Capital Plan Project The purpose of this section is to provide information and recommendations for including the project, as it is currently conceived, in the Capital Plan. 

1) Project: Marine Facility (already exists in the capital plan) 

2) Description: Engineering Design for Improvements to ____________________. 

3) Existing reserve accounts that may apply: 

a. Grant Matching (9040) 

b. Land Acquisition (9032) 

c. Dredging (9010) 

d. Stone Wharf Reserve (9015) 

e. Floats and Gangways (9020) 

4) Annual Target: Obtain an estimate for an engineering design at the selected site(s). 

 

Stone Wharf: Existing Maintenance independent of the proposed upgrades 

The Stone Wharf Concept plan identifies maintenance issues that may need to be addressed no matter which site we choose to develop. They include: 

“Areas of deterioration, marine borer activity and abrasion are evident at the timber elements” (pg. 11) 

“a design level inspection should be completed to record attributes of each defect”, including (pg. 29): 

o Timber fender pile replacement, 

o Timber wavescreen repairs (as appropriate depending on adoption of the master plan options) , 

o Timber float repairs (typically completed by the Town during the offseason)  

o Chinking of granite block pier  

o Reset loose displaced granite blocks  

o Topside void/settlement repair  

o Establish a monitoring program for the pier bulges 

 

DRAFT 20200116 

Page 24 of 26 

Engineering Design 

As part of the capital planning process an estimate should be obtained to engage an engineering firm to develop an engineering design for the selected site. This can be accomplished by selecting a firm and working with them to develop an estimate or through a request for proposals (RFP) process. 

Decision Points (some may be refinements of concept plan): 

1) RFP vs. Single Source 

2) Phased vs. All‐at‐once 

3) Cost range 

4) Capacity Targets: (parking, tie‐ups, barging) 

5) User Experience: ADA, Freight handling, shelter other amenities 

6) Sea‐Level Rise mitigation 

 

 

   

DRAFT 20200116 

Page 25 of 26 

Research and Pursue Funding Options 

With demonstrated public support in the form of an engineering design in hand a serious effort can begin to pursue funding assistance. 

 

Town Meeting Warrant Article 

The Goal for action at Town Meeting is to ask the voters if we should put our efforts in the Stone Wharf or Sunset Landing.  This will be accomplished asking voters to fund and engineering design for the selected site. 

YES VOTE: Means funding is raised and the Board will contract with consultant for a design. 

NO VOTE: Depending on the vote and debate associated with the vote, the Board of Selectmen will consider changes  

Proposed Warrant Article Text To see what additional sum the Town will raise and appropriate for the Capital Improvements 

(Stone Wharf Reserve 9015) reserve account to fund an engineering design for improvements to 

the  ________________ site. 

Warrant Article Recommendation The Board of Selectmen recommends $_________ be raised and appropriated for reserve 

account 9015 

Warrant Article Explanation 

 

 

 

 

Meetings Agenda 

   

DRAFT 20200116 

Page 26 of 26 

   

B 

Barging ....................................... 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 24 

C 

Capital Plan ......................................................... 1, 3, 23, 24 

Chebeague Transportation Company ................................. 9 

Commercial Fisherman ............................................. 8, 9, 12 

Cost .................................... 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15, 20, 21, 24 

D 

Dunnage .............................................................................. 4 

E 

engineering design .......................................... 22, 23, 24, 25 

F 

Ferry Berth .................................................................... 7, 12 

fisherman .................................................................. 6, 8, 12 

Freight ................................................................................. 4 

M 

Maintenance ....................................................................... 4 

P 

Parking ......................................................................... 4, 13 

pedestrian ...................................................................... 7, 8 

R 

Recreational boating ..................................... 3, 8, 12, 18, 19 

referendum .......................................................... 13, 22, 23 

S 

Safety .............................................................. 3, 4, 7, 11, 14 

Sea‐Level Rise ................................................ 6, 7, 12, 15, 24 

T 

Town Meeting ...................................................3, 13, 22, 25 

Traffic ................................................ 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 

U 

User Experience ................................................................. 4 

 

January 2020

FY 2021

FY 2021

Chebeague Island Capital Plan

Chebeague Island Capital Plan

2

Contents

Town Administrators Statement ................................................................................................................... 4

Selectmen’s Goals and Priorities for FY2021 ................................................................................................ 5

Purpose of the Annual Capital Plan .............................................................................................................. 5

Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................... 5

Scope ............................................................................................................................................................... 5

Comprehensive Plan ........................................................................................................................................ 5

Annual Process ................................................................................................................................................ 7

Assess the Town’s Financial Capacity for funding Capital Projects .............................................................. 8

