Bowdoinham Select Board splits on paving change order, insulation contract questions

[0:38] Mark: So I've been just checking in with my tech person here about how to get the volume up, etc. I think I'm all set now. Can't [1:03] Speaker B (unidentified): quite hear you all good [1:08] Speaker C (unidentified): thing you get tech support with you today [1:09] Mark: Well yes, I always travel with my tech support. So as we've done a couple of times now when I've been out of town, I'll call a meeting to order now. When I've been out of town, I'll call a meeting to order and then turn it over to Mark a conversation in the room since it's really difficult to totally chair the entire meeting. So I'd like to call the meeting to order of the September 22nd, 2026 Town of Bodenham Select Board. And we have a quorum with all five members present, four in the room, and I'm joining by Zoom. Nicole, do we have any amendments to the [2:45] Select Board member: agenda? Yes, we have a change order for the Back Hill Road Spring Street projects and where are we adding that? Will be action item B. Okay, thank you. Okay [3:02] Speaker C (unidentified): so Chair, I would like to add a [3:06] Select Board member: discussion item to the agenda please. May I ask what the discussion item is please? I guess last week's vote on the Acadia insulated contract, timeline, and facts leading up to that vote. [3:24] Mark: So are you making a motion to add that? [3:28] Select Board member: I don't think I have to make a motion to do that. I think it was asked to add it to the agenda. It may actually require a motion, I think. [3:41] Mark: Well, where would you add that to add a discussion? [3:44] Select Board member: That would be discussion item A on the agenda. [3:47] Mark: That would be before the town manager's report. Yes ma'am. Okay, we're adding a discussion to that the agenda so that would change seven to the discussion. Okay, and as folks know we have comments from the public at this time. I can't see who's in the room so if there's anybody from the public who would like to make a comment before the meeting starts about anything not on the agenda, please come to the podium and introduce yourself. I [4:37] Public commenter: was just wondering when they smoked the public works garage. When that was originally built, did the town have anybody that inspected that work that was done on that to see if it was any issues with it or watch it as it was being put out to see if it was done correctly? I don't think these leaps things should have happened myself. The other thing is being a former board member and having dealt with contracts before. Having had two of my own snowplow contracts back in the 80s with a town that always had language in it that if I wanted to subcontract something else, it had to be approved by the board. It had to go to the board. I don't know if that was anything with the subcontracting issue or whether that language is in stuff like that today. I don't know, but that's all I got. [5:44] Mark: Thank you. Are there other comments from the public today? Hearing [5:54] Select Board member: none. Yeah, no, there's one. [5:56] Public commenter: More? Okay, thank you. Yes, I'm publicly poster I guess, just to follow up on Stew's question is that are those questions that will be answered by this board? He walks away without having the questions answered. I'm wondering if his questions will be answered by this board or the town manager. [6:18] Mark: I hope, I, hi, I believe that answers will come later on, but since we have scheduled an executive board meeting for discussion of the contract issues for the next meeting, I'm not [6:35] Public commenter: sure the answers will come tonight. So I'm wondering under the statue why, what pieces of the executive session you guys are drawing on in that specific statute. So I understand there are probably some, I don't know where to look at, you Joanne, I'll just look, I understand that you know definitely there are going to be some legal issues there that certainly the public should not be privy to, right, but I think that there are some other very valid questions that should and could be answered by this body, by town government? [7:17] Mark: I do think that as the questions will be answered or many of them can be answered in the future because legal counsel has advised us if we want to recoup the money or have other contract things we need to negotiate that we need to do those discussions first in executive session. We do take the attorney's advice on these things, and we'll do our best to get questions answered as soon as possible after that executive session and whatever comes from that. So town government is aware of how [8:01] Public commenter: how this looks to the public, correct? Once you go into executive session, I might be completely wrong with this. I don't think I am. A lot of this stuff won't be pretty. A lot of that stuff will be closed off. And it seems to me, this is my opinion, only my opinion, a really convenient way