[0:35] Um,
>> this is
[4:25] public comment.
>> No, not yet.
[4:30] » I think we're ready to go. If you don't
already,
[4:33] » let me call the RO first.
>> At this point, are we on?
[4:38] » Yes.
>> Okay. At this point, I would like to
[4:40] welcome you all to the November 26, 2025
Ponopscot County Commissioners meeting.
[4:47] I will call the role of Commissioner
Treble
[4:50] » here.
>> Commissioner Marshall
[4:51] » here.
>> Mr. Treasurer
[4:52] » here.
>> And the chair is here. This point I
[4:55] would call on the treasurer to lead us
in the pledge of allegiance.
[5:00] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the
[5:05] republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[5:11] justice for all.
>> Thank you very much. Next item on the
[5:15] agenda would be approval of the November
18th, 2025 meeting minutes. May I have a
[5:20] motion?
>> I move approval.
[5:23] » Thank you. Second motion in a second.
Any discussion hearing? None. All those
[5:28] in favor, please say I.
>> I. At this point, we would open for
[5:32] public comment. We allow up to three
minutes per individual on items that are
[5:36] not on our agenda. Is there anyone with
us in the public that would like to make
[5:41] a comment this morning?
Yes, sir. If you would be kind enough to
[5:47] come forward and introduce yourself.
Wayne Maller. I live here in Bangalore.
[5:51] I just I was curious this morning coming
in the building. I noticed an amount of
[5:57] uh someone's belongings in the entryway
and I'm curious as to do you allow
[6:02] people to leave the human was a big box
and a backpack and whatnot.
[6:08] How do we know there's not a bone in it?
I'm just wondering what's going on with
[6:12] that
>> front door. Food. Oh, it is food
[6:15] donations that apparently we are
collecting for the uh the food baskets.
[6:21] » Okay. But I haven't seen it's just looks
strange to see all that.
[6:25] » I I believe the building is secured at
the entryway so you have to buzz in. So
[6:30] you're allowing people to leave items in
the entryway, Mary. And is that how
[6:36] » we are that's in the vest?
>> It's certainly a valid issue. We'll ask
[6:40] sheriff what would be the protocols to
to address that.
[6:45] » It's not a big deal, but it's just we're
having more issues everywhere.
[6:50] » I understand completely. I appreciate
you bringing it to our attention.
[6:53] » Thank you.
>> Any others present that would like to
[6:56] provide public comment on items that are
not on today's agenda?
[7:03] » Do we have We still have no one. Okay.
At this point, I will close our public
[7:07] comment section. I would invite our UT
director and assistant to come forward
[7:12] for their portion of the agenda.
>> Good morning.
[7:16] » Good morning.
Morning.
[7:23] [clears throat]
Pretty brief.
[7:26] Uh we don't have a lot of stuff to
discuss.
[7:30] Milan Marathon the half has been going
on for so many years now. Um we just
[7:35] need you to approve the um the permit.
Uh we've always had the county
[7:40] administrator sign, but we're kind of in
limbo here for today at least. Um so u
[7:47] you put my name on signing the permit.
>> Okay.
[7:49] » Um but we do need you to vote for
approve to authorize there running the
[7:54] marathon [clears throat] and a half
again.
[7:57] » I would move approval as well as waiting
the fee.
[7:59] » Okay. B2
I'll
[8:04] » thank you. I do have one question. Is
this a revenue source for the Marathon
[8:09] or for an entity in Milan?
>> No, not that I'm aware of. However,
[8:13] everybody in Milanino, this thing draws
huge crowds.
[8:17] » Mhm.
>> And uh all businesses seem to gain quite
[8:20] a bit during this process, but I don't
believe there's any revenue stream from
[8:25] the marathon people themselves.
>> Okay. So, it's more of an economic
[8:30] development in the area.
>> I
[8:34] mean, we've historically done that. I I
just feel that we need to be sensitive
[8:39] to any revenue streams for the county in
the future. So we'll
[8:46] have any further discussion.
>> See none. All those in favor please
[8:52] signify by saying I
>> I it is unanimous of those present. Next
[8:56] item, new salt and
>> before we move down, we normally on that
[9:00] topic on the marathon and a half, we
wave the $50 application fee for the
[9:05] » part. That was part of his motion.
Werfect.
[9:09] » Yeah,
>> you're way ahead of me.
[9:10] » Okay.
>> I missed it. Thank you.
[9:15] » Uh the new salt sanded we've been
talking about now for close to a year.
[9:19] Ever since Drew deorgganized,
>> the closest sand shed we have to for the
[9:25] 8 and 12 miles of road that we ser plow
and service in Drew um is not big enough
[9:31] to handle Drew Apprentice and Ching and
McWahawk cuz we work neighbors with
[9:35] McWah hawk and our contractor plows and
sands owns and we charge them a storage
[9:40] fee for their sand. They charge them for
the sand. Um so we're not going to have
[9:45] a big enough shed. For the last two
years, we haven't had a manup shed. So,
[9:49] we've had to pile material untreated
outside and then move it in in the dead
[9:53] of winter and it's not economically it's
not working very well. We've had to do
[9:58] it for 2 years. So, we proposed building
on the land we own, the county UT owns,
[10:04] right beside the fire station in
Kingdom, we proposed building a small
[10:08] sand shed and break that big cloud
contract into two small ones.
[10:12] » It gives us a bigger opportunity for
other contractors to take part.
[10:17] because right now you need three
full-time trucks and a span truck and
[10:20] that's really a big job for a lot of
people. So if we break it in half, I
[10:24] think we'll get some more contractors
bidding on it when it comes up next
[10:27] year. Um so what we've done this summer
and it's taken us all summer to do, we
[10:32] just got it finished last week, was we
had to identify the site where we could
[10:36] build it, where could we legally build
it, where it fit LUPC land use planning
[10:40] commission rules and where it didn't
interrupt any vernal pools. So, we had
[10:44] to have the soils done, the water's
done. We had to pay for all those soil
[10:48] tests, and we've identified a spot to
build it. So, all we've done so far at
[10:53] this point, we got about $3,600 invested
in engineering to identify where we can
[10:58] build it legitimately. Uh, we've done
that. Our next step would be to design
[11:02] the building. Um, rough conversations
with uh Plymouth Engineering, who helped
[11:10] us with a site plan. um they're talking
about in order to fit, 1200 yards in
[11:16] there, we need somewhere around a 50
by75 building.
[11:20] And at today's building cost, they're
looking at $240 to $260 a square foot.
[11:28] So, you're looking at over $900,000 to
build. We weren't prepared for that. We
[11:33] uh we had some money put aside in
escrow, but nowhere's near enough. Uh we
[11:38] planned on using a little bit of the
tiff money because it is an identified
[11:41] source in the tiff district.
>> But um from here forward, I'm just not
[11:47] looking for any approval to start the
building design. That's another 45
[11:51] $4,800 to engineer the building design.
Um, I'm looking to go talk to a couple
[11:57] of contractors who build these sheds on
a routine basis and find out what we
[12:01] could how we could design them and build
them differently that we might save
[12:04] ourselves
$100,000 somewhere. So, I'm just letting
[12:09] you know that we do have a site plan
paid for and approved um but we haven't
[12:15] done any more than that with it. So,
we've got a lot of work to do to
[12:18] identify um how can we build it
different uh and still get the the type
[12:23] of building we need.
>> Have you ever been by the uh the docking
[12:28] area down in Portland and seen those uh
>> Oh, yes. I've seen the docks where they
[12:34] got the plastic or rubber buildings,
whatever.
