[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?

Arundel Select Board 9-8-26

Transcript