to not be transparent. So as a taxpayer, I certainly feel that way, 150%. I do not think I'm the only one, and I hope to God that I'm proven wrong, because there are questions that can be answered by this board tonight, and should be answered, that, I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, right? I should have been answered back in November of 2025 when this was supposed to be done. And now we're $200,000 on top of a $2.7 million bid. And I'm learning more. 6,700 gallons of propane from November till May. Another $30,000, $35,000 because the building was not taken care of. Legal fees, this town should be asking questions. This board should be concerned about the transparency of how this town government is being run. And those of you listening, I did put in a FOIA for that information, concerned about what I'll get back, but I will be sharing that information once I get it. [9:53] Mark: So I think we can move on now to the consent calendar if there's nobody else coming to the podium. [10:03] Speaker C (unidentified): I don't see any. [10:04] Mark: Would you like to take over at this point, Mark? [10:10] Speaker C (unidentified): That's up to you. I can if you like me to. [Select Board member: Yes, please.] The first thing [10:17] Public commenter: on our agenda is [10:19] Speaker C (unidentified): is the consent calendar. The temporary chair will accept the motion for the consent. Is there a second? That's actually the motion. All in favor, five, zero, motion passes. The next, I'm going to call a public hearing. We have a general assistance ordinance, which is quite thick, but anybody that's hooked into it, that is our ordinance. That's updated every year. We do this, we go through this, the state makes changes every year, the limits, so that's why we do it. So I'm going to close the our meeting for a moment and go to public hearing. So we're public hearing for general assistance. Audience, is there any comments or questions on the ordinance? [11:30] Select Board member: It is this thick, right? One of the abilities and usually [11:40] Speaker C (unidentified): about four pages changes. [Public commenter: Just yeah, okay.] Seeing nobody online or nobody in the room that has any comments on the public hearing for general assistance ordinance, I will close the hearing for public hearing and we'll go to first action item, which is to act on general assistance ordinance and dependencies. [12:11] Select Board member: I move the Board approve the September 2026 General Assistance Ordinance with Appendices in its entirety. Second. [12:22] Speaker C (unidentified): Second by Shelly. All in favor? All in favor? Oh, I didn't see your hand. Sorry. 5-0. Okay, next on our agenda is Act on Active Patient Partnership Initiative Brand Acceptance. Is there anybody that wants to talk to this? Let's see. Not this is for the acceptance of the ATPI funding for crosswalk improvements for Main Street, River Road. This is a these designs have been and accepted by DOT. Bodium has been awarded a $57,150 grant to implement the project. The project requires a funding at match. So you're required to accept the grant and provide $6,350 from the TIF account. Is there any motion for the Active Transportation Partnership? [13:36] Mark: Yeah, I move we accept that grant. [13:39] Speaker C (unidentified): Is there a second? All second. So that's going into motion, Mark second. All in favor of this? [13:58] Select Board member: Again, it seems like we're putting the cart in front of the horse here. It says that please note the final project scope, project cost, and associated match may be reduced if it was determined that the always stop demonstration project becomes permanent, as that would eliminate the need for the rabid flashing beacons at the location. I love the I think it's supposed to be rapid, but I'm going to read it as rabid because that's what's in the presented to us by our planet director of planning development. It says with the rabid flashing beacons at the location because cars would instead be required to stop instead of requested to go through a beacon. So then if we look at the invoice, the costs associated with this entire project, twenty four thousand dollars out of the sixty three thousand dollars, are those rectangular rapid flashing beacons. So why wouldn't we at least wait until we knew whether the crop the four-way stop demonstration was going to be accepted or not before we put up Why would we split? What would we want the answer to that before we committed to 14,000 to up to $12,000 units that we may not need if the demonstration that's currently going on ends up being accepted? Like wouldn't we want to wait until that was done before we decided to move forward with this? So DOT is aware of the current project, and if we do keep the four-way stop, then we would amend the contract and remove those beacons. So these aren't going to be installed and then have to be taken down. So when was this project going to be implemented? Are you planning on doing