Oxford Select Board votes for referendum budget, reviews zoning overlay

[0:00] Speaker A (unidentified): You don't have any? [0:01] Speaker B (unidentified): When you have that, I'll be there. I don't see one. I only had it all coming up. [0:06] Speaker C (unidentified): No, I probably did. [0:13] Speaker D (unidentified): Call the meeting to order. [0:14] Speaker B (unidentified): Will you join us in the flyer solution? [0:18] Speaker E (unidentified): Black, United States of America, New York Republic. [0:40] Speaker F (unidentified): I have to get my piece of paper, but the yellow line in the middle of the road on Williams and Hill should exist. I have yet to get out and turn right and not meet somebody on my side of the road. If they're just going too fast, and you just can't hold them, then you're hurt. So I'm really hoping for that, and I think we need street lights, at least a couple of them, out here on Auto Road. for these ducks when we get out of here and you can't walk on the road but the road seems to be good to walk on i'm not sure why but that's what i'll get there's a lot of pushback there is i mean we just can't see them so that's all i want and thank you for the plan [1:54] Speaker B (unidentified): Moving on to business items 5.1, review proposed changes to the town's [2:01] Speaker C (unidentified): zone map and land use coordinates. This is a follow-up from the other workshop we had. So Shane's here, code enforcement officer. He's going to go over some of the things that we discussed during that workshop. Probably going to need to dim the lights a little bit. There we go. So Shane can speak to it more than I, but so he ended up doing an overlay zone. Is that what's called overlay zone? And this is, you can see where you put the hash marks through here, so that goes from the edge of that 40 acre parcel all the way over to a roller rink road. I think that's what the spirit of the court discussed the other day, and obviously this map is very, is this draft, so it's for content concept, and he also, he put together an executive summary that you guys have as well. They did a great job on that. Would you like to speak to some of the high points on that, please? Sure. So I gave you two [3:10] Speaker D (unidentified): packets, each an executive summary, just to become a breakdown of our approach to this zoning overlay, and then where it says the very top section 15f, that's the actual meat potatoes of the of the overlay language. It will go in the ordinance. This is just a draft. It has to go make it past Adcock and the town's attorney and the select board as well, but just a brief rundown of the ordinance, like we talked about, it'll accomplish four things. It'll reduce the minimum lot size for 15,000 square feet down To five for qualifying single family and residential development, single family and two family residential development on them, the overlay requires there to be both public watering and sewer connections. If the way it's written, it preserves the existing mixed-use standards for commercial, industrial, multifamily, and other uses. And lastly, and this is one that we're going to have to run by the attorney, it establishes the existing 15,000 square foot mixed use standards as the town's intended reference. Point for the affordable housing decision calculation. If you skip over the second page, we talked about this in the workshop. The current mixed use base lot size currently is 50,000 square feet with a hundred foot road frontage. We're requesting that they reduce, or my suggestion is to reduce those standards for a five thousand square foot lot, and then it's broken down on the suggestion, the suggested sizes. And if you go to the very last page, I touched on that 2.5 affordable housing density. Calculation currently with a base lot, assuming this is a 40 acre parcel, not counting stormwater, roads, all that, currently you could fit 116 units on the property. It's a 2.5 density that brings that number up to 290. Under the proposed 5,000 square foot base lot, you're looking at 348 houses. You add the affordable housing unit density bonus, you're looking at 870. So there's still some question of whether or not we want to, when it comes to the affordable housing density calculator, are we going to use the proposed 5,000 square foot base lot, or is there a legal path forward to maintain the 15,000? So that's one wrinkle we need to work out with the town's attorney. In Afton talking to Mechanic Falls code enforcement who has recently done this, they're in the same position we are, they're in the middle of a comprehensive playing cycle, we're doing it. How are how. I they say he has told me that we can, the way I have it written, we can apply the 15,000 square foot to affordable housing but apply the 5,000 square foot still to single family and duplex. Well, there being any illegal activities going on, no, I shouldn't say illegal, that's kind of heavy. The state requires an affordable housing density of 2.5% multiplier to base lot. So by maintaining the 50,000 square foot for affordable housing, we can eliminate the risk of in the future someone buying a 40-acre parcel and then next thing you know there's 870 houses built in a very tightly packed area, if that makes sense. As far as the changes to the ordinance, by doing the overlay route, there's only, if you go down to where it says on the first page, additional changes require the current zoning, there's only four areas where this, that we'll have to rewrite, and they're not even really rewriting. And just adding a sentence or two in some tables, it's very minimal work, so that way, say this, we decide to move this to expand it or create another one somewhere else in town, we don't have to do nothing with the ordinance, it's already there. All we have to do is move, change the zoning act reflects the added overlap, whereas if we created a whole new start from scratch and every time this changed, we have to change all kinds of language in the [8:37] Speaker F (unidentified): ordinance, so [8:40] Speaker E (unidentified): Basically what you're telling me in this, that this new language and whatever is only going to apply to the