Tax Revenue and Budget Stability ................................................................................................................... 8

The Ratio of Debt Service to the Total Locally Assessed Valuation ................................................................. 9

Municipal Limits on Borrowing MSRA 30-A §5702. Limitation ..................................................................... 10

Local Assessed Valuation Value and Full State Valuation ............................................................................. 10

Impact of Borrowing on the tax payer .......................................................................................................... 11

Past Practices and Current Trends ................................................................................................................ 12

Undesignated Fund Balance .......................................................................................................................... 13

Grants and Other External Sources ............................................................................................................... 14

Potential for fee-based operation to generate revenue to offset costs. ...................................................... 14

Reserve Funds: Capital Accounts (9000) ..................................................................................................... 15

Chart of Capital Accounts .............................................................................................................................. 15

Procedure for Opening and Closing Capital Accounts ................................................................................... 15

Established Purpose for Reserved Funds ...................................................................................................... 16

Review Status of Active Projects ................................................................................................................. 18

Accept or decline new projects methodology ............................................................................................ 20

Proposed projects (or capital purchase) for inclusion in the 2019 capital plan: ........................................... 20

Proposal Evaluation and Assessment ............................................................................................................ 21

Criteria for Capital Projects ........................................................................................................................... 22

Review Insurance Schedules ....................................................................................................................... 23

Create an annual plan ................................................................................................................................. 29

Determine Projects to fund and at what level (Prioritization) ...................................................................... 29

Warrant Article and supporting information ................................................................................................ 29

Chebeague Island Capital Plan

3 List of Tables

Table 1 Comprehensive Plan Goals ............................................................................................................... 6

Table 2 - Audit Report Data Used in the analysis .......................................................................................... 9

Table 3 Location of Key Data in the Audit Report ......................................................................................... 9

Table 4 Tax Impact Tool for New Debt ....................................................................................................... 11

Table 5 - Chart of Capital Accounts ............................................................................................................. 15

Table 6 - Capital Accounts Allowable Uses ................................................................................................. 16

Table 7- Current Capital Projects and Purchases ........................................................................................ 18

List of Figures

Figure 1 Total Locally Assessed Valuation and Debt Service ...................................................................... 12

Figure 2 Annual Tax Commitment and the Annual Debt Expense .............................................................. 12

Figure 3 Undesignated Fund Balance History ............................................................................................. 13

Chebeague Island Capital Plan

4 Town Administrators Statement

Board of Selectmen, Town of Chebeague Island 192 North Road, Chebeague Island, Maine 04017

18 December 2019 Dear Selectmen,

Last year the Board of Selectmen worked to bring together a large body of work that has been

developed over the years by volunteers serving on the Capital Planning Committee, staff and the Board

of Selectmen into a single document referred to as the Chebeague Island Capital Plan.

This document has been prepared for the annual budget process which typically begins and ends with a

discussion of large-scale plans and needs for the community. The goal of long-term planning is to move

us closer to our shared vision of the future on Chebeague Island. I hope this document serves as a

source of relevant information and guidance for these important decisions.

I have prepared this document using audited financials, bank statements, current insurance schedules

and best estimates where appropriate. Town employees and staff have also provided valuable input

and review of current and proposed capital purchases or projects where appropriate.

Page 18 lists all of the proposed Capital Projects and Purchases. As the budget discussions progress,

additional proposals can be considered using the Proposal Evaluation and Assessment worksheet on

page 21. This is a fluid document and changes frequently during the budget process. I look forward to

working with you to update this document for the 2020-2021 Budget Year.

Respectfully Submitted,

Marjorie E. Stratton

Town Administrator

Chebeague Island Capital Plan

5 Selectmen’s Goals and Priorities for FY2021

At the January 8, 2020 Selectmen’s meeting the Board discussed and came to a consensus on the

following goals for the municipal budget for fiscal year 2021:

Minimize the impact to the taxpayer for FY2021 but also guard against future impacts by

responsibly managing the Town’s indebtedness,

Utilize the recently adopted Capital Plan to prioritize capital projects,

Use the Capital Planning process to determine a direction regarding improvements to

Chebeague’s primary marine transportation facility,

Minimize the use of the undesignated fund to decrease the tax burden to avoid inadvertently

masking a tax increase,

Review the systems in place to collect fees in certain revenue streams to assure that the cost

fee-based services are offset in an equitable way.

Purpose of the Annual Capital Plan

Purpose

The overarching purpose of a Capital Plan is to:

1. Invest in projects that benefit the public good,

2. keep the budget stable from year to year,

3. manage the town’s debt responsibly and

4. protect the town’s capital investments.

