[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.

Commissioners Meeting of November 26, 2025

Transcript