this? We get this fall? No. So what's the rush to accept it right now? [16:05] Speaker C (unidentified): Is there a time limit on the whole game? There may be. That'd be the only thing. I don't have the answer whether it's a time limit, but usually it is. [16:15] Select Board member: Well, is that No. [16:21] Speaker C (unidentified): Well, we can table this till next meeting and try to get that answer. [16:33] Select Board member: I would like to amend the motion to the table this discussion until the next meeting let me know more second [16:52] Speaker C (unidentified): okay on the table is to table this all in favor tabling this for okay next is act on fire reserve requests for the garage door replacements I [17:25] Town Manager: believe you should have a quick memo that I had sent to the town manager indicating that back in May, I believe it was, we had somebody that backed into our door and damaged them. The insurance is going to take care of the damage, so we immediately had PDQ, which is currently our provider for the door maintenance, come up and give us an estimate, and I believe that fell somewhere around $6,000. three panels on the door in place. The gentleman that was making the orders actually was out until the first of July. So as of July 1st, he ordered the panels. They just came in last week and unfortunately the measurements were off that they took. So they were two feet too long, which they had to send back and recut. They're guesstimating four to six weeks for those replacement panels. We have canceled that order because in the meantime, it seems to make more sense to replace the doors again in that memo it indicates we have been putting money aside in the reserve account to accommodate those type of purchases big ticket items those doors would certainly qualify and instead of replacing just the one all three of those front doors are due for replacement anyway so it seemed to make more sense to request to have them all replaced [18:44] Select Board member: placed at the same time. So are those the original doors from 1998? [18:48] Town Manager: Those are the OGs. So yes, those are the 1998-97 version of garage doors. They're still functional. However, 30 years old, the life cycle on these springs is about 25,000 cycles plus. You count that as opening two times a day, five days a week, over a 30-year span. Roughly that we're above that, I'm sure, because we open much more than two times a day, especially in the last seven years. The motors themselves, the door openers, have a 15,000 cycle lifespan, and medium duty motors typically, those are about 15,000 cycles. We surpassed that four, five, eight years ago, so those are duplicate placements. Well, we had a quote for those some five, six years ago, but I never went forward with that. So we're here now though. You can see it as the reserve purchase to replace all three of the chrome doors [19:55] Select Board member: and the motors. Are we replacing the motors now too? 100% replaced, so the doors, tracks, [19:59] Speaker C (unidentified): everything around the same lifespan. Still thrilled. [20:03] Town Manager: And I'll put it back in what, 30 year plus cycle with newer stuff, so [20:08] Select Board member: So chair, I move the board approve. [20:10] Speaker C (unidentified): That'll be through A to Z purchase instead of. [20:14] Town Manager: That is more than likely reference. Unless the board has a direction there, that will be my preference. PDQ is a known entity. [20:24] Public commenter: We've dealt with them. [20:26] Town Manager: We do maintenance on that. A to Z is somewhat unknown. However, the cost being some $6,000 to $7,000 cheaper, it seemed much more prudent to take advantage of the pricing there and go with the [20:42] Select Board member: And we're really apples to apples. We're getting the same lifespan on stuff. [20:46] Town Manager: There was nothing that came out of it that was different. [20:50] Select Board member: I get the first eyebrow with something that was cheaper. No, and that's what I [20:54] Town Manager: did. If I don't believe you had the second quote that was for the panel replacement directly, you should have had the first one, which was, again, around $5,600 or change. Through A to Z, it was right around $2,700. So there's significant ones you can put all the way around in the store. [21:17] Select Board member: So that initial $5,600 goes away completely? [21:20] Town Manager: That has wiped out the card. We canceled that request since they had to send back and get a recut anyway. We wanted to revisit the idea of complete replacement as opposed to a single thing of its. [21:32] Speaker C (unidentified): So replaced in another two to three months, and we can still use the insurance money towards these. [21:39] Select Board member: So this estimate from A to Z, does this include taking down the existing doors? [21:45] Town Manager: This is 100% installation. [Select Board member: Including the electrical?] The electrical, everything will be there. Any [21:57] Speaker C (unidentified): more questions from the board? [21:59] Select Board member: Did I have to ask a question? [22:02] Shane Atkinson: Sure. Do I have a security camera? [22:05] Town Manager: I have a older set that we purchased essentially through Sam's Club back in 2015, 16. They did get the video of the vehicle. If you're referring to the vehicle, we gave it a video of the vehicle backing up towards the door. The angles of the cameras didn't show it actually making connection. However, there's no question it was them. It doesn't go in close enough to get facial recognition or a license plate, unfortunately. Unfortunately, but we did get the vehicle's description saying that and unfortunately the number of vehicles that matched that description the day after was astronomical in Goldenham as I sat and watched them go by the fire station. [22:46] Select Board member: Insane that PDQ's quote is only valid for five days due to the rapidly escalating cost of materials. Absolutely insane. Five days. [Speaker C (unidentified): Finally changed.] Chair, I'm going to have the board approve up to $18,000 from the fire reserve for the replacement of the garage doors. Is there a second? Second. But I'd like to amend that because the quote says it's $19,183. But I think it's because we have insurance money and other stuff that will cover the difference. That's what we're expending, but the insurance money that we can still put towards it will cover the difference. How much insurance money are you doing now? We're waiting for the insurance to approve the new estimate from A to Z for the panel replacement. I think it would be about $3,000. [23:38] Town Manager: The new panel replacement fee for that one was $2,750. [23:44] Speaker C (unidentified): So that's a lot of getting. So we'll move up to $18,000. [23:52] Select Board member: And he cut it as close as we could, but with the expenditure and seems like it all right, no, change on the motion. No second. Okay, second. [24:07] Speaker C (unidentified): Okay, all in favor. Thank you. 5 0. Okay, next on the agenda is the main municipal association voting delegates. If [24:28] Select Board member: anyone would like to attend the annual meeting, you are able to, and the board can appoint you to be able to go over. [24:40] Speaker C (unidentified): It looks like their last time they were there for about 45 minutes. [24:49] Select Board member: No, it was less than that. Less than that? 15 plus 7, so 22 minutes. A long drive for about two minutes. [25:06] Speaker B (unidentified): volunteers all volunteers just so that there's somebody representing from the town if nobody [25:12] Select Board member: available i'm willing to go i'm available and i'm willing to go i just i have a hard time justifying that full afternoon for 27 minutes so you're willing to go or not Well, you know, you know what I mean, clarify what kind of time are we looking at? Is it just that evening or since 22 days of the last week, we know the evidence that one good one thing, but in the afternoon, not less. [25:41] Speaker B (unidentified): That might be problematic. Actually, for some reason, I thought it was like, 7 o'clock PM, which would have been fine. [25:46] Select Board member: The meetings call from 1 15 to 30. All right. I was throwing out my, I'm sorry. I thought it was an evening. [25:53] Mark: Evening obligation it's not bad I miss Brennan it's hard I worked it's literally working okay [25:59] Speaker C (unidentified): So not signing any volunteers right now I'm happy okay Jay's way to go Jay okay all in favor of Jay [26:12] Select Board member: Representing oh chair I think I think we have to be a chair I move the board designate how do you pronounce your last name properly okay I move the board designate Jay Hottie as the official delegate voting delegate and are [26:29] Speaker C (unidentified): You going to no one no alternative at all you don't [26:36] Select Board member: Have that at all okay so I move the board designate Jay Haughty as the official voting delegate for [26:41] Speaker C (unidentified): The down voting enthusiastic second okay we have a second by Shelley nomination all in favor of Jay taking the ring you got it I want to go up to Kushnok for lunch first or something like that [26:55] Select Board member: That for you okay [26:59] Speaker C (unidentified): Then this is the change order they have a change order for Back Hill and Spring [27:08] Select Board member: Street change order next are we getting regular reports from the engineer we're making free visits It's a week right we're getting weekly metals on the construction for that week so they we met with the contractor and the engineer this morning Spring Street the bottom of Spring Street is I'll say by the white house is pretty bad they drove the machine up and down the road a couple times and it was probably pretty wavy Back Hill they wanted to do the same cutout for Back Hill they already paved Back Hill but there is some cracking from where the heavy