[12:37] » I believe there's a company in southern
Maine that that makes something like
[12:42] that. I've been in a number of
facilities. I think they're called rum
[12:45] rhub. It may be different.
>> I have plans for those on my desk that I
[12:50] got through the DOT. So by working with
Peter Coughlin at the DOT, um we I've
[12:56] identified all the new ways they've been
building buildings five [clears throat]
[12:59] or six years, but I haven't gone to
those people and talked.
[13:02] » Sure.
>> So today's was just anformational
[13:05] meeting to let you know that we're not
spending any more money on engineering
[13:07] till we find a building we'd like to try
to do. Try to build.
[13:12] » Great. How much is in reserve for that?
>> I've got 108,000 in escrow and we were
[13:18] playing with a number of another three
or 400,000 out of tiff, but I don't
[13:21] think it's going to come close.
>> So, we got to be careful if we build
[13:26] what we build.
>> These are not a heated facility, but
[13:30] they have to be protected from the
elements and have the the roll out doors
[13:34] so you can get down your equipment. the
town of Drew, we own as as a county, we
[13:38] own about a quarter of an acre of land
up there where they used to have their
[13:42] salt pile. Um because of liability
reasons, um we don't want to build
[13:48] there. Um there isn't room enough to
build on that quarter of an acre and the
[13:54] soft pile already has some ground
contamination, so we don't want to add
[13:58] to that. So, it's not a piece of
property we could sell without telling
[14:04] somebody else a liability. According to
the DP, whoever owns it, liable for what
[14:08] happens in the future. So, nobody's
going to be interested in buying that
[14:11] property off. I've talked to the
neighboring landowner and uh if we if we
[14:16] sign off on the liability, you buy it,
but um it's got no value.
[14:21] So, we're going to build a facility
undercover. Are [clears throat] there
[14:25] programs through D that you're aware of
that could help mitigate any?
[14:29] » We've been working with the D on that
since we took over drill um to find out
[14:35] what you could do there. Um and we
haven't resolved anything yet. There
[14:40] isn't really much we could do. U it
would be massively expensive to clean
[14:45] all the salt up out of there cuz you
know salt migrates so it would be
[14:50] difficult. There's no homes anywhere
near it. No wells anywhere's near it, so
[14:54] we're safe for for tomorrow.
>> Great. Well, thank you. So, no action
[14:58] today on that. Just
>> no action. Just an update for you guys
[15:01] to know that we're still working to try
and identify a building that we can
[15:05] afford.
>> Question.
[15:07] » Yes, please.
>> So, you're open to the rub style fabric
[15:10] building and not just
>> I am once I learn more about longevity.
[15:14] Yeah.
>> They have a very good track record.
[15:17] » They do.
>> Yeah. And they'd be happy to come up and
[15:19] and check.
>> Okay. So, you've experienced
[15:21] » I have not talked to them recently, but
I've had business with them before.
[15:25] Looked very hard at using their building
instead of one we built, which was over
[15:29] $900,000.
Theirs would have been considerably
[15:33] cheaper.
>> Well, that that's the information we're
[15:35] looking for is stuff like that.
>> We built a 120 by 85.
[15:40] » Yeah, we've got six alanches in the
county in our in the UT that we maintain
[15:45] now. So, I hate to put another one out
there to maintain. We looked at we
[15:49] looked at growing the current one we
have adding to it so we could fit the
[15:53] sand under underneath it but it's so far
from the roads in Kingman that it just
[15:58] adds to the cost of the plowing
contract. So we're hoping to reduce some
[16:02] cost over time.
>> The nice part about the rub building is
[16:05] you can pick it up and move it if you
need to decade down the road and if
[16:10] piece of equipment punches a hole in it,
it can be fixed. It's not like a hole in
[16:15] the wood. I've I've been in several
facilities. There's a sports complex in
[16:19] Roderville that uses that. There's a
number of large facilities down on the
[16:24] docks in Portland. U it it seems to be
and I've seen them nationally, too. It's
[16:30] not just in Maine, but it it is nice to
know that there's a local company that
[16:35] could provide that level of uh
maintenance if necessary. Well, that's
[16:40] our job over the winter is to identify
a better building that fits our needs.
[16:45] So you have Rub's contact information
because
[16:47] » I do [clears throat] from the DOT. Okay.
>> Yeah. Thank you, George. Um,
[16:52] » our regional animal control officer,
it's annual time to renew all of our
[16:57] contracts with our 17 towns that we work
with. Um, we're looking at she's
[17:02] currently at 1775 an hour and we're
looking at u somewhere around a 3%
[17:08] increase. give her 1825
and
[17:13] we this is the individual we supplied
the the the video code to
[17:18] » Yep. Yep. And that's um that we charge
the towns uh 57 cents a mile for her
[17:26] efforts and um we haven't increased that
in a very long time. But I know that's
[17:32] the standard that the county lives by
now. And so until the county reviews
[17:37] what you're going to pay back the
personal mileage, it we'll be this
[17:40] contract will have another 57 cents a
mile in it until we review as a county
[17:44] what we want to do. And I think we
generally align with the federal
[17:48] allowances for mileage. State
[17:53] » I I think they generally are, but if you
might just have somebody maybe if there
[17:58] was somebody from finance here that knew
that maybe they could assist you in
[18:02] updating the commission so we can vote
on that. And
[18:06] » George, that uh that's for personal
vehicles, right?
[18:10] » Yeah. Paying back for personal buyers.
Do any any animal control officers have
[18:14] they have county vehicles that you're
aware of anywhere?
[18:17] » Yeah, Hancock County has a regional
animal control officer that has
[18:21] » All others are personal vehicles.
>> I I think Lincoln County may run theirs
[18:26] through the sheriff's department, too.
So, they may be providing. I met the
[18:30] lady when I was down there a few months
ago. They have one person that covers
[18:34] almost all of Lincoln County's
community.
[18:37] » We have two other animal control
officers and they take personal mileage,
[18:40] use their personal vehicle. They're not
they're not covering anywhere.
[18:44] » How does our accomp?
[18:50] » Very well. So far, you know, they work
they coordinate back and forth. If u if
[18:55] one of the organized towns has an acco
that they pay and they go on vacation,
[19:00] they'll hire us. [clears throat] Like
right now, Howland and Enfield, we don't
[19:03] do them full-time. We only do that when
they're ACO. Is there a renumeration
[19:07] involved in that or is it just a
courtesy?
[19:12] » It's a
it's a it's a contract we have with
[19:16] them. So they pay time and mileage
>> only when we put in time and mile.
[19:21] There's no stip.
>> Is this the one is this for next
[19:24] calendar year this contract?
>> Uh the acco contracts all calendar.
[19:29] » I would move we approve this adjust by
1825. Okay. We have a motion to increase
[19:37] the uh acco pay as recommended by UT
director.
[19:41] » 1825. I'll second
>> 1875.
[19:46] » 1825. 1775. Right. Now, right be
correct. 1825 from 1775.
[19:52] » It's a 50 cent
>> increase. Okay.
[19:55] » All right.
>> Yeah. I second.
[19:58] » I have a motion to second. Further
discussion hearing none. All those in
[20:02] favor, please say I. I
>> I unanimous.