Scope

The plan looks back in time at tax rates, capital spending and borrowing to assist in developing a plan that is consistent with past practices and to encourage a sensitivity to long-term trends. The plan looks ahead about 5 years with respect to regular replacement and maintenance of capital items to minimize surprises and assure funds are available.

Comprehensive Plan

The Town’s Comprehensive Plan (adopted 6/4/2011) includes Table 1. This table lists many recommendations. The Board of Selectmen (6/27/2018) selected from this table those goals that seemed most relevant to capital planning. Capital projects in this plan should be generally consistent with these goals.

Chebeague Island Capital Plan

6

Table 1 Comprehensive Plan Goals

Section Subsection The Goal

Future Use of Land and Town Waters

Wharves, Waterfront

ADEQUATE MARINE FACILITIES TO SERVE THE TOWN'S FUTURE POPULATION AND ECONOMY

Preserving Community Economy FAST AND RELIABLE HIGH-SPEED COMMUNICATIONS

Preserving Community Education THRIVING ISLAND SCHOOL

Running the Town Fire and Rescue

ADEQUATE FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICE FOR RESIDENTS OF GREAT CHEBEAGUE ISLAND.

Running the Town Fiscal Capacity LONG-TERM CAPITAL PLANNING FOR BOTH EXPECTED AND UNANTICIPATED PROJECTS, EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES, IN ORDER TO AVOID BORROWING AND BONDING

Running the Town Public Services EFFECTIVE MAINTENANCE OF THE TOWN’S INFRASTRUCTURE.

Running the Town Public Utilities FAST AND RELIABLE INTERNET SERVICE

Running the Town Roads ACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT THE TOWN'S ROADS

Running the Town Roads IMPROVED ROADS

Running the Town Solid Waste EFFICIENT AND NON-POLLUTING CENTRAL COLLECTION AND COMPACTION OF ISLAND SOLID WASTE.

Running the Town Town Office A TOWN OFFICE THAT ALLOWS FOR EFFICIENT WORK, FACILITIES FOR PRIVATE MEETINGS AND ADEQUATE STORAGE OF TOWN RECORDS.

Chebeague Island Capital Plan

7

Annual Process

The annual process for updating the capital plan is usually the first step in the annual budget process and is often revisited near the end of the budget process. The basic steps to assure that all capital needs are assessed and funded at an appropriate level are:

Review Capital Reserve Accounts

Review Active Projects

Assess/Approve New Projects

Assess Fiscal Capacity

Prioritize Projects, Distribute Funds

Develop Warrant Article

Review Insurance Schedules

Chebeague Island Capital Plan

8 Assess the Town’s Financial Capacity for funding Capital Projects

The Town’s financial capacity with respect to the capital plan is its ability to raise funds for existing and new projects in a given year. This section lists the available sources and quantifies them to the extent possible.

The sources of capital funds are:

1. Tax Revenues (a portion of the total commitment generally goes to capital reserves)

2. Borrowing through Municipal Bonds or private institutions (Debt Service)

3. Undesignated Fund Balance

4. Grants

5. Some projects can generate revenue to offset costs.

6. Reserve Funds or Capital Account (money already allocated in a reserve account)

Capital projects have a short-term and long-term influence on the burden to tax payers. The short-term impacts are managed by keeping the budget stable. Long-term impacts are managed by carefully managing the debt and through good capital planning.

Tax Revenue and Budget Stability

The mil rate for the Town is given as:

𝑀𝑅 = (𝐶 × 1000) ÷ 𝑉𝑡

Where: C = Tax Commitment (Column 2 in Table 2)

Vt = Total Valuation (Column 1 in Table 2)

Both the Tax Commitment and Total Valuation are determined annually by the Town Assessor. The Assessor can add an ‘overlay’ not to exceed 5% of “net to be raised” so that the final mil rate is usually higher than the equation implies.

Keeping the “budget stable” usually means keeping the mil rate stable. The budget can rise without impacting the mil rate if the valuation also rises.

Setting a mil rate increase goal early on in the budget process is helpful in all the decisions that must be made along the way. The financial capacity with respect to the mil rate is the amount you can raise the mil rate and still get a budget passed but ultimately it includes a judgement call on behalf of all the tax payers in Town and not just the ones that have the right to vote or who show up to vote.

Using round numbers that are close to our current values:

Total Valuation Tax Commitment Mil Rate Tax on a $250,000 property

200,000,000 3,000,000 15.000 3,750.00

200,000,000 3,200,000 16.000 4,000.00

Raising $200,000 more in the budget (1 full point on the mil rate) costs this home owner $250 more.

The last column in Table 2 shows how we have managed the mil rate to date.

