[0:08] My big butt wasn't heavy enough to be
able to get it out of there.
[0:14] » Okay, we've come out of executive
session at 6:25 p.m. Uh, so move second.
[0:23] » Motion by Belma, second by Phil.
All those in favor
[0:30] motion carries.
>> Yeah.
[0:34] » All right. Looking for a motion from the
executive session. I move that the we
[0:40] authorize the town to contribute the sum
of $20,344.58
[0:45] towards the resolution of an employment
claim um as recommended by council and
[0:53] uh to come from the uh
employment line budget.
[1:00] » Okay. Motion by Tom
>> subject to the question about the
[1:04] attorney's fees.
>> Correct.
[1:07] » I'll second that. Seconded by Velma. Any
other discussion?
[1:13] All those in favor.
Motion carries. None opposed.
[1:22] Okay.
Next item on the agenda that we need to
[1:27] talk about is the uh structural
engineering RFP.
[1:37] » Keith, I'll let you take over.
>> Yeah. What I did is I took a stab at uh
[1:42] establishing as you as you well know the
the uh fire station committee uh tabled
[1:48] any further actions until we we provide
an independent structural study of the
[1:54] existing fire station. So you I was
instructed or asked to put together a
[2:00] RFP which I have in front of you uh
tonight. Um the RFP is is is very uh
[2:08] generic. It's not specific in nature
other than um that we want a structural
[2:14] engineer to give us a complete review of
the uh existing fire station that was
[2:20] built in 1998. So, part of the documents
would not only be the RFP that I
[2:26] developed, the background information,
but I'd also provide them a copy of the
[2:32] uh tax card so they can see the
dimensions
[2:36] um of the building uh under the card and
provide them an opportunity to come
[2:42] before they provide to us uh um their
analysis of of or their cost associated
[2:50] with it. What we're trying to get would
be um a a group of folks based on the
[2:56] the list that I provided to you along
with the name of a structural engineer
[3:01] that um select board member Basset had
provided to us. He would be part of the
[3:07] package. Send that out to them
requesting for them to get back to us
[3:12] with a a cost and maybe an hourly rate
as well. um so we can determine and and
[3:19] then at that point once you get those
information you may at your discretion
[3:24] want to interview one or two of these uh
firms to determine you know uh
[3:31] specifically what they're are going to
try to do what their thoughts are and
[3:36] moving forward. So um that way we keep
it independent. Um the engineer would
[3:43] make an analysis based on what they see
and what they determine. And then at
[3:49] that point if we wish to ask those
specific questions that have been
[3:53] developed, then we can begin to ask
those questions in a in a way that you
[3:59] would like to have the questions asked
um to gain that knowledge if it's
[4:03] important once he gives us a review. and
that that was the way I put it. So I
[4:08] right now you have the the the draft in
front of you obviously anything you want
[4:13] to change. Um let me know um and as soon
as you know we'll try to get it out
[4:20] ASAP.
Yeah, I've got some recommended changes
[4:24] but I'll I didn't get to email it to you
but I'll I'll do that every
[4:28] » Okay.
>> The other thing is I think we have to
[4:30] eliminate Oak Point from Engineers. I'm
the clerk of the corporation. So,
[4:35] » okay.
>> Yeah.
[4:37] » Okay.
>> Maybe a little problematic. [laughter]
[4:40] » So, so speaking of Oak Point, they more
than likely they would have prints to
[4:47] the should have prints to the fire
station, right?
[4:50] » I I would guess, but in 1998, I don't
know whether they keep records that far.
[4:55] » I can certainly inquire
>> if they I can inquire to the fact that
[4:59] we cannot find our prints. And if the
prints do exist that they have a copy of
[5:04] them, we appreciate that.
>> I think that would be good real good
[5:08] information.
>> Well, that would be good for for any any
[5:11] other firm that would be coming in to
take a look at to see if those print and
[5:16] then when they start doing the
examination whether the the prints
[5:20] coincide with what actually was built.
And hopefully there was a clerk and
[5:25] there was a review of that project when
it was being built.
[5:32] Okay. So, Tom, you said you were going
to take a take a quick peek and come up
[5:36] with some comments or I
>> I've got them, but they're all written
[5:39] out and you know, you guys couldn't read
it.
[5:41] » Yeah.
[5:44] » I'm going to have it retyped up and I'll
I'll circulate it among everybody.
[5:48] » Yep. That's fair. And we
>> What is What is it? You've got things to
[5:55] add to this.
>> I got changes in wording. Yeah. And a
[5:58] few things I wanted to add. I mean I
think one of the things we got to add
[6:01] here is we want to know what uh
interruption there would be in the
[6:04] service if the um project was undertaken
as proposed. Um so I mean that's not
[6:12] here and I thought we ought to inquire
about that is one of the thing but I
[6:16] just got a few other just you know way
in which I would word it. It's not
[6:20] better than case but throw it out there
and go from there.