place on that apostle, and as long as we leave the other wording in there, it we could change it, providing someone else come along, and I guess it [9:02] Speaker C (unidentified): would require a town meeting. [9:03] Speaker E (unidentified): Right, yes, right, but right now, at the present time, the only one we're talking about is this [9:08] Speaker D (unidentified): is that one right there, right, so yes, so say this, we move forward, this goes to town meeting, it's all approved language, the next time we get to this point where we want to add a residential density overlay, all we're changing is the map, we don't have to change anything in the [9:31] Speaker C (unidentified): ordinance, we're just changing what the map looks like, right, just to be clear, Floyd, based on the conversation that we had, this goes from here all the way to Rolling Ring, because we talked about including a lot of boxes, so one of the things that Shane and I had for a question is there's a business right here, you know, next to the next lot, we did include that because we just followed that property line, so I don't know if that was the intention of the board or not, if not, that's an easy change, so we included it in this draft, and that was also my [10:04] Speaker D (unidentified): I concur with the time manager on that, if you notice some of these already zoning lines right here don't follow law boundaries, I don't know why, I think it's a horrible idea, because if you look right here, this little finger here that's in purple, that's part of the 48 block, so that's, it's been that way [10:32] Speaker C (unidentified): for, that's just, we talked about that, 's really not wide enough to do a whole lot with, and I remember correctly, it's more like a road access, yeah, I think it's less than 100 [10:41] Speaker D (unidentified): feet, less, yeah, so [10:47] Speaker C (unidentified): The that was one thing we discussed was that portion that where that business is in the corner. The other thing was the percentage of block coverage, right? [10:58] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, Adam and I talked about that in that's reflected on the last page, the proposed amendment to the current requirements. So for a 5,000 square foot base lot, we're asking for or suggesting the minimum road frontage of 50 feet, minimum front setback of 20 feet, a minimum side setback and rear setback down to 10 feet from 15, and then the minimum lot coverage bump that up to 75 as opposed to 50. On a 5,000 square foot lot, if you build a 1500 square foot ranch with a relatively good size garage and then a shed, you're you're going [11:52] Speaker C (unidentified): to be well over 50 percent potentially. You threw out the hypothetical level where people put a duplex in there. We'll put a duplex in and 2000 square foot home with five minutes for whatever, you know, your art is attached. So is it more likely what they're seeing this far? I keep chugging with this and try and get it to the point of being the final, more of a final product to bring back to you guys one more time. [12:35] Speaker E (unidentified): But it hasn't officially been by a lawyer or that type of thing yet, right? [12:39] Speaker C (unidentified): Nope, we wanted to make sure you guys were kosher with it first. [12:44] Speaker E (unidentified): Well, I think that's pretty much what we agreed. [12:52] Speaker F (unidentified): No one will have to do [12:55] Speaker D (unidentified): the statement since we have to do it anyway, to some extent. [12:59] Speaker E (unidentified): To some extent, but this comes to the extent, correct? [13:10] Speaker B (unidentified): 5 2 review award public safety building overhead door motor RFP [13:25] Speaker C (unidentified): The fire chief's gonna chime in here too, but we put on an RFP to replace some of the door motors down at the public safety building. We did not receive any RFPs or, you know, bids back, posted for about a month. We did however receive a quote from Overhead Door via email for $23,245. Just as a refresher, this project is one of those things that last the previous year we put $20,000 aside and then this year town meeting we put $20,000 aside, so we've got about $40,000 saved up for this project. So we get the quote. So the things we're going to be asking for, I mean I have the fire chief go over some of her ideas, but can we ask you frankly where we didn't get any bids back but we did get some good, you know, got a good quote, will the board consider allowing us to move forward without going back out the bid? But she actually the fire chief got a good idea on where the price was a little lower than we expected, maybe adding some more motors. Did we get on that? Yeah, sure, so like [14:34] Speaker G (unidentified): Adam said we didn't get any bids. They put it in, they sent an email quote, I believe, to Adam and I on the day that the bid closed. Just didn't follow our official like bid packet after. They were the only one interested. I asked if I could reach back out to them because we have a total of 18 doors at the public safety building, for the PD 14 on the fire. The goal was to put 20,000 aside the last two years like we did, one more year to have them all done, where the quote was lower than what we expected. I asked him if we could go and ask them for 14 motors. 