Chebeague Island Capital Plan

9 The Ratio of Debt Service to the Total Locally Assessed Valuation

The ratio of the debt service to the total locally assessed valuation (Column 5) should be less than 12%. The municipal portion of that should be less that 7.5% (MSRA 30-A §5702).

Table 2 - Audit Report Data Used in the analysis

Note 1: A re-valuation in 2016 caused a major adjustment in the Valuation and the Mil rate.

The table below describes the source of the data columns in the table above. They can be found in the Annual Financial Audit Report. The Note and Exhibit references below are as found in the 2018 report submitted by Smith & Associates.

Table 3 Location of Key Data in the Audit Report

Column Title Description and location in Annual Financial Report

1 Assessed Valuation

NOTE 3 – Property Taxes (Local Assessment, Homestead exemption included)

2 Tax Commitment NOTE 3 – Property Taxes (Before Abatements)

3 Paymt to comm Calculated: Debt Payment / Tax Commitment

4 Debt Service NOTE 5 – LONG TERM DEBT (school and county overlapping debt service is not included)

5 Val to Service Calculated: Total Assessed Value / Debt Service

6 Debt Payment Exhibit VII (principal and interest)

7 Mil Rate Rate per $1000 shown on tax bills

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Year Total Local

Valuation

Tax

Commitment

paymt to

comm Debt Service

Val to

Service Debt Payment Mil Rate

Change in

Mil

2008 113,325,950 2,326,895 14.5% 4,800,000 4.24% 337,341 20.53

2009 116,280,288 2,340,740 12.1% 4,375,254 3.76% 282,733 20.13 -1.96%

2010 117,220,624 2,350,275 12.0% 4,096,855 3.49% 282,388 20.05 -0.40%

2011 118,140,432 2,326,793 11.5% 3,743,449 3.17% 268,340 19.70 -1.77%

2012 118,855,880 2,371,175 10.7% 3,362,216 2.83% 253,836 19.95 1.29%

2013 119,118,728 2,406,198 9.2% 2,966,493 2.49% 222,263 20.20 1.25%

2014 120,175,028 2,493,632 8.7% 2,610,584 2.17% 216,357 20.75 2.72%

2015 122,103,917 2,551,972 8.1% 2,178,558 1.78% 207,233 20.90 0.72%

2016 178,115,150 2,760,785 7.8% 2,255,986 1.26% 215,175 15.50 -26.11%

2017 175,151,600 2,863,729 9.3% 2,079,939 1.18% 266,527 16.35 5.26%

2018 176,271,000 2,890,845 9.2% 1,897,686 1.07% 267,342 16.40 0.89%

2019 177,593,800 2,930,298 9.1% 3,313,824 1.87% 267,974 16.50 0.61%

Chebeague Island Capital Plan

10

Municipal Limits on Borrowing MSRA 30-A §5702. Limitation

Maine Statue governs the limits of indebtedness for municipalities in relatively gross terms; most towns prefer more modest limits.

No municipality may incur debt which would cause its total debt outstanding at any time, exclusive of debt incurred for school purposes, for storm or sanitary sewer purposes, for energy facility purposes or for municipal airport purposes to exceed 7 1/2% of its last full state valuation, or any lower percentage or amount that a municipality may set. A municipality may incur debt for school purposes to an amount outstanding at any time not exceeding 10% of its last full state valuation, or any lower percentage or amount that a municipality may set, for storm or sanitary sewer purposes to an amount outstanding at any time not exceeding 7 1/2% of its last full state valuation, or any lower percentage or amount that a municipality may set, and for municipal airport and special district purposes to an amount outstanding at any time not exceeding 3% of its last full state valuation, or any lower percentage or amount that a municipality may set; provided, however, that in no event may any municipality incur debt which would cause its total debt outstanding at any time to exceed 15% of its last full state valuation, or any lower percentage or amount that a municipality may set.

MSRA 30-A §5702 can be summarized by saying a Municipality can borrow:

1. up to 10% of last State valuation for the school,

2. up to 7.5% of last State valuation for other municipal,

3. Not more that 15% of last State valuation when #1 and #2 are combined

Local Assessed Valuation Value and Full State Valuation

MSRA 30-A §5702 refers to “state valuation” and Table 2 refers to “Local Valuation”.

The local assessed valuation is calculated annually by the Town appointed Assessor and includes new sales, new constructions and other factors. The State determines (also annually) how close the local assessment valuation is to the current fair market value of all taxable property. This is expressed as a percentage of the current fair market value.

The State’s goal to be at 100% of the fair market value. This is to assure that all property owners are paying a fair share of the local budget.