equipment in doing the construction at Spring Street and they're saying that it's from the sub base so that's the first thing so in this change order is addressing three items the first one is the sub base for the bottom areas of Back Hill and Spring Street in which they're proposing to do a cut out put down fabric and then put the material back in but also put in another under drain the second item is for actually the they call it HMA for the topless Spring Frank Street, but it's really School Street. So when the water runs on School Street, we don't have a crown at the bottom of the road. So they want to kind of rebuild the crown on the road to keep the water to the side of the road so it goes in the ditch and isn't going across the road and running across Frank Street. School Street is on the road plan for reconstruction in FY 31. So this would be a temporary fix until School Street is done so we have drainage in School Street from the town office towards Main Street but there's no drainage in the road from the town office towards Spring Street and Spring Street is getting water from School Street so trying to eliminate the water that's getting into the road which brings up the third item. As part of the contract, there were time in drainage notices and so forth to get it tied in so that we don't have all the water going onto the road, into the road. As you know, it was a big issue for School Street over the last couple winters. In their excavating and in their work, they found 10 other underdrains that had to be tied in. So we asked the contractor to tie them in. We didn't want to just leave everything and then the last item is that seven thousand dollars is for the work that they did in completing all those extra tie-ins. Thank [30:22] Speaker C (unidentified): you. Any questions on obtained order? Yeah, I got a couple. So [30:32] Select Board member: are they ripping up the pavement that they've already done to do new cutouts on Back Hill? Correct. And they've already done cutouts on Spring Street in prep for paving but they weren't deep enough, solid enough so that's why the road so they have to do those. They're doing those for a second time. Correct. So they already did the cutouts, they did all the base work. The road is still very squishy on Spring. It's visible. Yeah, they said it wasn't visible like that on Back Hill. They paid it unfortunately but with the machinery going over it there's a lot of cracking in that area so they want to take it out, put down fabric and then excuse me if I sound stressed, depressed, if I was a Frankenstein cartoon right now like steam would be coming out of my ears. Isn't that what we're paying the engineer for, to be there three times a week to make sure that we're not doing stuff twice and they're not, they're actually doing stuff properly and again we come back to a situation where it's nothing that we did. Like I understand the change order for finding the additional tie-ins where there's additional manpower, labor and materials needed for something that they were completely unaware of. But reimbursing them for redoing work that they already completed that wasn't sufficient enough to be correct makes no sense to me whatsoever. Again, this is, we're just, respect, we're right back to last week again. Like, why, if it's not good, they have to tear it up and redo it, and we shouldn't be paying for it. They knew the situation. They did a cut out, they tore up the road, they put in base, they prepped it to pave, and then right as they prep it to pave, oh, shit, it's not good enough. So now we'll charge the town another $18,993 to rip it up and do it again. How can anyone be okay with that? That's not a change order. That's a fixing their screw-up. A change order is number three, where they come across new tie-ins in the ground that they were unaware of, and that needs to be added because it was completely unbeknownst to them. They tore up the road, they did a cutout, they added in sub-base, and it's not good enough to take pavement that they have to tear it up and do a better cutout. How is that on us to pay the other 19 grand for that? So I believe they're not changing the base that's designed. The only addition is that they're adding fabric, a special expensive fabric, and they're doing an extra [33:41] Speaker C (unidentified): drain because that's, that's not what you just said. You just said that they were going to do [33:47] Select Board member: another cutout they're cutting up material that's the ground that's the base which they've already done once and filled it and so we're being charged to do that right even though they're removing and replacing d gravel with a gravel and like again why like it 's on them if they did it wrong the first time. But that's, they didn't do, they did it for the design. Oh, right, so this Great Pine Tree Engineering that we're paying to be there three times a week to oversee this, guy gave a poor enough design for the contractor to follow, then now we're paying for it to be done