14 motors comes in at $36,638, so that's still under our earmark that what we've saved for. I would ask that you guys move forward with that quote because that's almost all of our doors. That would only need four door motors that needed to be replaced next year, so we could decrease our ask for the budget cycle and what we need to set aside, and that also leaves us about two thousand dollars for any electrical work that needs to be done. So typically when they come in and do the overhead doors, you still need an electrician to do the final hookup, and I think two thousand dollars is more than enough to have set aside. So we're hoping that you move forward with the 14 door motors. PD has one that's been broken, we have one that currently has been out of service for the year, so we figured 14 would be better than the initial 10, and then we'd only have four left [16:14] Speaker E (unidentified): to do next year. We put this out to bid and we got no bid back. I don't know, correct, it was out for [16:20] Speaker G (unidentified): just over a month. So [16:24] Speaker B (unidentified): my question is, I see a page here, it's broken down into four and six, ten dollars, twenty three thousand. Those doors all the same? Because the wording on here looks like they just [16:40] Speaker G (unidentified): did it that way so you could see the fire side and then the police side, because we're going to replace all of these, okay, and then we're going to replace some of ours because we have more, obviously. So we were going to do the most utilized first, but [17:01] Speaker C (unidentified): on the 14 door one, they did not separate them, correct? Math [17:11] Speaker B (unidentified): genius here, but it looks like the price per door went up with 14 doors other than 10 doors. 10 [17:19] Speaker G (unidentified): doors is 23 000 they quoted 2300 a door the fire side are different than the police yeah because ours have a higher they need a like an extra lift essentially to get up higher than the pd so it's like a little bit even though they didn't put that out they are our current the people who currently service our doors so i'm surprised they didn't put them i guess an official bid because they're currently the ones who clean to teach them and service them all along but ours are slightly different by the fees [18:00] Speaker B (unidentified): So we've seen something different. The language is exactly the same on description, all the pages. Yeah, just what's in front of me looks like they're charging more per door, and they may be because they may be different doors, but it doesn't say that. [18:30] Speaker D (unidentified): These, reading this to me, these doors are all recorded exactly the same door. [18:35] Speaker B (unidentified): I'm saying mortar, I should say, it's not. [18:46] Speaker C (unidentified): Do you propose to us enough more money moving forward, or do you want us to come back? If [19:06] Speaker E (unidentified): it's the county, you can give us a bit. If it's a local guy, I want us to give it [19:23] Speaker C (unidentified): to him. Who would be the local guy? Probably. [19:30] Speaker G (unidentified): He does all mine. Yeah, I mean, like I said, I just... Okay, we'll reach out to them, and then do you want a quote from him, or do you want to go back out to bit? I find either way. [19:42] Speaker E (unidentified): I mean, if you get a quote from them, and you get a quote from him... I mean, we didn't, I guess I'd take the best bit of the joke. I do just want to clarify we didn't [19:52] Speaker G (unidentified): reach out to them for the quote initially. We only reached out when it was significant. I [20:01] Speaker B (unidentified): guess all i would ask is to clear for them to clarify these quotes because they look like they're quoting 10 minutes all the same 14 doors all the same and the price goes from 2300 a door [20:14] Speaker C (unidentified): at the ones in the police department slightly. Yeah, they don't have, they are smaller, but [20:24] Speaker E (unidentified): they're, yeah, they're a little bit smaller. I mean, you know that would make a difference, but [20:29] Speaker H (unidentified): in the projects, a four new overhead door motors for 12 by 12 doors and six [Speaker B (unidentified): That's our company.] That's our, that's what we put out. Yeah, I just [20:52] Speaker B (unidentified): want to make sure that quoting one what you need. Because if you have different-priced motors, they should have different prices. Yeah. So we know what we're paying for. [21:04] Speaker E (unidentified): Probably they're in Echolot. I see where you're coming from. That's why I questioned the code. [21:19] Speaker B (unidentified): Just to clarify, if you can get another quote from another door company that's local, bring it to us. They may not know it, but I don't know. [21:28] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, if they don't quote it, then we'll get it over to them. [21:30] Speaker G (unidentified): And what's that company you said? [21:34] Speaker B (unidentified): Robert's Overhead Door. I didn't know I [21:40] Speaker E (unidentified): mine were put in by Overhead. Usually [21:48] Speaker G (unidentified): they get to us with under 20 people then, but they wouldn't be a big surprise. They're always really quick, so [22:00] Speaker C (unidentified): back for the next meeting. Yeah, good. I'll get this back in I3. [22:06] Speaker B (unidentified): Discussed June 2027 referendum town meeting timeline, so [22:12] Speaker C (unidentified): I, we did have a brief discussion the last meeting. I mentioned you folks to the board about the referendum meeting. We've also been talked about a couple of times here and there, so if the board is looking at and interested in moving forward with the referendum town meeting, that does change our timelines, and as you can see, I put some of the big nuggets, if you will, are the selector would need to sign the town meeting warrant, the municipal officer's order for a referendum election on Thursday, April 1st, so that's that alone pushes, you know, pushes all of that stuff back, you know, all basically shoves our entire budget process back about a month, so I did include, just added a draft, I labeled it, you know, TM draft, but budget calendar is there, so that means that starting December 1st, which is about a month earlier than I usually do, starting with department heads on crafting the budget, we would do our budget meetings, the town manager and the department heads for the month of January, and then we would kick into our actual, you know, budget meetings in February, so when you look at this, what I put together here, one of the things that I want to point out is I tried to, I tried to let there be as much room as possible in there to get this done, but still getting done on time, and one of the things is usually I present, the town manager usually presents the entire draft budget as a whole to both the selection and the budget committee at the same time before we kick everything