[20:05] » Just for discussion purposes, we've been
charging for many years now 3%
[20:10] administration fee on top of the mileage
and hourly rate. I don't think this is a
[20:16] good year to increase our administrative
fee to our towns, but we ought to review
[20:21] that in the future and maybe we can put
that on the list the budget advisory and
[20:26] strategic plan to look at fees. That
would be administrative fees
[20:34] to the communities.
Um,
[20:39] » I don't think this would be a very good
year to ask for another increase in
[20:43] administrative.
>> And then there's also the mileage
[20:46] question, which I think Brenda's here,
so she's aware of our interest.
[20:50] » Administrative fees to UTS only.
>> This would be administrative fees that
[20:54] we would assess to communities for
services provided to them. So right now
[20:58] we're talking about animal control.
>> Yeah.
[21:01] » But we should probably inventory other
services where we may collaborate with
[21:06] communities.
>> So not necessarily just
[21:09] » Yeah.
Any other comments or questions on that?
[21:16] » The ambulance contract we talked about
last week. I went back to the director
[21:20] of the patent ambulance. um his select
board has told him that no more
[21:25] multi-year contracts uh until things
iron out uh cost and expense wise. So,
[21:30] we're only going to get the one-year
contract. So, it's a $30,000.
[21:34] » Everybody's kind of skittish on that
issue right now until st until prices
[21:38] stabilize.
>> Everybody's nervous because they don't
[21:41] want to get stuck holding a contract to
a three-year contract and then have
[21:46] things change again.
>> The one year, right? You just have to go
[21:49] see if we can do longer than You
approved one year. We You didn't list it
[21:53] as an update.
>> Yeah.
[21:54] » Yeah.
>> We had January one to December December
[21:57] 31st of next year, right?
>> Just to make it simpler and more
[22:01] continuous. [laughter]
>> We keep asking for multi-year contracts.
[22:06] It's getting harder to get those. Yeah.
>> And Hammond Ridge is just an update
[22:10] where as you remember that Matt Pstein
from New England Outdoor Center has
[22:15] started a has applied for and applied
for permitting of a very [clears throat]
[22:19] large development up there adding on to
his complex. So we met with Matt um some
[22:26] months ago and his lawyers and we're
trying to come up with
[22:29] » if a uh tax increment finance program is
even feasible uh for this project. And
[22:36] uh this is the second meeting and the
second step in a long process. We don't
[22:41] know if uh we know that the whole
project cannot be taxing financed. Parts
[22:46] and pieces of it are residential and
therefore don't fit the program.
[22:49] However, there are commercial aspects of
the development that we can do some kind
[22:54] of a tip program with. But at what
financing value and uh and how much work
[22:59] and what cost is it going to be? So,
we're going to identify what it's going
[23:02] to cost us to get this program off the
ground and then find out if if and how
[23:06] much it might be to benefit us through
the taxing finance program.
[23:11] » And our our attorneys are working with
their attorneys on ironing out these
[23:15] » eyeing out the cost and the feasibility.
>> Yeah. And so, I just want to let you
[23:19] know when we meet at Redmond and Win on
the second. Um,
[23:23] » is that down here, George?
It's I think it's on your agenda, but I
[23:29] don't think you have it in your schedule
to do it.
[23:33] » December 2nd
>> at their
[23:34] » at 1:30 at Redmond Hotel
>> at their bang.
[23:37] » Yes.
>> Oh, that's right here in Bangalore,
[23:40] right?
>> You're all welcome. Um fun to learn.
[23:44] » No, but we're going to be here on the
third
[23:48] commission.
>> It's just an information to let you guys
[23:50] know where we're at on that process.
Yeah,
[23:53] » it may not even make sense to have a
tiff district up there. We don't know
[23:56] yet. So, this is a big step.
>> That's all we have
[24:02] » except for questions from
>> one thing that came in very late in the
[24:05] week. I forgot to tell you about um I
mentioned it at our uh department head
[24:10] meeting, but officially uh the town of
Maxfield is going to take a
[24:13] deorgganization vote on December 15th.
Um, so Commissioner Mars and I are
[24:19] planning on attending
that. Um, and if if [clears throat] they
[24:24] vote to be organized, it's it's a long
process. It could be a year, year and a
[24:28] half before they get to that point. So,
uh, we'll keep they [clears throat]
[24:32] haven't voted yet. We we went through
this last fall with Webster and they
[24:36] voted not to do, so it could still fall
apart.
[24:40] » Just anformational note.
>> Appreciate it. You bet. All right. Thank
[24:44] you. Have a great day.
>> You too. Happy Thanksgiving
[24:47] » and to you as well.
>> Next up is
[24:52] » Wendy Dana
advisory committee discussion.
[24:58] » Good morning. Good morning.
>> Welcome back.
[25:01] » I haven't met you yet. I'm Wendy Dana.
>> Thank you.
[25:04] » Pleasure. What's your name?
>> Gary Lamb.
[25:06] » Gary.
>> Just like the furry little critter.
[25:08] » Okay. Not not as furry.
>> Hello.
[25:13] » Hello. So tell us what you have to share
this morning.
[25:16] » Oh, I got to change my glasses.
>> Okay.
[25:20] » All right.
And Ryan, is Jamie on?
[25:23] » Yes, she is.
>> Oh, lovely. Good morning.
[25:26] » Good morning.
>> Do you want to kick us off or would you
[25:30] like me to?
>> This is the chair for the opioid
[25:34] advisory committee, Jamie Beck.
>> Oh, Jamie. Oh,
[25:37] » hi. Good morning. [sighs and gasps]
Thank you for allowing us to come back
[25:41] and talk with you all this morning. Um,
I appreciate being able to come in by
[25:44] Zoom. I've got a turkey in the oven. Um,
I just wanted to uh say again, thank you
[25:51] for uh the opportunity to continue to
serve on this committee. We uh have
[25:56] received all of the applications and the
application process did close on the
[26:00] 15th. Uh we received 33 in total and
those have been divvied up amongst the
[26:06] committee members. um each of us or each
application is going to be scored by
[26:11] three of us and we'll take an average of
the scores and uh talk about how that
[26:16] all shakes out once we're done with our
scoring uh which we anticipate to be by
[26:21] December 10th so that we can have our
collective meeting on the 17th and have
[26:25] a recommendation to you before
Christmas. So, thank you.
[26:29] » That is our current strategy plan for
being able to get this done as quickly
[26:35] and as well as possible. Um,
we have learned many things along the
[26:42] way through this application process.
Uh, mostly that we want to um have a
[26:48] different software platform for any
future um application processes that we
[26:53] would be helping out with. Um, this one
ended up being a little bit more
[26:56] cumbersome than we all wanted it to be
and we're uh going to work those kinks
[27:00] out for sure. Um, Wendy, did you have
anything else you wanted to add about
[27:04] any of that?
>> No, I think it went really well. Um,
[27:09] there is going to be some collaboration
with the city as well and I did
[27:15] encourage
>> city of Bangor.
[27:17] » Yeah. Yeah. And
you now you threw me.
[27:22] » Sorry about that. probably my to me the
city of San Francisco, [laughter]
[27:26] the city of Bangor. Yes.
So I have uh sent a template over to
[27:31] Carolyn who is the uh city manager so
that it was the one that we used for
[27:36] ARPA and um you know whenever they're
ready we'll go through it and you know
[27:42] look at anyone that has um applied to
both and so far I mean we have quite a
[27:49] few some of the folks we know of you
know that we've worked with in the past
[27:54] um doing recovery and and some that are
new to me that I haven't heard of. So,
[27:59] um it'll be nice to see and I I just
started reading through the applications
[28:03] and then I'll go back through it again.