The local valuation is used for planning purposes because it is likely to reflect the most recent state of taxable property in the Town. It is also used to determine the tax commitment and the mil rate. In contrast the state valuation uses data from annual previous years and its used as an indicator to determine when a town-wide revaluation should occur.

Chebeague Island Capital Plan

11

Impact of Borrowing on the tax payer

The table at the right is included in the companion spreadsheet and can be used to estimate the impact on the tax burden of a sample property value when considering new debt.

The values at the top of the table come from Table 2. The New Debt is estimated. The Debt payment increase can be looked up at the Maine Bond Bank website using the payment calculator there.

The home value can be set and then the estimated increase is calculated and applied to the Debt to Valuation Ratio.

Values in this table are an example for borrowing $100,000 using the 2019 mil rate.

Table 4 Tax Impact Tool for New Debt

Year 2019

Current Debt Payment 267,974

Total Valuation 177,593,800

Commitment 2,930,298

Mil Rate 16.50

Current Tax Bill 4,125

New Debt 100,000

Debt Payment increase

6,000

New Mil Rate 16.53

Home Value 250,000

New Tax Bill 4,133

Est. tax increase 8.45

New Debt/Comm 9.3%

New Debt/Val 1.92%

Chebeague Island Capital Plan

12

Past Practices and Current Trends

The graphs below are produced directly from Table 2. Figure 1 shows the ratio of the debt service to the locally assessed valuation since the inception of the town. The Town approved a $1,605,000 bond for school renovations, the first payment is in the 2020 budget.

Figure 1 Total Locally Assessed Valuation and Debt Service

Figure 2 shows the ratio of Debt payment to the tax commitment. The diverging lines between 2008 and 2015 indicate a lessening of the debt burden. There is no target established for this ratio, but it may give some indication as to the Town’s tolerance for long-term debt.

Figure 2 Annual Tax Commitment and the Annual Debt Expense

4.2

4%

3.7

6%

3.4

9%

3.1

7%

2.8

3%

2.4

9%

2.1

7%

1.7

8%

1.2

7%

1.1

9%

1.0

8%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022

Mill

ion

s

Mill

ion

s

Valuation vs. Debt Service

Total Local Valuation Debt Service

14

.5%

12

.1%

12

.0%

11

.5%

10

.7%

9.2

%

8.7

%

8.1

%

7.8

% 9.3

%

9.2

%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0.1

0.6

1.1

1.6

2.1

2.6

3.1

2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022

Tho

usa

nd

s

Mill

ion

s

Commitment vs. Debt Payment

Tax Commitment Debt Payment

Chebeague Island Capital Plan

13

Undesignated Fund Balance

Funds that are left over from the tax commitment at the end of the fiscal year can be rolled into the next year on an account by account basis and under certain conditions (held-over funds). All other unspent funds at the end of a fiscal year become “undesignated funds” and must be re-appropriated by Town Meeting before being spent.

The undesignated fund balance can act as a cushion for major disruptions in regular course of governmental business. In 2010 the Board of Select adopted a policy to review and manage the undesignated fund balance. Figure 2 shows the balance taken from the annual audit and town meeting minutes. The lower and upper limits are calculated as percentage of the annual budget. The policy allows some freedom in how to calculate this.

Figure 3 Undesignated Fund Balance History

While the fund can be used for any purpose designated by town meeting Chebeague has generally used

it for two purposes: 1) to apply to the revenue stream thereby lessening the tax burden for the following

year and 2) for funding capital projects.

To determine how this information might be relevant the Board in the capital process the Board is directed to the Undesignated Fund Balance Policy Statement.

-100,000

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Do

llars

Date

Undesignated Fund Balance

Low Lim Hi Lim Balance

Chebeague Island Capital Plan

14

Grants and Other External Sources

New projects and existing active projects can benefit greatly from available grant funds. It is the responsibility of the proposing person or department to research potential funding sources and inform the Board.

The Seeking Grant Funds Policy Statement adopted in 2009 provides some guidance in this process.

Potential for fee-based operation to generate revenue to offset costs.

Some governmental functions can be implemented as fee-based services. Revenues generated in this way can be used to offset the cost of providing these services. The fees charged for demolition debris at the transfer station are an example of this type of service. The fee could be used to offset operating costs or capital costs or both.

Typically, appropriate fees for service are established by ordinance approved at Town Meeting though the fee dollar amount is often left to the Board of Selectmen.

Chebeague Island Capital Plan

15

Reserve Funds: Capital Accounts (9000)

The Board of Selectmen may only authorized expenditure of money for the purpose it was raised by

Town Meeting. For this reason, it is important that the chart of accounts be complete, well documented

and approved by Town Meeting. This section documents accounts for capital reserves.