off, that falls on a night that 'd be february 11th so it wouldn't be a normal night so i don't know if you guys would be interested to allow as much time for the process as possible to come in on february 11th and have a special meeting just to do a budget workshop that night i don't suspect it would be hours long it would probably just be a 30 minute overview or something so that 's one thing to think about the other thing is i'm working under the assumption that the selectmen want to continue to have the budget Committee and the selectmen meet separately this year like we did last year, and then the other thing is that we are going to be putting aside all the land use stuff. We are going to be required to have a public hearing specifically to cover all of this stuff. I'm suggesting that this public hearing take place on April 1st because April 9th is, let's see, yeah, excuse me, May 6, excuse me, May 6 is when we would have our public hearing because May 10th is when absentee early voting starts so that way the public hearing happened before that. One of the things that one board member did mention me as a concern is normally what we've done in the past is that when the budget committee and the select them don't agree on a number, for instance say you know five hundred thousand dollars for department X, then the budget committee wants 550 for department X. A lot of time what we've done traditionally is we put the higher number in the warrant and then on town meeting floor that gets discussed and hashed out and town meeting floor decides, but when it's a referendum vote it's the number that's in the warrant article and it's yes or no. There is no lowering it because it is going to be whatever number is chosen. Traditionally in most towns it's the selectman's number that goes in the warrant. You guys have the authority to do that, it's your warrant, you can put whatever amount in there that you want, but one thought that we had was before or I had before the selectman signed the warrant that we have say on March 18th town manager presents the draft warrant for town meeting and then maybe we have a public hearing or a public info session or whatever you want to call it that night to allow the public to provide feedback, you know, okay for department X the selectmen think 500 the budget committee thinks 550 and see if there's any comment potentially at that time because that'll be kind of the point in overturn after that in this approach. So those are some things to think about. We are going to need to make a decision about this soon, you know, this we need to decide this. I would, can we make it tonight? You can tell me tonight and then I'll get the ball rolling, but does anybody get [27:23] Speaker E (unidentified): you got the floor. The motion to the board or record? [27:38] Speaker B (unidentified): I'll second it. Discussion. So- No, go ahead. The whole point of having a budget committee, select one, two different groups sitting separately, coming up with their version of the budget. And we tried this years ago, meeting together, and it becomes a, you don't have two different lights at the end. You've got one big group that gets together and ashes it up. So I'm good with whatever the people want to do. Going to a referendum budget, it might be better to meet together. Ultimately the warrant on the referendum is the selectman's warrant. Yes, it's even worded that way. So I think your selectmen are going to be reluctant to put selectman's warrant if it's not the selectman's number. Now if you're going with the selectman's number and you're disregarding what the budget committee said, and we have a budget committee members here, I would think they would think why are we doing this, right? So we have to probably come up with some type of compromise, and I don't know exactly how we want to do that. I'm not opposed to meeting together and working on it together, but in the end it is a selectman's warrant [29:07] Speaker E (unidentified): but the budget will be, I don't have a problem [29:12] Speaker B (unidentified): You guys weren't here when we did [29:15] Speaker E (unidentified): the person that had the problem is not here either [29:20] Speaker A (unidentified): so budget committee members [29:33] Speaker C (unidentified): so you have [29:46] Speaker B (unidentified): five select members, you probably shouldn't have more than five budget committee [Speaker E (unidentified): members, five] and five is good, I'm good with that. I don't, sitting on this board elected by the people, that are on the budget committee are important, but they are appointed by the select board. I don't think they should outnumber their select on that joint committee. I'm fine with equal numbers, five and five, but there shouldn't be seven budget committee members and five select. Why? Because ultimately you could have a budget committee number, it goes forward, it goes on the selectness warrant, you are elected by in that in that scenario suggesting that we [30:30] Speaker A (unidentified): would vote at that, you know, a group, we would vote on an equal number of both. My [30:42] Speaker B (unidentified): suggestion again, that's that's something, that's something we can hash out in the next, if you had seven or nine or whatever the current number was that we had filled last time [30:56] Speaker E (unidentified): I mean my only point of making the decision today, he's talking about a timeline, right, yep. And if we give him the decision, yeah, we're going to go with a referendum, but we're not going with a referendum, he can set his timeline up and the rest of the details will work out. [31:13] Speaker A (unidentified): It would just kick this around quite a bit, I think. [31:22] Speaker B (unidentified): We'll have a motion and a second to go to a referendum-style budget. All those in favor? Let's vote. We'll continue to work on the timeline. [31:37] Speaker C (unidentified): I think I think you know maybe we raised some good points tonight on how that would be handled. So maybe at the next selectors meeting what I'll do is I'll bring the updated roster for the budget committee. I'll also modify the schedule so that it's