Um but it'll be nice to see what kind of
[28:08] projects they're going to be putting
forward for this.
[28:10] » Wendy, uh we're looking at is it
December 17th you're going to make your
[28:14] recommendation to the commission on on
our meeting on the 17th? December 17th.
[28:19] » The Well, let's see.
>> It's the 23rd was it? Or
[28:24] » correct? So, our committee is going to
be meeting on the 17th so that we can
[28:29] have our conversation and then from that
meeting we will be um able to give what
[28:35] we've come up with for our
recommendations to include in your
[28:38] packets for the following week.
>> Okay. And on the 23rd when you after
[28:42] you've made your recommendation, what do
you envision? Uh are we are we going to
[28:48] be in a position to vote on these at
that point on the 23rd?
[28:52] Is that what you're
>> We're hoping so. [clears throat]
[28:54] Yes, we're hoping to be able to give you
our recommendation for with the $400,000
[29:00] available, these are the projects that
we're recommending for award and uh we
[29:05] would be looking to you to approve them
um at that point.
[29:09] » Okay, great. Okay, wonderful. And do we
know how many there are right now?
[29:14] » 33.
>> 33.
[29:17] You you had mentioned Jamie that you had
divided those to three members of the
[29:23] committee. Do we still have a fourth
member from the recovery committee? I
[29:28] believe we appointed a fourth member if
I'm not mistaken.
[29:32] » Correct. So actually there are six of us
on the committee total and all six of us
[29:37] are going to be doing the scoring for
the entirety of these applications. But
[29:43] each application will only have three of
us scoring it just so that we're not
[29:47] each having to do 33 applications.
That's a lot to try and accomplish and
[29:51] do well uh to review in a short amount
of time. So each application will have
[29:56] three scorers. Um so each of us are
doing either 16 or 17 applications
[30:01] total.
>> So you you developed an internal uh
[30:04] scoring process that you are going to
present at that time.
[30:09] » Yes. So when we were working with the
MOSS center, they came up with and
[30:13] presented to us and we uh went through
and uh solidified using their template
[30:20] uh scoring rubric. So there are 10
different categories with which we're
[30:24] going to review each one of the
applications. Um and I not sure if that
[30:29] made it into your packet, but we're
happy to send that along. Um but of
[30:33] course there things on there like um did
they follow the directions of the
[30:38] application. Um looking at the lead
organization's description and project
[30:43] personnel looking at the project
description. Um the goal areas the
[30:48] rationale and the data to support the
need for the project. Looking at the
[30:52] timeline feasibility sustainability that
kind of thing and the scope of the work.
[30:57] So, these are pretty um objective
measures that we're going to be looking
[31:02] at. Um and again, this is a template
that the MOS center has come up with and
[31:06] other entities who've worked with the
MOS Center to uh score these kinds of
[31:12] RFPs for opioid settlement funding have
used a very similar process.
[31:19] » And we do use the Moss Group for um we
use them for PRIA. um they were really
[31:26] helpful with uh working with the
department of justice when they came out
[31:31] um for the mental health grant. So
they really do work with a lot of um
[31:39] a lot of different government entities.
So
[31:42] » uh
>> they have a good background.
[31:44] » Uh I'm assuming we approve uh those
applicants or some of those applicants
[31:48] on that day. What do we uh what time
frame are doing? I mean that'd be a
[31:52] great Christmas present. I mean, it's on
the 23rd. Uh, when do you when did we
[31:57] when would we anticipate checks getting
into the hands of the of the applicants?
[32:04] » Well, I I think from my perspective,
just myself, uh, we would follow a
[32:09] similar course that we did with the ARPA
money and we would not just write the
[32:16] checks to everyone if there were capital
projects or some level. Is that how you
[32:22] kind of envision this?
>> Like a pay down type of scenario.
[32:27] » To be honest, this is such a small
amount of money. You know what I mean?
[32:31] This is not a draw down process because
this is, you know, up to or right under
[32:38] 50 grand. So, it would really be like
when you gentlemen did the
[32:42] commissioner's fund, right?
>> The commissioner's fund is a it's not a
[32:46] large amount. So, we don't need to u do
a draw down process. Obviously, we're
[32:51] going to want to know, okay, when is the
project in in mind? When are you able to
[32:55] kick it off? What does it involve? Um,
some of these are going to be small
[33:00] amounts of no, we would not, you know,
if they're like $10,000 or something.
[33:05] But I would say that um yeah, we want to
I'm the way that I'm looking at this
[33:11] logically and knowing how we worked with
ARPA is yes, we will be able to give you
[33:16] the applications that we want to put
forward um for you to consider. I know
[33:21] it's going to take time for you to look
at the applications and um you're going
[33:28] to have questions, I would think. So I'm
not trying to poo poo it being fast. I'm
[33:34] just saying logically it's going to take
a little bit of time for us to for you
[33:39] to go through them and decide
what you want, you know, how you feel
[33:44] about it. So, and obviously, you know,
we know what we're doing. I would hope
[33:48] so. We're not willy-nilly picking
people. Um,
[33:52] » you've got a pretty good track record
with us when
[33:54] » Yeah.
>> And so do the people on the C. I mean,
[33:57] look at like Pat Kimble, you know, like
there's there's folks that work um with
[34:02] larger entities. So, My guess would be
that this is not something that we want
[34:08] to take weeks brewing over, you know,
and yes, they are going to need this
[34:12] funding. And if some of them need it for
warming shelters, I would say sooner
[34:15] rather than later.
>> Well, that's what I'm thinking. I I I
[34:18] think get it out the door cuz it's not
these are all going to be these all
[34:23] under 50, right?
>> Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. So, and the only
[34:27] time it would be more still wouldn't be
more than 50 is if we collaborated on
[34:31] something with the city.
>> So, and they should have, you know,
[34:37] their decisions out pretty soon as well.
>> We only collaborate with Bangor. What
[34:42] about I don't believe they
>> didn't actually get any opioid
[34:46] settlement funds. The only other local
entity who did was old um Oro and I
[34:51] believe they've already allocated all of
their funds that they have currently
[34:54] [clears throat] or
>> they allocated
[34:56] » it. They did and they're so small to be
honest. Like I've tried to reach out
[35:00] before on stuff and and it isn't it's
just not very significant. So I know
[35:04] that they have whatever
>> I don't want to snub anybody else and
[35:08] just get
>> Yeah, of course.
[35:11] » But they also don't have like the
service requests that Banglord does. No,
[35:16] I understand that this is this is the
ground zero for
[35:20] » for services for the county. I
understand that.
[35:23] » I think where this is a new experience
for the both the opioid advisory
[35:27] committee and the commission. We we
certainly want to understand the scope
[35:33] of what we're doing. And personally, my
takeaway is that whatever we do to
[35:38] collaborate and assure that
this is not a one-time
[35:44] hit that that we're developing some
level of plan for how this money could
[35:50] be applied because I think we're all
cognizant of the fact that the amount we
[35:54] have will not solve the problem. But
wherever it can be multiplied in its
[35:59] effectiveness
and of course
[36:03] it is incumbent on us to to reflect on
what it means to the county and our
[36:09] correctional facilities and their needs
before we we commit to long-term plans
[36:16] that could absorb all of the remaining
money.