Chart of Capital Accounts

Table 5 - Chart of Capital Accounts

Education Town Facilities

Chebeague Island School Reserves 9030: Facilities

9031: New Town Office

Public Safety 9032: Land Acquisition & Development

9012: Fire Ponds 9059: Cemetery Capital Reserve

9025: Fire Truck Reserve 9070: Coastal Access Fund 9033: Solar Array Purchase

9060: Harbormaster Vessel 9192: Rescue Vehicles & Equipment Environmental Stewardship

9058: Easements & Drainage

Transportation 9010: Dredging Public Services

9015: Stone Wharf 9035: Vehicle Reserve

9016: Barge Ramps 9055: Public Services Equipment

9020: Floats & Gangways 9057: Recycling Compactor

9050: Paving 9110: Cousins Island Wharf Tax Stabilization

9198: Cousins Island Parking Reserve 9045: Revaluation Reserve

9040: Grant Matching Funds

Procedure for Opening and Closing Capital Accounts

If the Selectmen determine that a new capital account should be set up it should be documented in this section and should be presented to the Town Meeting. Similarly, if the descriptions in Table 6 are modified they should be present to Town Meeting for approval.

If an account balance goes to zero and the Board determines that the account number should no longer be used the word “CLOSED: “ should be prepended to the account name for clarity in during the budget process. After three years the name should be changed to simply “UNUSED”. Subsequently, the account number can be renamed and reused if desired.

Chebeague Island Capital Plan

16

Established Purpose for Reserved Funds

When funds are raised from taxes at Town Meeting for reserved funds they are assigned to an account. The Board of Selectmen may use those funds only for the purpose for which they were raised. This table defines the purpose for each existing account. Only Town Meeting can redefine account purposes, move funds between accounts or raise more funds for an account.

Account Balances are from 11/30/2019 Bank Account Statement.

Table 6 - Capital Accounts Allowable Uses

Number Name Balance Purpose

Education

School Capital Reserves

172,854 Special Education Reserve, School Tuition Reserve, School Playground and a Capital Reserve Fund.

Public Safety

9012 Fire Ponds 4,789 Capital maintenance and construction of fire ponds.

9025 Fire Department Reserve

54,457

Capital maintenance and replacement of fire trucks, associated firefighting/rescue equipment, and communication equipment and structures.

9060 Harbormaster Vessel

10,327 Capital repairs or replacement of the Harbormaster vessels, trailers, and/or motor.

9192 Rescue Vehicles & Equipment

122,189 Capital maintenance and replacement of the ambulance and its associated rescue equipment.

Transportation

9010 Dredging 100,843 Engineering, and maintenance/long-term dredging of the channel and turning basin at the Stone Wharf.

9015 Stone Wharf Reserve

302,414 Engineering, capital maintenance, and construction/re- construction of the Stone Wharf, wharf parking, and wave break structures.

9016 Barge Ramps 10,279 Engineering, capital maintenance, and construction/reconstruction of barge ramps.

9020 Floats & Gangways

32,409 Construction and replacement of floats and gangways at Cousins Island, Stone Wharf, and Chandler’s Cove. Not used for repair or maintenance.

9050 Paving 197,252 Engineering, capital maintenance, roadbed preparation, and resurfacing of public roads and parking areas. Phase I – A 10-year plan to bring the condition of all paved roads to maintenance or better status.

9110 Cousins Island Wharf

348,589 Required by the 1989 Yarmouth/Cumberland (now Chebeague) agreement” “Capital maintenance, repair and replacement of wharf and subject wharf road improvements”.

9198 Cousins Island Parking Reserve

15,759 MDOT approved capital maintenance of the parking lot and access road on Cousins Island. Funded at $2,000 annually per 1999 sublease agreement.

Town Facilities

9030 Facilities 5,101 capital repairs and modifications to the administration and public safety structures on North Road.

9031 New Town Office 35,266 A reserve fund to build a new town office.

9059 Cemetery Capital Reserve

6,197 Capital maintenance and upgrades of the cemetery grounds and structures. This is separate from the perpetual fund.

9070 Coastal Access fund

10,046 Easement purchases and capital structure/road/path construction and repairs facilitating public access to coastal waters and beaches.

9032 Land Acquisition & Development

4,969 DISCUSS WITH SELECTMEN

Chebeague Island Capital Plan

17

9033 Solar Array Purchase

10,010 Purchase of the solar array in Year six (2024) for $77,826

Environmental Stewardship

9058 Easements & Drainage

59,913 Purchase of rights to permit drainage and maintenance access of drainage systems onto and/or across private property.

Public Services

9035 Vehicle Reserve 3,263 Replacement of Town passenger & multi-use vehicles

9055 Public Services Equipment

10,335 Capital maintenance, modification, and replacement of vehicles, equipment, and structures.