on you know you know joint meetings and so forth. And if we do joint meetings and maybe even that first night that we meet on the 11th we could even start getting into some of the meat potatoes that night too. So I'll bring that stuff here along with the roster and then we can have further discussions about the size of the budget committee and that is that what we focus on. Okay that sounds good [Speaker B (unidentified): review so] Cindy's out there somewhere so Cindy's put together a comprehensive review of the summer rec program we had this last year. It should be a copy of it in your packet. Cindy, would you like to hit the highlights? Yeah. [32:43] Speaker I (unidentified): So overall, summer rec went really well this summer. Based on all the numbers and stuff, we revenued $66,765. Our expenses were $57,532.84, which gave us a profit of $8,113. and 84 cents as you see in your packet on the front page the 8 000 did go to help offset last summer recs budget. So we ended up with a profit of 2 404 dollars and 37 cents after everything was said and done. Our snack check did great we revenue we made a profit about 518 dollars. The only thing I think that was kind of a downfall for summer we lost 45 percent of our kiddos this summer. In 2025 we had 130 kids this summer we only had 71. A lot of that was unfortunately because of the pricing increase for summer rec. We had a lot of families express their disappointment in that wishing it could be lower so they could have their families and kiddos come back. Looking ahead the program was able to reduce expenses secure sponsorships generate additional revenue through donations. Summer rec remains a valuable program for the town of Oxford. It provides a safe engaging place for the kiddos to play learn and grow within the community. As a plan for the 2027 season we should review tuition rates sponsorship OPPORTUNITIES, POTENTIAL TOWN FUNDING, STAFFING NEEDS, ACTIVITY COSTS, AND OPTIONS FOR MAKING THE PROGRAM MORE AFFORDABLE FOR THE LOCAL FAMILIES. OUR GOAL SHOULD BE TO MAINTAIN A FINANCIAL RESPONSIBLE PROGRAM WHILE PRESERVING ACCESS TO AS MANY FAMILIES FOR THE OXFORD HILLS COMMUNITY. QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD? [34:57] Speaker B (unidentified): THIS LOOKS IN DEPTH, TOTAL, AGAIN, MORE THAN BREAKING EVEN IN PAST YEARS, TAXPAYERS HAD to subsidize this. I think there is a fine balance between what you what you charge and what you get. [35:19] Speaker F (unidentified): But overall I think this is success. It was a great successful year to what I saw so. [35:27] Speaker A (unidentified): Any other comments just real quick on the financial overview resulting in the second paragraph at the bottom it says resulting in a deficit of 2403 and I correct in saying the 81 113 84 at the bottom at the bottom of your running balance net contribution is that what the total proceeds after all the expenses or is that it did you take the 8100 with that apply it was at 58 49 you follow me as i go down into 58.49 before the field trip expense resulting in a deficit of 24.37. [36:11] Speaker I (unidentified): So that was if i'm hearing it correctly so that explains that the tuition covered the payroll transportation supplies intent and it only covered the majority of the field trips which gives you the deficit of the two thousand four hundred four dollars which this sponsorship. [36:31] Speaker A (unidentified): SHIP HELP COVER THAT YEAH OKAY SO LEFT OVER IS 81 113 84 CORRECT YEAH THAT'S WHAT WE. [36:41] Speaker I (unidentified): WOULD HAVE PROFITED AND THEN WE HAD TO OFFSET SOME FOR LAST YEAR'S REVENUE TO MAKE IT EVEN THANK. [36:55] Speaker B (unidentified): YOU 5 ABATEMENT 04 DANIEL ROBERTO 320 312.20 AND THE PROCESSING AGENT And a second to approve the abatement. Discussion? All in favor? Vote. 5-6, abatement Shelby and Stephanie LeBlanc, account 2490, an amount of $336. And a motion to adjourn. Discussion? All in favor? 5 -7, abatement Sarah Nance, account 1484, an amount of $336. [38:09] Speaker C (unidentified): All those in favor? [38:13] Speaker B (unidentified): 5-8, abatement Damien and Montana Hopkins. ACCOUNT 1799, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,436.40. DISCUSSION? VOTE. 1 -5-0-5, IN THE AMOUNT OF $336. [Speaker H (unidentified): MOTION TO ACCEPT.] SECONDED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? VOTE. 5-10, ABATEMENT, RANDY GLADDEN, ACCOUNT 1431, IN THE AMOUNT OF $446.60. [39:07] Speaker A (unidentified): MOTION TO APPROVE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? [39:12] Speaker B (unidentified): VOTE. 5-11 abatement, Cassie Lebrecht, Justin Ryback, count 1-5-3-4 in the amount of $336. All those in favor? Let's vote. Folks, if you know what abatements are, there was basically mistakes made on their property tax cards over the years, a year prior. [39:39] Speaker H (unidentified): These are really corrections, [39:43] Speaker B (unidentified): so they're paying the correct amounts. Did I say that right? Tax assessor. six department head fire chief. [39:55] Speaker G (unidentified): So just gonna give you, I guess, a little bit of what we've been doing. So we just finished Fire Prevention Week. We went to Oxford Elementary Schools and saw all the grades. We borrowed Norway Fire's smoke trailer that's here, so we had something a little bit different for the older kids who've kind of seen our show on the road before. We also went to SAC. We just completed all of our annual pump and hose testing. Water testing is all that we have left. Because of all of that testing, we did have quite a bit of work that needed to be done on our 2017 and 1993 engine. That work's been completed and everything's back in service. For the first time, all of our full-time positions are full, which is very exciting. So our newest employee starts next week. We're excited to finally have all those slots filled. We just started with ten promotions for a spot that we had opened that we're finally able to fill. And then we're gearing up for a few more fire prevention and slash open housing, so we'll be co-hosting with REC for our annual Trunk Retreat, which we also use as our open house, which always has a great turnout. We usually