[6:25] I I think that needs to be worded in a
way of
[6:32] I can't know I keep saying this but
finding a way to get to yes that that
[6:38] what we are looking for is an
engineering approach that will
[6:46] minimize disruption of current
operations
[6:50] and
[6:55] avoid code compliance
problems that had to cost. I I I do I
[7:01] was wondering I I I had said in in an
email I think I copied everybody on it
[7:08] um that we should include the size of
the doors
[7:14] and what the vertical clearance inside
needs to be
[7:20] both
just for the trucks going through but
[7:24] also
uh to allow for the the door and
[7:28] whatever is above. the door. Um,
is it is that something that should be
[7:35] in here?
>> I don't I don't I don't have that. But,
[7:40] uh, you know, once I I mean, we can work
it through once we get to a place where
[7:44] everybody's comfortable with.
>> Did Didn't anybody get the email that I
[7:51] sent?
>> I did not get it.
[7:54] » Okay.
[7:59] I didn't get an email either unless you
sent it just to my work. I was not at
[8:02] work today so I didn't get it either.
Anybody else got any comments?
[8:15] » The green
um when
[8:19] » date the name please.
>> Melanie Mitchell.
[8:23] Um when the architectural engineer goes
out to do the inspection of a fire
[8:28] station building um are the committee
members welcomed while they while he's
[8:35] doing the inspection um create a
dialogue and maybe ask some other
[8:39] questions that would help create a
better building plan
[8:46] that is that possible for the other
committee members to go out
[8:50] » I'm I'm confused and I you know I'll lay
And what we're doing right now with this
[8:55] RFP would to hire a structural engineer
to review the existing structure,
[9:01] nothing more at this point. Provide how
it was built, what what the trusses are,
[9:07] what the masonry is, what insulation
packages are there to provide us a
[9:13] review of that information. And then
based on the stuff that you would and I
[9:18] think that um select board member Basser
would like to have is those questions
[9:23] then can be asked of this expert after
he's reviewed the building. I think
[9:28] that's important for him to have an
independent review of the building on
[9:32] his own before any questions are asked.
Well, I I just my concern is partly that
[9:41] it'd be nice to have one have a dialogue
with whoever is is doing it doing the
[9:48] inspection. Um, and additionally to
that, the the fire station members are
[9:54] also going to be present there while
this inspection is happening. So, for
[10:00] transparency purposes, I think I'm just
saying it may may be a good idea.
[10:06] » Well, I mean, I I wouldn't think that
anybody from the fire station is going
[10:12] to
um
[10:15] get the structural engineer to say
something other than what is actually
[10:18] there. He's putting his name, he's
putting his stamp on it. He's not going
[10:22] to set himself up to any future
litigation down the road. So no matter
[10:26] what people tell him, he's I wouldn't
think that he's going to be influenced.
[10:30] He's signing his name to it. So I
>> Okay. And I completely understand that.
[10:35] But I'm also going to draw bring back
into question the port city architect
[10:40] letter that um had cited things in that
letter that was
[10:47] stated as fact and as code which were
not. So,
[10:54] I don't I I just want to have a fire
department built with transparency and
[11:02] something that the voters and the town
of Arundo want that's transparent and is
[11:07] open. Um, and and I don't want all this
scrutiny that's attached to it. But I
[11:13] didn't create that scrutiny. I just
researched and and found answers. And um
[11:21] you know I I I do bring into question
you know Port City and the the work that
[11:28] they've done so far and the the letter
in itself that they did write
[11:35] um it's it does bring up a lot of
questions and it has attached to it an
[11:40] integrity issue.
So, I mean, I I think that their letter
[11:45] certainly begs questions to say that
their information is not factual. I
[11:51] think it's incorrect. You ran it through
your AI. I ran it through three
[11:55] different other AIS and none of the
information came back that said it was
[11:59] not factual. It's it's
>> and so do I. And it's just a matter of
[12:06] there are more questions that need to be
asked. sort of to sit on and say port
[12:11] city your letter is wrong I think is
gaslighting them and it's incorrect. We
[12:15] need to get more information before we
can actually say whether they're right
[12:19] or they're wrong and that's what the
structural engineer will do.
[12:23] » It depends on what question you you
question asked.
[12:25] » I asked the same question that you did
Melanie. So I I I don't want to get into
[12:29] the discussion. We're going to we're
going to have the these architects come
[12:32] in. They're going to do their their
study and I mean what more do you guys
[12:38] want? How many structural engineers do
you guys want us to bring here? Right.
[12:42] » I just bringing up a question. Is it's
not okay to ask questions now?
[12:46] » No, it's not okay to answer.
>> No.
[12:50] » Okay.
>> Like come on. Um, the other question
[12:55] that I had was with the RFP is if uh if
some other architectural firm,
[13:03] engineering firm sees this, hears about
this RFP, are they allowed if they're
[13:07] not on the list to
to um to answer the RFP? Is that would
[13:15] that be an acceptable practice?
