LIVERMORE FALLS — The Select Board is considering setting a moratorium on new marijuana-related businesses while they review cannabis licensing fees and the staff time required to administer them.

The issue emerged after the Planning Board asked whether the town could lawfully adopt a temporary moratorium on medical cannabis retail, according to Bryce Cobb, the code enforcement officer, plumbing inspector, health officer and E-911 addressing officer.

Cobb told the Select Board on Jan. 6 that voters would need to adopt a moratorium. He said the town is preparing to review its cannabis ordinance, including a possible cap on the number of businesses, with a potential vote expected in the coming months. Additional review time would be needed before drafting a moratorium ordinance.

The Select Board indicated the issue could return as soon as its Jan. 20 meeting to decide whether to proceed with drafting a moratorium.

At issue is Livermore Falls’ relatively low licensing fees. The town charges a $250 initial application fee and a $500 annual renewal fee under the medical marijuana ordinance, Cobb said.

Looking at a fee comparison to other area towns, Cobb said, Turner charges a $500 initial fee and a $250 renewal, while Jay uses a tiered licensing system for marijuana manufacturing and cultivation facilities, ranging from $1,500 to $4,500, based on facility type and size. Winslow’s fee schedule, he said, includes a $4,000 fee for medical retail stores.

Cobb said Winslow, with roughly 6,000 residents, has a similar number of medical retail stores as Livermore Falls, which has about 3,300 residents. He noted that many towns impose caps on cannabis businesses, allowing them to better predict annual costs.

Vice Chair Bruce Peary said he was satisfied with the town’s fee structure.

“I’m comfortable and satisfied with our fees here in town as they are,” he said, noting that while Winslow’s fees are higher, it also has twice the population.

Peary said he did not believe Livermore Falls was at risk of being seen as an easy place to open cannabis businesses compared with nearby towns such as Wilton or Turner, which charge lower fees. He acknowledged, however, that the lack of a cap on marijuana businesses has drawn attention.

“People want the cap,” Peary said, adding, “whether or not I think it’s right.”

Board members noted no new applications are under review and Cobb is primarily handling renewals. Cobb said one application has reached the site plan review stage.

Asked about staff time, Cobb said an initial application typically requires “roughly ten hours, depending on if there was any issues,” while renewals generally take less time. Complaints, however, can add hours that are difficult to quantify. He added that because Livermore Falls does not have a cap on cannabis businesses, the workload can remain open-ended.

Cobb also raised public safety concerns, saying burglaries or false alarms at cannabis businesses can require significant police resources. He said a false alarm can take an officer about 30 minutes to respond and those responses are “expensive on the taxpayer,” citing vehicle use, insurance and personnel costs.

Peary also framed the issue in terms of the town’s long-term vision, reflecting on Livermore Falls’ history as a mill town and its shift into a bedroom community. He said he would like to see business growth return “in the right way, in a progressive positive way,” and with the future of younger residents in mind.

Another board member cautioned against relying too heavily on comparisons with neighboring towns, saying decisions should be based on what is best for Livermore Falls rather than on what other communities are doing.

The board discussed tracking the actual number of staff hours devoted to cannabis oversight to better understand the true cost. Cobb suggested collecting data over six months, while Peary proposed 90 days.

Chair Will Kenniston said 90 days might not provide enough renewals to accurately assess the workload. The board noted that three renewals are expected during that time.

The board agreed to keep current fees in place during the review period.

A motion passed to revisit cannabis fees after the review is completed, with the issue scheduled to return to the board in June.