[36:18] » Well, and I want people to realize too
that are listening online or out there
[36:22] that um this is not a lot of money. You
know, unfortunately, I wish we had
[36:27] millions and millions given
[clears throat and cough] to us, but you
[36:30] know, per year, we're only looking at,
which may sound like a lot to some, but
[36:34] to actually affect change, we only are
going to be seeing about, you know,
[36:39] between 200 and 300,000 per year and it
just trickles down. So
[36:46] um
we really want to take advantage of what
[36:49] we can as far as you know the amount of
money that we are seeing and making it
[36:54] be useful but you know we can only do so
much with with what we have.
[37:01] » I appreciate that. I I think the other
factor I would just ask due
[37:06] consideration is that you coordinate
with the finance director in in terms of
[37:11] when these payments would go up.
>> Absolutely.
[37:14] Right.
>> Yes.
[37:18] » Okay. The treasurer has some thoughts on
that that I'm sure he and the finance
[37:23] director will work with.
>> Yeah, sounds good.
[37:26] » Now, because I have you here and I don't
want to scurry off too fast, Jamie had
[37:31] presented some paperwork that we have
put in your binder for you to have a
[37:34] look at. Um, and this is the
request for strategic guidance. So, it's
[37:41] going forward and it's uh Jamie, do you
have it in front of you?
[37:47] » Yes, I do.
>> You can take it away if you'd like, but
[37:51] um
>> I just want to make sure we get
[37:55] » beforehand. Have we had a chance as the
commissioners to look at this?
[37:58] » I haven't seen this.
>> Okay. I I think I respect
[38:03] » there were a number of questions. It
appears that these were reduced to a
[38:08] about four.
>> Yep. I'm not prepared to give answers
[38:12] today on all of these questions.
>> You were or aren't?
[38:15] » I am not.
>> You are not. Okay. So, okay. So, when
[38:20] are when are you do you think going to
be able to have a look at them?
[38:24] » I think we need to have that discussion
before we I understand the committee's
[38:29] desire to do this, but we're looking at
a first round that we've not had a lot
[38:35] of experience. While we've done things
through the commissioner's fund, there
[38:38] are some obligations with the opioid
opioid money which are different. And
[38:44] we've not yet had a chance for the
sheriff to weigh in long term on what
[38:48] some of his needs and plans are. We know
that we're not getting $4 million at
[38:54] this point for Matt funding in the 2728.
>> Certainly not. Right. So that based upon
[39:00] the need for Matt services in the jail
that could use opioid money to
[39:08] supplement that loss needs to be
reflected on. So there's there's a
[39:12] couple unanswered questions in my mind
before we can give you clear guidance on
[39:18] this.
>> So real quick, I'm just going to say
[39:20] that um just to put a bug in your ear on
it. Um, so the first one when it talks
[39:26] about the total amount that we have, so
I'm going to pull out a quickie.
[39:33] » Okay,
>> put in your mind what you want to do for
[39:35] round two as far as is it going to be
the same amount, is it going to be less
[39:40] or more?
>> Okay.
[39:41] » Um, for the second one, uh, we do have
the the math question and,
[39:48] uh, we know that it's not going to be
funded as it has in the past. So, we had
[39:55] reached out to Sheriff Morton to find
out um what it looks like his budget
[40:00] might be as far as what um he's going to
need. So, I think before he was we had
[40:05] talked about it was like 20 25,000 a
year or something like that, but that
[40:09] was not already taken care of by the
state.
[40:13] » So, we'll get a better number on that
from him before you have to even
[40:16] consider that. We'll ask um I'm going to
put down we're going to ask the sheriff
[40:20] about that.
Um, so regarding the collaboration, we
[40:26] did touch on that a little bit of
working with the city and it was it was
[40:31] so nice to be able to actually work with
them before because um I already do have
[40:36] some idea of how we worked it. So
thankfully this is not going to be like
[40:41] something new that we do.
>> Um,
[40:43] » can I check for just a second?
>> Sure.
[40:47] Um, I think that this is kind of the
crux of all the questions of uh once
[40:53] we've completed this first round of RFPs
and we've uh made our recommendations to
[40:59] you and that $400,000 that uh was the
sum total of the first round.
[41:05] At least personally, I would love to
have a little bit more guidance and
[41:10] understanding around how much we are
able to collaborate with the city uh of
[41:17] Bangor knowing that obviously we are
having funding coming in continually uh
[41:23] until 2036 as are they and are is there
a desire and a possibility for our
[41:31] committee and the city of Bangor's
committee to actually dig into specific
[41:37] gaps within the community rather than
putting out general RFP for anything
[41:41] that might fall under exhibit E, which
is kind of the scope of where we were um
[41:47] asking people to put in projects in. So,
if we're able to collaborate and
[41:54] designate, okay, we're going to maybe do
a specific RFP for
[41:59] just as a random example, recovery
residences or we're going to have an an
[42:05] RFP for uh doing uh treatment post detox
so that it's not the entire scope and
[42:15] we're sprinkling money across an entire
space that every piece of this is
[42:20] needed, but really working with the city
to identify what are the most critical
[42:24] needs that this money can have the most
impact on and what amount of money would
[42:30] we be allowed to kind of bring to the
table for that conversation. That's at
[42:35] least my thought process moving forward
because I know that what we're going to
[42:41] be able to help allocate out right now
for this 400,000 is going to be really
[42:46] helpful for those organizations. But it
would be really important for the
[42:52] county, for the region, for Bangor, for
everybody if we can do some really
[42:57] strategic, thoughtful planning around
can we put this money to the best use
[43:03] focusing on one or two larger projects
that are going to take a little bit more
[43:08] money, but the impact is going to be so
much more significant.
[43:12] I hope that that kind of background
helps in where we're kind of going with
[43:16] these questions.
Thank you.
[43:19] » And I will say like something that is
really in my mind is, you know, the
[43:25] city, no offense to anybody in the city,
but the city got their money, right?
[43:29] This is the county's money. We are not
throwing all of this. I mean, I'm saying
[43:35] that just out there, but
yes, this Bangor is a service area, but
[43:40] there are so many places that are out in
the county that need help. So we are
[43:48] being really careful when we're going
through the applications too to make
[43:51] sure that we are taking care of our
county as well. So
[43:56] we're not saying that we're trying to p
push all this money into Bangor because
[44:01] we have a county to think of. So that's
really, you know, something that I would
[44:05] like to concentrate on as well and I'm
sure obviously you do too that this is
[44:11] really important. collaboration is
important for the bigger amounts, but we
[44:15] do need to make sure that we are really
like focused on the
[44:19] » Yeah, I I represent the 40,000 people
north of Bangor, so we have needs up
[44:24] there. Uh I'm I'm interested in working
with the in a collaborative effort with
[44:28] the city of Bangor, but I have uh I have
uh uh groups up there that I'm going to
[44:35] be looking to take care of making sure
that they have a piece of the pie to
[44:40] address the problem that we are having
in the in the hinterland. So it's it's
[44:44] not going to be to the exclusion of
these other groups. I guarantee that
[44:48] right now.
>> And I just want the public to know that
[44:51] too. like this is something that we are
very cognizant of that there are issues
[44:56] out in you know in our county so we will
be taking care of that
[45:01] » and as you represent
>> apologies if that's how it came across I
[45:04] apologize if that's how it came across
that wasn't my intention obviously yes
[45:08] the entire county is important to uh be
in consideration of and making sure that
[45:13] we do spread the resources out
>> and I appreciate you're recognizing that
[45:20] as the representative 50,000 people
south of Bangor that don't have access
[45:24] to any other funding mechanisms.