>> Of course it would. Yeah. Yeah. I the
[13:18] the list can be if the if the board
decides that they want it to go out to
[13:23] every structural engineer in the state
of Maine, I can do that. If they I only
[13:28] provided a list and then uh select board
member Basset provided somebody that he
[13:33] knew. Um and so if you have somebody
that you that is a structural engineer
[13:39] that's licensed in the state of Maine,
then I don't have a problem sending them
[13:43] an RFP.
>> Good.
[13:46] » Yeah. I I'm just trying to help. I'm not
trying to make this more of a confusing
[13:52] process. I'm not trying to disrupt the
process. I just want it to be a better
[13:57] process because I have people asking me
questions about it, too. And I want to
[14:01] be able to answer those questions the
best that I can. And if I don't have the
[14:05] answers, I'd love to be able to send
them to this board or to the committee.
[14:10] And I I think that's only fair and
that's the only reason why I'm here.
[14:17] Okay. Any other comments from the board?
>> Y.
[14:22] » So, as soon as you get all that
information, you will send this RFP.
[14:25] » Yeah, we'll we'll have to look at it
again and then
[14:28] » Tom will give me his stuff and then um
maybe we'll have it on our agenda for
[14:32] the 14th.
>> Yeah.
[14:35] » Discuss it again.
[14:40] Chip, mic, turn your mic on, please.
No.
[14:47] All right. Um, the other item that we
have is Chip, you wanted to talk about
[14:53] the audit
[14:56] scheduled. It It's scheduled for the 5th
to the 9th of October.
[15:03] We we provided all the information
they've requested preliminary before
[15:07] they come in and do their complete
review. All that information has been
[15:11] provided to them. They have scheduled it
and they've scheduled it from the 5th to
[15:15] the 9th.
>> Question.
[15:17] » Okay. What are we talking about?
>> That's the one we're waiting for right
[15:21] now.
>> Waiting for Okay. Yeah. All right.
[15:25] » My my concern, the reason I I brought it
up was in the context of setting a tax
[15:31] rate.
It it's troubling to me to set a tax
[15:34] rate for
um
[15:38] the
this fiscal year when we don't have an
[15:43] audit from 2025
uh particularly when we're talking about
[15:48] spending fund balance uh to reduce the
tax rate. I I would like to have the
[15:54] confidence of a completed audit uh
before we do that. obviously not going
[16:00] to be able to have the the uh completed
audit. I I I
[16:08] do not understand why it has taken so
long to get this audit completed.
[16:17] » The the audit is complete. It's like,
you know, we
[16:22] » the the materials have all been the
materials that are requested by the
[16:26] auditor's firm has been collected and
provided to them. They now will do their
[16:31] their uh analysis. They'll come in and
and check the balances and pull pull um
[16:39] um
um
[16:42] » payables and samples and and look at all
those and then provide us a complete
[16:48] » and we can't we can't provide them that
until we close our books, right?
[16:52] » Well, no. Yeah, we're all set with air.
Um this, you know, we're we're set for
[16:57] that. So,
>> I think what Chip is asking is you want
[17:01] you want a complete audit of this last
year before we set the tax rate. Is that
[17:06] what you're asking?
>> I I think that that
[17:10] I'm I'm not asking that because it's
obviously not feasible.
[17:15] » Correct.
>> Okay. But I I am disturbed that it that
[17:20] the audit has been delayed so long. The
town now has all of the material
[17:28] numbers etc. the internal audit
information available. I don't
[17:34] understand why it took
three or four extra months compared to a
[17:41] normal year to get that squared away.
Normally the audit is in the annual
[17:48] report which is provided at town meeting
in June. It's September
[17:54] and the audit isn't done. And I'm I I I
don't understand what the problem was,
[18:01] why it's been delayed so long.
[18:11] Am I the only one who who who thinks
that this is a problem?
[18:21] For me, I have not examined the audit in
terms of setting the tax rate. It's been
[18:27] what we get from the assessor. That
information has been what we relied
[18:31] upon.
That's just me.
[18:41] Okay.
This is the audit that was
[18:47] Melanie Mitchell. Was this the audit
that was supposed to be in the town
[18:49] report book last year that we're talking
about that wasn't in there?
[18:54] » Yes.
>> Okay.
[19:06] We have everything in place so that
next year
[19:12] » Yeah.
to chips. He already asked if we can
[19:16] expedite next year's by sometime in the
first of the of the year and try to get
[19:22] it done before we give course to it.
I've already we've already provided that
[19:27] information to the auditor. Okay. Thank
you.
[19:32] » Okay. Um, anybody got anything else?
[19:38] Looking for a motion to adjourn at 6:45
p.m. Some of Wow. Second.
[19:46] » Motion by Velma, seconded by Phil. Any
other discussion? All those in favor?