have between 400 and 600 kiddos come out. We'll also be at Big Rig this coming weekend with fire prevention items as part of their working truck event. And then High Rover, the new dog care facility right near Reeds, it's opening and they're also having a trunk retreat on the same day as ours, but we're going to have a truck over there for an hour and a half. So a lot of community outreach going on right now with fire. We also, as you guys know, the town voted to appropriate a hundred thousand dollars for cascade system. And I know I was asked about it last meeting. I've gotten those. For those of you who are not familiar, cascades are, there's only so many of them out there and there's only so many companies that sell them. So I do have four quotes that range between just under 61,000 to 100 and nearly 2,000. Sure. [42:17] Speaker C (unidentified): So the, there's a, there's a limited number of companies that put these systems together, am I correct? So there's a limited number of companies that put these cascade systems together. The fire chief has contacted them and got a price, pricing from them, for quotes. So again, we're coming back around to board interested in us putting us out to RFP. As the court comfortable with receiving quotes for this, she has a quick overview sheet that shows you the amounts that we got. Some of these folks are pretty competitive, so it actually may be in our interest to consider [43:01] Speaker G (unidentified): Accepting the quote, so I'm just going to like read what I did. It's just the company that sells it first, the brand second, and then obviously the total last. That includes installation, brakes, all of the things, so that's the bottom dollar. All of these also have like, I call it a bumper to bumper warranty. I know it's not a vehicle, but a two-year full warranty. [43:29] Speaker C (unidentified): My thoughts were, if the board is interested, if the board wants us to put this out to RFB, we're going to do it. Come on, yeah, the board is okay with looking at quotes. I'm going to have her bring full copies of all the quotes and put it in your packet so you guys can look at them, you know, thoroughly look at them for the next meeting, and then if you agree, we'll, you know, maybe make an award on that. So just looking for direction from you folks on what direction you'd like to go. [43:54] Speaker E (unidentified): I don't know if she's got the work out of it. I'd like to see what they got. I could look at four people. I mean, four separate. [44:08] Speaker C (unidentified): Bring the quotes the next time. [44:10] Speaker E (unidentified): Well, that would be just my opinion. I don't know what everybody else did. [44:15] Speaker B (unidentified): So, I'm going to do that as well. Do we need to do a motion to waive the RFP and go with just quotes? [44:23] Speaker C (unidentified): You need to deny it the next time. Put [44:28] Speaker H (unidentified): it all together. Okay, can I ask a quick question about this stuff? Like when I asked around, Ashley did when we, maybe the time hasn't come yet for this enough, but for equipment like this, isn't there numerous grants and stuff that we can apply for to help with this? Yeah, so I did [44:48] Speaker G (unidentified): put in a two hundred and twelve thousand dollar grant, the FEMA cycle, not the one that just closed, but the one prior, and we never made it through the first round. That was with the help of, so a lot of those grants are very in depth as far as we need like the town finance director to help you out with, which she was very much involved. I put in her cascade system, multiple new air packs, and then bottles and masks, because those were the things that we needed the most, and we never received any money and that's when we were like, okay, we need to budget for this, because as we said, this cascade system was a hand-me-down from Auburn, and then we made it last for as long as it can at this point, and then last year was out of service like I said, a total of two to three months, and we were relying on our two next-door mutual aid people to fill [45:43] Speaker H (unidentified): bottles. Yeah, I don't know what that means when I'm not here, because I just know like Steven, they have grants available for this, and I just curious. [45:56] Speaker G (unidentified): This is over their mouth. Yeah, but we did put, like I said, for the FEMA because that they have, you know, those are hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions sometimes, that they give out. There's no max number. It's all by priority, and that year the priority was cascade systems, so I was like perfect. And like I said, we didn't get through any of the rounds. [46:22] Speaker C (unidentified): And we have applied for those CDPA foundation months and accounts and have [46:27] Speaker G (unidentified): received them. Yes, so we have in the past received a forestry grant, we have received other grants, but this one on this particular topic we have tried and we did not receive anything. [46:39] Speaker B (unidentified): So you're going to bring us information on all these? Just some of the questions I probably will have [Speaker A (unidentified): on everybody else.] System that you've been using or you had to go out and use with other departments, something that you're familiar with, if it's any of these. All right. So all that good stuff. Yeah. [47:01] Speaker G (unidentified): It's all done. You'll have it next time. Anything else? No, unless you guys have any questions. No? [47:15] Speaker C (unidentified): The workshop that we were going to have with the Thompson Lake Dam folks earlier today, they requested that we move things around so we don't have another thing scheduled in the future. So we, as soon as that comes back up, I'll reach out to the board to see when we want to set that later date. The next comprehensive plan committee meeting is going to be on October 28th. We originally planned on the week prior. There was a board member that requested if we could move the meeting, everybody was agreeable to that. So October 28th at 5:00 p.m. in this room will be the next small planned committee meeting. I know that the board