9057 Transfer Station 2,869 Capital maintenance and replacement of transfer station equipment and structures.

Tax Stabilization

9045 Revaluation Reserve

14,419 Periodic property revaluation work by the Town Assessor or outside purveyor.

9040 Grant Matching Funds

27,578 Prospective contingency fund used for Town matching share of public or private grant opportunities.

Chebeague Island Capital Plan

18

Review Status of Active Projects

Table 7- Current Capital Projects and Purchases

Project Description Status Current Appropriation FY expense Means of Finance

Total/Annual target

Public Safety

Additional Bay for rescue Proposed 0 2022 9030 $186,484 / $93,242

Next Fire Truck Tanker-Pumper Funding 0 2025 9025 $250,000 / $39,100

Next Rescue Ambulance Funding 0 2023 9192 $150,000 / $9,422

Transportation

6 CTC Boat access Ramps: Safety , 80 Foot Ramps Proposed 0 2020 9020 $32,000

8 Dredging Feasibility Study – Build Active 0 2020 9010 100,000

2 Firehouse Road Drainage, fire pond Active 0 2020 9058 / 9012 50,000

Capps Road Drainage at Capps road Feasibility Planning 0 2025 9058 40,000

7 South Road near Fenderson Rd. To correct drainage issues Proposed 9058

5 Stone Wharf Road To Improve and widen road Planning 2020 $10,000

Marine Facility Choose Site and Design Planning

9015/bond Unknown

1 Next Paving Multiple Active 186,000 2020 9050 2,000,000/175,000

Facilities

New Town Office Site, Concept design Proposed 0 2021 9031 $50,000 / $25,000

9 Transfer Station Painting Rusted Beams need to be painted Planning $20,000 2021 9030 $20,000

Public Services

Next Public Services Unknown Planning 0 2022 9055 $150,000 / $70,000

Next Admin. Vehicle For passenger transport Planning 0 2022 9035 $15,000 / $5,872

4 Replace Compactor Transfer Station – replace compactor

Active 0

2020 9057 $17,500

Tax Stabilization

Grant Matching Res. Ongoing 0

9040 50,000

Revaluation Reserve

Planning $20,200 2023 9045 75,000 / $20,196

New Accounts

3 Tax Acquired Property Survey and Legal to Reconfigure Property Active 0

2020 9032 $5 to $10,000

Broadband Fiber to the Premises Planning 0

9034 / Grants 1,400,000 + interest

Chebeague Island Capital Plan

19

Solar Array Purchase facility to realize benefit Funding $17,500 2024 9033 80,000/17,500

Indian Point Bulkhead Roadway Stabilization and Repair / Build Bulkhead

Planning 0 9195 50,000+

Total $57,700

Chebeague Island Capital Plan

20

Accept or decline new projects methodology

Proposed projects (or capital purchase) for inclusion in the 2021 capital plan:

Proposed Capital Account

Project Estimated Cost

Benefit

Need more information.

Chebeague Island Capital Plan

21

Proposal Evaluation and Assessment

For each new proposed project (or capital purchase) use the form below to evaluate the project for inclusion in the capital plan. Comments should reflect how the project embodies the attribute. The scoring should be 0-5 according to the degree the project embodies the attribute. For example, a high cost project might score a 5 under initial build out cost but also a 5 under a benefit category.

Project Attributes Comments Score

Qualify as a Capital Project

$7,000 and five years or more of service

Benefit the public

Consistent with Comprehensive Plan

Costs and impact on operations

Initial build out cost – staff burden

Annual staffing & maintenance

Long-term maintenance or upgrades

Replacement (life expectancy)

Benefit

Mandated

Public health and safety

Education

Transportation

Environmental sustainability and stewardship

Economic growth

Aesthetics / historic preservation

Cultural and recreational opportunities

Schedule (Target dates and preparedness)

Design

Bid

Fund

Build

Determine Financing Potential

Raise taxes

Undesignated Fund Balance

Fund re-distribution

Enterprise potential

Borrowing

Grants

The completed copies of these forms can be scanned and attached as appendices for documentation.

Chebeague Island Capital Plan

22

Criteria for Capital Projects

Project Attributes Description

Qualify as a Capital Project

$7,000 and five years or more of service Cost has to be >= $7,000 and should have a life expectancy of greater than 5 years before replacement or major maintenance.

Benefit the public Does the project have a clear public benefit? That is, it benefits the majority of the community in some way.

Consistent with Comprehensive Plan The relevant goals of the capital plan are summarized in the Capital Plan document; is the project generally consistent with these.