Uh that we are more holistic and I think
[45:30] there's a balance there because clearly
as many of us recognize the city of
[45:36] Bangor has
either voluntarily or involuntarily
[45:41] become the resource center for many of
these type of things. So even though it
[45:46] may be Bangor that serves it, they're
many times being
[45:51] required to serve people who are not
long-term residents of Bangor. So I
[45:57] think there's a balance there and I
appreciate the committee recognizing
[46:01] that and you certainly communicating
that and maybe one of the things you
[46:06] look at in the future is is there a
segregation of funds that go to
[46:11] communities or organizations that serve
the needs outside of the urban centers.
[46:16] I I wouldn't just pick on Bangor. I
think that there are other communities
[46:20] here like Brewer and maybe or Oldtown
because of the services they provide
[46:26] that also fall into that mix. But it's
[clears throat] a healthy dynamic and I
[46:30] personally I don't want to speak for the
commission but personally I think that's
[46:34] why when we get through this first round
we're going to be better prepared to
[46:38] answer some of these questions which are
clearly thoughtful and important for the
[46:42] long-term
aspect of this. But uh I I I don't think
[46:47] today we have enough data to to answer
all these questions.
[46:51] » That sounds good to me and reasonable.
Yeah. So we'll pick it up again next
[46:56] time.
>> Great.
[46:57] » Happy Thanksgiving you guys.
>> Hope you have a wonderful time with your
[47:02] families.
>> You have done here for the committee.
[47:05] And Jamie, thank you. And we wish you a
very nice and successful event with that
[47:10] church we haven't yet.
>> Yes. Thank you very much. If anybody's
[47:14] hungry at noon, come on down to the
Together Place for Friendsgiving.
[47:19] » Thank you very much. Okay, have a
wonderful day.
[47:23] » Thank you.
>> At this point, I believe our HR director
[47:27] will be joining us via Zoom.
>> Good day.
[47:33] » Good morning.
[47:37] » So, I have just a couple of things on
the agenda today.
[47:41] » Sure.
Um the first last meeting we approved
[47:45] the Christmas Eve hours of operation and
I forgot about some of the contracts.
[47:52] Some of the contracts close they um they
have the day off starting at noon and
[47:58] that's what we have done historically in
the past as well and I gave you all the
[48:03] time of 2:00 p.m. So we would just need
to clarify that uh to be 12:00 on
[48:08] Christmas Eve. Any objection to
clarifying that?
[48:12] » No, I would move because I think my
motion was actually what we had
[48:14] traditionally done and I thought that's
what it was. So, whatever we doing is
[48:18] what we've traditionally done. That's
>> Yes, I believe that was the motion. I
[48:22] just wanted you to be aware that the
time that we announced in the last
[48:26] meeting. I mistook.
>> Okay. Thank you for clarifying that.
[48:30] You're okay with that, Commissioner?
Yep. So we have consent of the
[48:34] commission to to do as we have
traditionally done according to
[48:40] the the vote that was taken and the the
terms of any contract.
[48:46] Then the second item I have for you is
the approval of the 2026 holiday
[48:50] calendar. It is the same as we do every
year. It's just a a normal business item
[48:56] for you all to approve. And I believe
Marian put that in your packet.
[49:01] » Yeah. We do.
>> Yeah.
[49:02] » I would move approve of the 2026 holiday
calendar.
[49:06] » Second.
>> So it is approval of the 2026 holiday
[49:11] calendar as uh it aligns with our prior
calendar. Any further discussion?
[49:18] Hearing none. All those in favor, please
say I.
[49:21] » I.
>> Thank you. And then I have one last item
[49:24] for you that I don't believe you need to
have a motion on. Um we um obviously as
[49:30] you know have a new insurance broker
cross insurance agency and as part of
[49:35] that partnership we have decided to pay
them through the county AP versus having
[49:40] those fees stuck into the premiums in
order for them to bill us. They've given
[49:46] you a contract that they need you to
sign all three of you that allows them
[49:50] to bill us directly. And I believe Gary
or Maryanne have that for you. I don't
[49:55] think it needs a motion because it's
simply just part of the the approval of
[49:59] their um partnership with us, but that's
up to you if you want to have a motion.
[50:04] » Well, I'm just a question why we would
we do it this way rather than do it as
[50:08] part of the premium because we basically
got a significant reduction because we
[50:14] took that payment that we used to the
insurance broker used to get and it was
[50:19] taken out. That's why we got the
reduction. So, why wouldn't we include
[50:23] this in the premium? Oh,
>> it allows Yeah, I think it just allows
[50:27] us more transparency to how much they're
getting paid every year, whereas in the
[50:31] past, we really didn't know unless we
wanted to dig in. Um, and this way, um,
[50:37] even if the insurance premiums increase,
it doesn't mean that their payment will
[50:41] increase.
>> So, we won't know. But we're paying when
[50:45] it's in the premium, we don't pay the
whole thing. Now, we're paying the
[50:48] county pays the whole thing.
>> Correct. I think
[50:53] » it's
>> I think actually a part of it. That's
[50:56] why we got the situation we were in.
>> However, the new terms of our health
[51:01] insurance contract has eliminated the if
I'm not mistaken, it's eliminated the
[51:07] payment by the single coverage
employees. So there is no payment that
[51:13] the employees would be paying in this
case unless we in the future want to
[51:18] renegotiate
>> the fee to the county for the portion of
[51:23] health insurance has also decreased.
>> How many saying we I mean most family
[51:28] how many is the majority families for
our coverage?
[51:32] » I can't answer that. I don't know if you
have that information. So, how much we
[51:36] talking? What's the What's the pay? How
much we pay the broker? How much we're
[51:39] talking?
>> It's in the in your budget book. If you
[51:42] look at it, it's a new line item under
HR.
[51:45] » Believe it's about
[51:50] » Yeah, the enrollments
space between coverage, employee, child,
[51:54] and then family coverage pretty evenly
overall. Um, I do get what you're
[52:00] saying. Again, the broker, how much is
the broker fee
[52:03] » from from the previous broker?
>> You have to pull up the HR part in your
[52:08] budget. Well, to answer question for
Commissioner Prem.
[52:12] » Yeah, the the previous broker was almost
$196,000.
[52:16] talking about next year. I think for
next year
[52:20] » what you're getting is a reference to
what we were paying which was a
[52:23] commission to the prior broker which was
also subject to increases based upon
[52:30] what the
>> money were you going to use to pay for
[52:32] this HR
>> what do you have in the budget book
[52:36] please
>> I've got in here under broker fee 67,200
[52:40] » okay
>> so it's down 180 to 67
[52:44] » correct and that will stay a flat fee
for the first 3 years of this contract
[52:48] tracked.
>> We're not saving it. We're spending that
[52:51] money on the system.
>> Yeah. But before it wasn't even [snorts]
[52:54] it was hidden. We didn't even know what
we were paying. So that's that's the
[52:57] good that's the
bring it out.
[53:02] » Yeah. I would agree with Commissioner
Marshall. We didn't know what we were
[53:05] paying before. And yes, to Commissioner
Treble's point, that expense was
[53:09] semi-shared with employees that had
certain premium payments that they paid.
[53:13] Um, but it's so hard to figure out how
much of that 196,000 was being paid and
[53:18] shared with employees shares of their
premiums. [clears throat]
[53:23] » This was the decision we voted on this
year.
[53:27] » Correct.
>> Yeah.
[53:29] » So, we don't need what what was the why
was this part? We don't need to vote. We
[53:32] already voted. You're just telling us
what
[53:35] » we have to sign the contract.