is aware that we're going to be looking to hire, you know, hire a rec director. In the past, the last director we hired, I had a board member actually sit with me along with one other person and kind of did almost an oral board, if you will, for the first interview of the candidates. I'd like to do that again if there's a board member that would be interested in sitting. So it'd be the manager or one other person would be three of us. Would anybody be interested in participating in that? [48:24] Speaker B (unidentified): Thank you. I would if nobody wants to, but I [48:32] Speaker C (unidentified): will say that it's a good experience to sit through. It's a good experience to sit through that part of the process because you get to ask questions. YOU GET TO REALLY SEE WHAT GOES INTO THE HIRING PROCESS FOR WHEN THESE POSITIONS WORK WIDE. [48:49] Speaker B (unidentified): You guys are all hired. If somebody wants to do it, by all means. Any day of the week. Subject to scheduling. Okay. We'll communicate. [49:14] Speaker C (unidentified): So that's, briefly, that's what I've got. Select my names. [49:21] Speaker E (unidentified): How will we make it out on our condemned own? [49:24] Speaker C (unidentified): So where we [49:32] Speaker D (unidentified): stand right now is tomorrow the 30-day notice for the everything that doesn't involve the civic system expires and then as far as the 10-day notice we went out there with Dyers the tank was full and they were unable to inspect it so we're waiting on them to come out and have a punt can you continue their inspection when they do this my hope is to encourage the occupant of the property to allow us inside the house the last time you were there she's adamant we don't go in I've since had a conversation with the town manager and the town attorney and we are actively discussing going the dangerous building route dangerous building I'm still waiting to hear back from Dyers I was hoping it was going to be this week I [50:47] Speaker E (unidentified): mean do they understand there's some emergency interruptions [50:51] Speaker D (unidentified): they're aware so [50:59] Speaker B (unidentified): the tank full correct me if I'm wrong is not necessarily the urgent part it's the stuff that's everywhere else the tank has failed and stuff's coming out of the ground [51:12] Speaker D (unidentified): problem but there's there's plenty of problems there so when we went there with Dyer to do the inspection there was no evidence that there was sewage seeping out of the tank he did say it was overflowing as far as up to the lids the problem is the lift pump isn't working to pump the fluid out into the disposal field he said they could they could bring a generator there's no power there either so one option was bringing a generator in cutting into the wires outside the pump in the tank and testing that the problem with that is then you'll have to replace all the wiring because inside the house as a patrol panel with powered communication wires it talks to the pump the pump lets the panel know when the tank is full and if it's not running a larval sound or the pump water they kick off when the flow gets to a certain level to test the entire system they're going to start at control panel and then work their way out or vice versa up get in the house get in the house and right now and turn the power on and right now we're not being allowed in the house you can't turn the power on it's gonna be a power off and there's no [52:29] Speaker G (unidentified): meter there so they would have to, that's a significant fee for them to come out, put the meter down on the house, and turn out, there haven't been power for two years and a month. [52:38] Speaker C (unidentified): So with all that being said, that's one of the reasons that we are also looking at the dangerous is building route, because the danger is building route is another avenue, parallel path that we can look at, and that process would involve the selectmen, you know, having a having a hearing. [52:55] Speaker D (unidentified): And so forth, where are we at for the it's [53:01] Speaker B (unidentified): an administrative warrant to get in the house. [53:04] Speaker D (unidentified): So if we wanted to, if we wanted to go the administrative warrant to get in the house, that would give us definitive evidence, there'd be no more question as far as what's inside, talking to the town's attorney and based on, so let me back up, while we were there with Dyers, I walked around the house and took pictures of some significant issues with not necessarily structural but like isolated pockets of structural damage. We talked about moving forward with the dangerous building without the evidence obtained through an administrative warrant, and we've talked about going the route of an administrative warrant. [53:53] Speaker C (unidentified): So, not to speak for Shame, there's three paths that we're working on. The 30-day notice for the yard, debris, and all that stuff. We're also pursuing the path for the septic that we're waiting on for Dyer. When we go back this next time with Dyer, he's going to ask and also he's going to bring a letter in, a written letter, at the suggestion of the town attorney, to say we request permission to enter this house to inspect the following items, and if they then deny us entry, according to the town attorney with his experience, the a the judge or court match whatever is going to ask for something in writing that we attempted to get permission to enter the house. So with the next time he's there, if he does not get that permission then we're going to start pursuing that administrative warrant as well as well as the dangerous building path does that sum it up [54:47] Speaker H (unidentified): Yes, pretty good. So if they've already told us they won't let you in anyway, why are we going to continue to wait? Why don't we just get the administrative warrant now? Because the town [54:56] Speaker C (unidentified): attorney is advising us that it's more than likely we would not be granted the administrative warrant unless we have something in writing, and the last several times we've asked [55:06] Speaker G (unidentified): if