Costs and impact on operations

Initial build out cost – staff burden At this point in the process these are based on high, medium, low generalities.

Annual staffing & maintenance Does the project add to the town employees work load or require additional staffing or contracted services annually?

Long-term maintenance or upgrades Are there significant maintenance task or upgrades expected during the life of the project?

Replacement (life expectancy) Is the life expectancy low (near the threshold of a capital project) or is it likely to be high (multiple decades)?

Benefit

Mandated Scores high if required by law or other mandate.

Public health and safety What degree does the project benefit this sector?

Education What degree does the project benefit this sector?

Transportation What degree does the project benefit this sector?

Environmental sustainability and stewardship What degree does the project benefit this sector?

Economic growth What degree does the project benefit this sector?

Aesthetics / historic preservation What degree does the project benefit this sector?

Cultural and recreational opportunities What degree does the project benefit this sector?

Schedule (Target dates and preparedness)

Design Scores high if there is a detailed, written plan

Bid Scores high if costs are based on actual bids

Fund Scores high if funding is researched, probable or secured

Build Scores high if start date is comfortably in the future

Determine Financing Potential

Raise taxes Scores high if we save the funding overtime using taxes alone?

Undesignated Fund Balance Score higher if the UFB is a possible source of funding?

Fund re-distribution Score higher if existing reserves can be shifted to help fund?

Enterprise potential Scores higher if the project generate revenue?

Borrowing Scores high if borrowing can be minimized.

Grants Score high if there are potential grants identified.

Other funding source Score high if there are private or other sources.

Chebeague Island Capital Plan

23

Review Insurance Schedules

Preceding sections worked with entirely new ideas or projects that have been “on the radar screen”. In

this section the current insurance schedules are presented as a reasonable inventory of items that could

involve a capital purchase or replacement project.

In scanning the insurance schedules potential capital needs may be identified that are not otherwise

covered in this document. When encountering larger items like buildings each component of the

building should be considered. For example, considering the current state of the furnace, septic system,

roof system, lighting or other component may provoke discussion and inclusion in the forward view of

this plan.

Chebeague Island Capital Plan

24

Chebeague Island Capital Plan

25

Chebeague Island Capital Plan

26

Chebeague Island Capital Plan

27

Chebeague Island Capital Plan

28

Chebeague Island Capital Plan

29

Create an annual plan

This document is prepared by the Town Administrator prior to the beginning of the budget process. It

should be edited during the process and used to document the decisions made by the Board and

provides a starting place for the next year.

Determine Projects to fund and at what level (Prioritization)

A major goal of the capital plan to prioritize existing and new projects and appropriately fund them incorporating sound long-term and short-planning. Unfortunately, there is no formulaic approach to this final step in the process.

Once the Board has all the information gathered, the decision can only be made by viewing it in the context of the current economic climate, the perceived will of the people, political pressures and, perhaps most importantly a shared vision of the future of the community.

Warrant Article and supporting information

This section is used to draft a warrant article for the Town Meeting warrant. It is a draft based on the information in this report and may be amended by the Selectmen during the warrant creation process. Refer to the appropriate Town Meeting for the final version of this article.

Chebeague Island Capital Plan

30

Article ##: To see what sum the Town will raise and appropriate for Capital Improvements

(9000).

Board of Selectmen recommends raising $###,###.

Explanation: The table below shows the sum recommended by the Board of Selectmen for each

capital account. #.##% decrease ($##,###) from the previous fiscal year budget. The purpose of

the capital account appropriations is to set aside funds for future infrastructure investment as

well as vehicle and equipment expenditures. This reduces and avoids a large, one time,

appropriations for major expenses in the future.

Capital Account Approximate Current Balance

Proposed FY21 to be Raised

Estimated Balance

9010 Dredging 1,000 - 1,000

9012 Fire Ponds - - -

9015 Stone Wharf Reserve - - -

9016 Barge Ramps - - -

9020 Floats & Gangways - - -

9025 Fire Truck Reserve - - -

9030 Facilities - - -

9031 New Town Office - - -

9032 Land Acquisition & Development

- - -

9040 Grant Matching Funds - - -

9042 Paper Streets - - -

9045 Revaluation Reserve - - -

9050 Paving - - -

9055 Public Services Equipment - - -

9057 Recycling Compactors - - -

9058 Easements & Drainage - - -

9059 Cemetery Capital Reserve - - -

9060 Harbormaster Vessel - - -

9070 Coastal Access Fund - - -

9192 Rescue Vehicles & Equipment - - -

TOTAL 1,000 - 1,000

The total current balance of reserve accounts is available to the Board of Selectmen for the

purpose defined for each account. This balance reflects the current balances at Month, DD,

YYYY