>> Oh, just the contract. Okay.
[53:38] » Yeah.
>> Yeah.
[53:39] » So, you're clear. You did vote on that,
>> right? I was just wondering why we made
[53:43] that change again. Why are we getting
updated on this?
[53:48] » I do think
in the future
[53:54] Tony Tony we can't hear you.
>> You're
[53:57] » I think we can
>> Can you hear me now?
[54:00] » Yes.
>> Okay. I think um it'll just give us more
[54:03] transparency to start with and certainly
in the next several months if we think
[54:08] we want to look at that again. We can
change this at any time.
[54:12] » Okay. I I just advise the commission
we're dealing with issues here that we
[54:17] have taken votes on. While this is a
clarification, it's a different manner
[54:22] in which we are carrying this both on
the budget and how we're operating which
[54:27] provides a level of transparency when it
comes to future expenses related to
[54:32] employees and benefits.
Anything else, Tony?
[54:37] » That is all I have.
>> Thank you. Hope you have a wonderful
[54:41] Thanksgiving
>> and we've already
[54:43] » you as well. We have
>> signific
[54:51] item would be administrative
[54:55] » administrator Lamb. Thank you for being
with us today. Do you have some items
[54:58] you'd like to cover?
>> Well, looking forward to the December
[55:01] 11th budget meeting. Advisory Committee
will be back here. Hopefully, a decision
[55:06] will be made in that whole process.
>> Just to clarify, this is actually the
[55:10] budget committee. the advisory group is
is going to potentially be a different
[55:15] configuration that would include some
town administrators.
[55:19] » So that meeting on the 11th is with the
same attendees.
[55:22] » That's correct. That's the budget
committee.
[55:24] » Okay.
>> Thank you.
[55:25] » Of course.
>> That's okay. We're all learning here.
[55:29] And uh general update, I've met with
most all the staff, not all, but I
[55:33] appreciate the meeting that was held
this past Monday, more for my benefit
[55:37] than theirs, for explaining uh
everybody's tasks. So, I think that's
[55:42] going along well, and I'm pleased to let
the commissioners know that Tony has
[55:47] given me 31 resumes for the
administrator's position, and I strongly
[55:52] recommend after looking at those quickly
that you folks pick a date at your
[55:56] convenience to start the interview
process. So, would you say we would what
[56:01] we're getting it wouldn't be necessary
to the county to hire a consultant to
[56:05] help us do? We've got a pretty good
group to my answer to that is Tony and I
[56:10] can do this prep work.
>> Yeah, do that.
[56:13] » No, that's what it's been sounding like.
>> Yeah, we we have just we have received
[56:17] several inquiries from groups that
provide that service. But
[56:21] » is it the will of the commission now to
proceed as we are and not engage with
[56:25] somebody? I think at this point if we
find we're not making the progress we
[56:28] thought we would maybe at that point we
can change direction.
[56:32] » Okay.
>> I concur.
[56:33] » Okay. Thank you.
>> Well while we got Gary I got a question
[56:36] and Brenda's here but we got an email
from [snorts]
[56:40] » Ryan about some of the capital purchase
going on and payment for those. I mean,
[56:45] I'm just curious. We're still in this
budget year where if we should if it
[56:50] makes sense for us to stop
on any stop any capital projects going
[56:55] on till we get a better handle and we
are with the cash flow what where we are
[57:00] saying if we're in a position to keep
going with these projects.
[57:04] » So, Brenda, would you and the treasurer
be prepared today to do that or would
[57:08] you prefer to wait and provide a report
to us on the 11th or maybe the third? I
[57:14] call the third
include Ryan.
[57:17] » I think that would be helpful so that we
could summarize that. I I recognize that
[57:22] there are some concerns based upon what
has been communicated, but I think it it
[57:27] would be appropriate to get those
numbers in front of us. Yeah, I mean I
[57:30] did do a rep schedule just based on the
ARPA funds what's ava available and what
[57:36] Brian has listed out for projects
but um we probably should speak to him
[57:43] about the details of all those projects.
I don't really have to
[57:47] » thank I haven't had the opportunity to
talk to Brian either.
[57:52] » Okay. I think it it is helpful as we get
to the latter part of the year where
[57:57] we've had some changes in leadership and
and finance positions to give them time
[58:04] to to put a a year-end report together
for us. So, if you think you can do that
[58:08] by the third
>> Yeah, I mean I think I have a good start
[58:11] on it. I think we just need to
[clears throat]
[58:17] » Great. And the good news is we did get
our jail money in for the third quarter
[58:22] by May. So yay. [laughter]
Good. Good.
[58:27] » Would it be appropriate to give a little
bit of a summary to the budget committee
[58:34] on the 11th?
>> We could. Yeah.
[58:38] » Okay. Like I did [clears throat]
last week.
[58:41] » Yep.
>> Okay. Is that good for everyone?
[58:44] » Yeah, sure. We'll get it on the third
and refer on the 11th.
[58:48] » I can write something up.
>> Great. I think the clearer we are, the
[58:54] more comfort people will have.
[clears throat]
[58:57] » It is a significant year and I think the
committee is doing their diligence to
[59:01] try and help us find savings. But in
fairness to our department heads, that
[59:06] message went out and many of them were
very cognizant of the concerns both in
[59:12] terms of next year's budget and cash
flow. So, um I think once we get through
[59:17] the 11th and get this settled, we'll
we'll be fine. And if I'm not mistaken,
[59:23] we'll still be within a time frame to
appropriately have the public hearing
[59:27] and get this done if we include the
budget on the 11th.
[59:32] » Yep. Hope so or we know so
>> I don't know
[59:36] it's process
>> but we do have to have a public hearing
[59:40] » right
>> and we have that scheduled I think for
[59:43] the the latter meeting of December
[59:50] [clears throat]
[59:54] » maybe we can have a report back in the
cler to just clarify that
[59:59] » I one thing I want to add about the
budget what we're talking because a lot
[1:00:03] of I think county employees might watch
these meetings or they might not watch
[1:00:05] the budget meeting.
>> And if you look at all the departments
[1:00:09] within the budget, it's we're not in
this situation because of anything the
[1:00:13] county employees have done. They've done
a great job. These budgets by each
[1:00:17] department are very reasonable. We're in
this situation for one reason because
[1:00:20] the county jail cap was not funded since
2021 and then all of a sudden we've got
[1:00:26] a huge $4 million gap and we got to make
up for one year. That's what's created
[1:00:31] this problem. Not anything that that's
gone on within the the county
[1:00:36] departments. Everybody's kind of doing a
great job. Budgets are very reasonable
[1:00:40] this year. Most departments I think most
departments I think by the 3% increase.
[1:00:44] So it's the we're here for one reason in
this situation for one reason and we got
[1:00:49] to unfortunately fix it this year.
>> I would concur with you except for one
[1:00:53] point. I've gone back through and read
the minutes from the budget committee
[1:00:57] meetings since 2015.
It has not just occurred since 2021. We
[1:01:02] have had a budget challenge with the
jail for over 10 years.
[1:01:08] » We've only had an unfunded jail cap
since 2021.
[1:01:11] » That's not correct. If you go back and
listen to the former administrator, the
[1:01:15] first administrator, he made comments
about the shortfall. The benefit was
[1:01:20] that the state was providing
supplemental funding and the other jails
[1:01:26] recognizing the dilemma that Popscot was
in because we had not addressed the
[1:01:30] shortage of of space in the antiquated
facility before now.