not, we don't have that, so whatever. [55:12] Speaker D (unidentified): So the plan is I bring a letter basically saying x, y, and z. We're asking for permission, and she says no, she's going to sign that letter, and then we'll take that and what if she doesn't sign and [55:27] Speaker C (unidentified): and refuse to sign and they'll be witnessed by the members there and that's good enough. [55:36] Speaker A (unidentified): Why are we inspecting the septic? What's, what's the reason for the septic inspection? Well, [55:44] Speaker D (unidentified): that's a good question. You will be into that because they're, they're parallel issues. What we're talking about now came up after what we just, what we was, what we discovered it, we were there with dives. We don't necessarily have to go the dyer's route continued, but we're trying to mitigate any issues with as far as, you know, when we were there was no direct evidence the tango were flowing, but we, but I 've smelt it, the name I said why is dire there. [56:22] Speaker A (unidentified): That's, that's my question. Why is diet there? Because of the professionals that will troubleshoot the [56:26] Speaker E (unidentified): system. But what though, why are we troubleshooting this system? We're looking for a reason to get out [56:32] Speaker A (unidentified): of there. It's not working. The system's not working. Is that not enough reason? It doesn't work because there's no power. It's not working. It doesn't matter. It's not working right. It's not pumping. It's not pumping the gray water out. The system's failing. That's my point. What are we doing? So state [56:46] Speaker C (unidentified): statute tells us what we have to do in this situation. State statute says that we have to bring in a third party inspector, I might be getting the terminology wrong, but a professional that knows what they're looking at beyond the code enforcement LPI to inspect, it and help us what's wrong with it, because once they tell us what's wrong with it, we could move forward with, we could move forward with fixing it and correcting the issues. That's something we could do, and then what we would do is we would then place that, the cost of that would go against their, let's just say they're taxes, it would be assessed to them, but in theory if they don't pay that, we could foreclose on the problem. So just like if we go the dangerous building route and we go in there and we look at this and the selectmen and the hearing determines is a dangerous building, it doesn't get a piece, all those things, we can go and demo the house and then we assess the cost of that demo to the property and if it isn't paid We can foreclose on it. All of these things start to allow us some tea. Either we can foreclose on it, or maybe the bank that doesn't want to foreclose on it will actually pay the tab, the cleanups, you know, as well. I doubt it, but they're still living there, right? Yes, and to touch on what I'm thinking. [58:07] Speaker B (unidentified): About to shut you up, but I'm seeing it now, so they don't, they don't, and they don't actually live in the house, they [58:15] Speaker D (unidentified): still use the house. They're in and out of the house, they keep their stuff in the house, whether or not they're cooking dinner in the house, but she does sleep in the truck. And to add to what Adam said, I would recommend even if we decide tonight or in the near future to go the dangerous route, in a very minimum we should have that tank pumped to mitigate the issues as far as public health concerns that we have. When you stand on that property, it's disgusting, because they're dumping their buckets all over the property, or they haven't. I think it's buckets. I think it's a combination of everything. It's the [59:00] Speaker B (unidentified): camera there. I'm not disagreeing with pumping the tank. At some point it probably gets [59:04] Speaker D (unidentified): right. What's that? Just pumping the tank, it's not normal. No, it's not going to solve the problem as far as the septic, but it will help mitigate in the meantime some of the conditions that are present and what the neighbors are having to deal with. Explain to you why it's the piece of [59:26] Speaker A (unidentified): the puzzle. It doesn't sound like we're just so we can, so we can put a lien on the property. Is that, is that the purpose of it, which is fine? Is that why we're pumping the tank, or we would fix the [59:35] Speaker C (unidentified): system because there's three problems you know they 're violating you know the by having the yard the condition they're in they're also which is the 30-day notice their water you know their wastewater treatment system that they have doesn't work so we're trying to follow state statute to make sure that we're following through with that because we have to address that since we know about it so it's a you know public health issue we need to get it pumped so that 's just one more piece to the puzzle. It's not a big piece, it's one more piece of the puzzle, and you will be seeing a dangerous building, you know, dangerous building hearing coming down the pipe shortly, so sooner rather than later. Thank you better whatever. [1:00:22] Speaker B (unidentified): Means possible whatever we have to do to move this long as quickly as we can. I'm tired of talking about it. These folks that live there are tired of living there with it, and ultimately the town is going to pay the bill, and the rest of the town taxpayers are going to be tired. So we need to rectify the situation as quickly as we can, whichever route we need to take, and it sounds like we're taking all routes right now, and whichever one gets done first gets done first. [1:01:00] Speaker D (unidentified): Anything else? No sir. Any other select writers? The sign works. [1:01:43] Speaker H (unidentified): Chief. We're going to test that. Who's doing the drawing? Is [1:01:50] Speaker B (unidentified): he part of it? It might be a move point. I don't know. I'm counting on it right now. [1:04:28] Speaker F (unidentified): Is it in there? I don't know what it is. [1:04:42] Speaker H (unidentified): Sign works 34 through 37. I don't know.