Town argues complainants have not established standing or shown rates are unfair.
just now
The Bar Harbor Story is generously sponsored by First National Wealth Management.
BAR HARBOR—The Town of Bar Harbor has indicated that it will ask for a motion to dismiss in the suit against the town’s water rates that was filed earlier this year by resident Charles Sidman and nine others.
According to Jonathan Dunitz, the attorney representing the town during late October testimony, the dismissal will likely be about “whether there’s actual standing” for Sidman and the others “but also on the fact that there’s— nothing has been provided to prove that the division’s rates are unfair or inequitable.”
New paperwork has been filed in the suit against Bar Harbor’s new water rates, which began this spring after Town Council approval.
The Maine Public Utilities Commission has been taking a closer look at how those rates were structured and how the town went about approving them.
The August 4 announcement that an official investigation had been opened came after a 10-person citizen complaint to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) asking that Bar Harbor’s approved water rate increases be sent back to the town.
After Town Council action this past winter, following a lengthy study, the town’s water rates increased by approximately 35%. The increase occurred after a decade of no changes.
The increase is meant to cover an approximate $1 million budget shortfall for an approved budget of $3.3 million. The current rate results in $2.2 million in revenue.
Since the Maine Public Utilities Commission (PUC) officially opened an investigation into Bar Harbor’s new water rates, the Town Council has approved a water budget, one of the complainants has submitted direct testimony, and the PUC held a September 1 conference.
“The complainants raise two primary issues. First, the complainants allege that the division’s rate structure results in rates that are not just and reasonable in that the declining block rate used by the division results in per unit usage rates that are smaller for customers with larger meters and, thus, use more water. Second, the complainants allege a lack of transparency on the part of the division regarding the recent rate proceeding,” the 10-page notice reads.
The division refers to the town’s water division.
The lead petitioner of the complaint is Sidman, who also led the citizen’s initiative for the town’s cruise ship disembarkation changes and has been involved in multiple appeals and lawsuits since then, including acting beside the town as a defendant-intervenor in a lawsuit filed against the town’s new cruise ship rules.
Those new water rates began as of April 1, 2026. Those water rates were approved by the Town Council this winter. Councilor David Kief had voted against the rate change. Current Councilor Deborah Vickers was not on the council at the time.
In March, Sidman and nine others requested the PUC to investigate Bar Harbor’s rates and the process of how it achieved them. The group said that the rates favor those who use more water than residents and that they cause economic hardship to “average citizens.”
Sidman represented himself and the other complainants—all Bar Harbor residents—at the October 29 conference. During the questioning, it was noted that he is not a residential water user (who he is saying are being treated unfairly), but is a commercial water user via the Argosy Gallery, an art gallery in downtown Bar Harbor that he co-owns with his wife, he said. The attorney said that the business’ website only mentions her name in the ownership.
Sidman said that he is not questioning the minimum payment for users.
“And your view is that this rate structure, the declining block rate, is not equitable because ratepayers with higher usage pay less per cubic feet. Is that correct?” Dunitz asked.
“That is correct,” Sidman said.
Sidman later added, “If I can be simplistic, the basic issue is if I flush a toilet, I pay much more to flush the toilet than a hotel does. That’s it.”
However, Dunitz argued, while the complaint “lumps” residential and all other users, the town has multiple use categories.
“And now let’s get to your view that when you flush a toilet, you pay much more—for much more than a hotel does. You’ve just said that you have not done any analysis of what the infrastructure for the cost for the hotel are as compared to yours. Is that correct?” Dunitz asked.
Sidman said that wasn’t relevant to the complaint.
“Another analogy, if it helps, is I own several properties in Bar Harbor and I pay the same mil rate as everybody else. The town does not say that, well, a property that’s worth ten or a hundred times as much gets a cheaper mil rate because it’s much more economical to administer. The mil rate is the mil rate, and I believe the cubic foot rate should be the cubic foot rate,” Sidman said.
“You believe that? What do you base that belief on?” Dunitz asked.
“Ethics, morals, the position of many residential users,” Sidman responded.
“Of many? How many signed your complaint?” Dunitz asked.
“Well, we had ten people sign this present version of it. We began to go another route which you’re well aware of, but that was in the middle of the winter. So only a hundred or so were able to sign it at that point when lots of people were out of town. But I also know that many more people than actually put a signature onto paper agree with us,” Sidman said.
The other complaint required 100 signatures per PUC standards and rules. Bar Harbor has roughly 5,200 residents. Some leave for parts of the winter.
In Sidman’s October 20 written response to data requests he answers in the negative for most of the questions in the 44-page document, having not calculated much of the specified and requested data. He lists his objections to this on the first page of the document.
He objected to any request that would require “analyses, studies, calculations, or documents that do not exist,” as well as any information the PUC already has, and any that require legal conclusions or research, and any outside the proceeding.
Later in the conference, Dunitz argued that Sidman doesn’t have a residential water bill and therefore he isn’t an appropriate lead complainant. The PUC gave Dunitz approximately two weeks to file a motion to dismiss.
OTHER ASPECTS
In an October 20 order, the PUC had decided, “That the financial information of the Complainants shall be considered ‘Designated Confidential Information’ for purposes of this order and, until this order is modified, access to Designated Confidential Information shall be limited as described.”
That decision came after an October 13 order detailing that on October 8, Sidman had requested a preliminary determination of eligibility for intervenor funding so that he could retain attorney Robert J. Papazian. The estimated cost was between $10,500 and $17,500 in attorney’s fees.
In that October 8 petition, Sidman and Papazian argued, “The position Mr. Sidman advances – that the Division’s declining-block rate structure is not just and reasonable and that a uniform (single-block) rate, or alternatively an increasing block rate, should be adopted – is not adequately represented by any other participant. The OPA (Office of the Public Advocate) successfully intervened, but at the September 1, 2026 case conference its counsel stated that it is unlikely to submit testimony and would not be presenting a witness. Additionally, the OPA has expressly taken ‘no position’ on the central procedural question in the case of whether there was a statutory basis to initiate an investigation on a 10-person complaint. Commission Staff serve the Commission as a neutral decision-maker and do not advocate the complainants’ position. As a result, unless Mr. Sidman develops and presents the affirmative case for residential ratepayers, that position will not be advanced by any party involved in this matter.”
They added that “It should be noted that in both the cruise ship litigations and the instant water rate investigation, Mr. Sidman’s aims are to benefit his community. He should not have to take on a substantial financial hardship in order to do so.”
LINKS TO LEARN MORE
To read all the submitted documentation, go here.
To read related state law, go here.
For more information on the complaint and impacts.
PUC Investigation Into Bar Harbor Water Rates Moves Forward.
Oct 1
HELP SUPPORT THE BAR HARBOR STORY
When we started The Bar Harbor Story, we didn’t know if anyone would read it. But you showed up. You shared. You sent tips. Now—over 400,000 views every month later—it’s clear: people here care about their community and each other.
We’ve kept everything free because news should never be out of reach, but every one of our stories takes time to write, and your support keeps The Bar Harbor Story going.
If you value our work, please consider a paid subscription, a founding membership, or a sponsorship.
It truly helps us cover one more meeting, tell one more story, shine one more light.
Even $5 a month makes a difference. Click here to become a one-time supporter now.
Thank you so much for being here.
Founding member information can be found here.
Have questions about sponsorships? Just send Shaun an email at sfarrar86@gmail.com, he’d love to hear from you.
Discover more from Bar Harbor Story
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.