[1:01:35] They gave us the lion share of that
supplemental money that had
[1:01:39] » there's a short we got funding for.
Exactly. So it wasn't unfunded, it was
[1:01:43] funded.
>> 2021 we haven't got the funding.
[1:01:46] » That is correct. The state has
flatfunded us since 21 and the costs
[1:01:51] have gone up significantly. But to say
that this is a a new problem that has
[1:01:56] arisen does not recognize that the
budget committee and the commission was
[1:02:01] provided information for over 10 years
that we had a funding problem for the
[1:02:06] county jail.
>> I disagree.
[1:02:10] » Okay. Since 2021 is when we haven't not
had the money and we've had this budget
[1:02:14] gap that has not been funed by the
county
[1:02:18] by the state before that there was a gap
that they made they came through within
[1:02:23] » they did not fully come through if you
look at some of these issues that I I
[1:02:29] don't want to get into a debate but it
>> I'll be the arbitrator. I I'll let you
[1:02:34] two do it and take a look at it. We'll
find the thing in there somewhere.
[1:02:38] Anything
else that you might have, Gary?
[1:02:43] » No, thank you.
>> What about the 11th
[1:02:48] » the meeting? Are we going to have a
meeting to discuss some issues and and
[1:02:53] cover some items that relate to uh
contract matters?
[1:03:00] If we have we determined that we're
going to meet on the 11th prior to the
[1:03:03] budget meeting.
>> Oh, we already meet on the 10th. That
[1:03:06] was my understanding.
>> On the 11th. On the 11th. Yeah. We're
[1:03:10] going to meet before the budget
committee meets at 5. So, it would make
[1:03:14] sense to meet maybe 2:00 at the
commission to conduct our business then.
[1:03:19] Uh cuz we're going to be in uh we're
going to be in Maine County Commission
[1:03:25] Association
>> the 10th. So, the meeting of the 10th
[1:03:29] has been has been postponed because of
the MCCA meeting.
[1:03:34] » Yeah. I'll be traveling
>> where
[1:03:36] » on the 10th.
>> On the 10th, I'll be coming back. Yeah.
[1:03:39] » So, for that week, would it be
appropriate for our schedules to meet
[1:03:44] the afternoon of the 11th to conduct
some of the business that we would not
[1:03:48] be able to
>> I would recommend 2:00
[1:03:52] » 2:00 meeting.
>> We didn't really last time because we
[1:03:57] had the PRC.
>> I think there's some cont.
[1:04:02] That's fine. Maybe we can apprise folks
of the details that that
[1:04:08] » Fair enough.
Uh part of the discussion might be
[1:04:13] around whether we are and we can again
address this fully on the third but
[1:04:19] whether we are prepared to start some
interviews that week
[1:04:26] » that if you want to put that on the
agenda for discussion the third Iran
[1:04:31] other than the commissioners meeting
that's an open date for us. I mean, I
[1:04:34] don't know how
>> uh which is a Wednesday, December 3rd.
[1:04:38] » We're beginning at 9:00.
>> Maybe we can have an executive session
[1:04:42] that day to go through the application,
decide we want
[1:04:45] » and that would follow follow the
commissioners meeting, I would assume,
[1:04:49] » right? But remember, the the probate
court needs a space. That's part of the
[1:04:52] reason that we're starting early.
>> Well, we could we could we could conduct
[1:04:56] those elsewhere.
>> Yeah. There's a there's a time
[1:05:00] constraint there. As you remember, I've
I've got a meeting that I'm at. So, by
[1:05:05] 11:00, we need to be concluded so I can
run that other meeting.
[1:05:11] » Okay. So, what do you what do you want
to do?
[1:05:13] » 9 to 11 is what I have available that
day.
[1:05:16] » Yeah.
>> And that's a commission meetings at
[1:05:19] 9:00. So, it would follow right after
that. It's short. Do you anticipate it?
[1:05:23] » I have a meeting at 10:00
uh central time that I have to run.
[1:05:29] » Yeah. So I am only available until 11:00
that morning.
[1:05:33] » That's why we moved that meeting to 9.
[1:05:39] » Okay.
>> What would commissioners like to have
[1:05:45] [clears throat] excuse me resumes?
Mary,
[1:05:48] » what's your pleasure, gentlemen?
>> Do you want to be able to review those
[1:05:52] prior to this weekend?
>> Okay. I think if we had packets by the
[1:05:56] weekend that we could look at. I don't
know if they're in electronic form or I
[1:06:00] think it probably
speak.
[1:06:03] » Are you still with us?
>> Tony, are you still with us?
[1:06:07] » She's not.
>> Okay.
[1:06:08] » Okay.
>> Maybe you can inquire and find out
[1:06:12] between she and Mary that they might be
able [clears throat] to prepare for us
[1:06:15] to
>> one PDF. Okay.
[1:06:17] » Yeah, it would be if people are I think
there's some level of confidentiality
[1:06:21] we've got to respect.
>> Absolutely.
[1:06:24] » So, just haven't gone through this with
the city anyway. I would like the worst
[1:06:27] here. You said there's about 30 now.
>> 31.
[1:06:31] » I mean when we got them to consult he
had reviewed them, ranked them and then
[1:06:35] we also got all of them but he had a
recommendation who to uh interview and
[1:06:40] then we did it independently and we kind
of arrived at the same conclusion or if
[1:06:44] you could kind of do that and if you
thought that were
[1:06:48] » I think Tony and I were going to go on
the other end and we we had a section of
[1:06:52] those that are lower priority.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I need something.
[1:06:56] » You're going to win all the room gall
>> to a certain degree.
[1:06:59] » Yeah.
>> Y but you need to see the wall.
[1:07:02] » Y
>> thank you.
[1:07:03] » Good.
>> So we'll look forward to if I'm
[1:07:07] understanding this, we look forward to
getting that this weekend.
[1:07:13] If that is possible for you and the HR
department to put together so that we
[1:07:18] have them to review
>> over the weekend before the December 3rd
[1:07:23] meeting, then we'll be able to come up
with a strategy for you as to what we'd
[1:07:26] like to do.
>> Nobody's here Friday, but I think we can
[1:07:28] open it up.
[1:07:40] » Other items. I see we've got a general
update here. Are there some other
[1:07:50] » Are there some other items on your
agenda that you want to
[1:07:53] » Sorry, I was at the very end.
>> No, there are not.
[1:07:57] » Okay.
>> I'm thankful for all the help today and
[1:08:01] uh I appreciate the department heads
knowing that I need their help more than
[1:08:05] ever. So, I think it's going well today.
>> Okay. Other questions from the
[1:08:11] commission for the administrator?
[1:08:17] Okay, I guess we are ready to move on to
the warrants.
[1:08:21] » I move we approve the warrants uh under
article H of today's agenda. Second.
[1:08:27] » Have a motion and a second. Any
discussion?
[1:08:31] » Hearing none. All those in favor, please
say I. I.
[1:08:34] » Other business to come before us from
the commission.
[1:08:39] Correct.
>> Okay. Mr. Treasurer, anything you have?
[1:08:43] » Happy Thanksgiving.
>> Okay. We have no executive sessions
[1:08:46] required today.
>> Correct.
[1:08:49] » Okay. At this point, wish everyone a
very happy Thanksgiving. Appreciate your
[1:08:55] time. And uh we're ready to adjourn.
>> Have a motion.
[1:09:01] » Have a motion. Have a second.
>> Yeah. Second.
[1:09:04] » Vote list.
>> Happy.