twice. It's the same design for the road, so it's this area has a different sub base beneath it that needs to be addressed, and instead of, and we did this out on Dingley Road in a couple areas, we dug down so far and we did fabric, not just the other gravel, because of it, and I don't know if Toby can do a better job explaining. I mean, I get the gist of it. Again, I just don't think That's a change order for me. That's a fixing a project that they started. If it was bad engineering, then they should have realized it before they put the first batch down and got ready to pave. Like, you can't have it both ways. You can't blame the engineer but yet you followed his instructions and then or not blame the contract. Like insane, absolutely insane. [35:31] Speaker C (unidentified): It do we want to come up and make a comment for so everybody else can hear? I've [35:42] Public commenter: done some of this excavation work, and I would think once they started digging, they would have seen there's something going on here. Then they would have had to make that call, do we do it different? Well, we got it opened up with what fabric. Now I'm going to dig it down deeper, put in a stiffer base. That's just common sense of, you know, running things on board and things. And anybody, a supervisor should have seen that, okay, this base is not good, so we've got to do something a little different here. [36:16] Speaker C (unidentified): Thank you, Stu. Anybody else have a comment that pertains to this? [36:23] Shane Atkinson: Yeah, Shane Atkinson from the road. So why wouldn't the engineer be responsible? I agree with what Al's saying. And this is not doesn't sound like a changed job. It sounds like someone did something they didn't understand, that they didn't see the consequences of digging up the road, but then they considered they continued to do the job anyway, and now we're paying the repercussions of finding the issues, right? So to me, that's all in the town, that's on them, on the engineer. That's what their job is to do, but they're supposed to be there three times a week. Where was he on this table in this time when they discovered the streams? My [37:03] Speaker C (unidentified): opinion on this is that they should, when they hit the clay, they should have known that base was not going to sustain that road base. They should have done fabric day one minute they hit their clay. When they got down to that base, they knew that they hit it on back hill. They put in the four inch one, did all their layers as if they thought it would take it. Now, our engineer should have picked it up, in my opinion, at that point that you can't, we ran it on other roads where you just don't do it on play. It's going to push through. So, yes, I agree that this looks like there's some issues with our engineer that should have caught this, that the charge to redo the paving, being charged again for the paving and to redo that, should have been caught by them. I think there's more discussion on this change order, and that need to be done both with the engineers and with Brad on why did they continue on that. Myself, I can understand all the hookups. There are parts of this change order that I totally agree are necessary,, but I again why they would find clay and not put fabric geotech down is just beyond me in today's environment, so yeah, for me it's only the first one that I have a question with the [38:41] Select Board member: under the other two I completely understand, got no issue with it, make perfect sense, but that just, that just seems like they got a sucker on the line and hope [38:56] Public commenter: has their hand up I'm going back on more than this, but I'm going to say it. The whole living poster. So when y'all decided on this bid, there was a lot of uncomfortability in this room. So I think this board needs to really think about, in my opinion, who am I, whether we go with this lowest bid and what research is being done with this. Because the level of uncomfortability in this room is ringing true right now. [39:30] Select Board member: yeah, pretty much everything that we said is coming to fruition that we were worried about, exactly, that's very well pointed out and we did try to address that by having much more oversight, which has also yeah, we paid money for more extra oversight, which did us a ton of good in this situation [39:49] Public commenter: you're going to pay for something, who knows [39:52] Select Board member: it's just, oh I mean come on, like we're spending money hand over fist to spend money more hand over, like I am not an obstructionist, I don't mind spending money, again these change orders, they're part of a project of this, I have, we've never objected to many change orders in the past, but like this is just we're paying a guy extra to oversee these people, but again, but and they're any [40:19] Speaker C (unidentified): other comments from the board or questions, well we're yeah, I do hope, but we can't, we can't [40:28] Select Board member: deny it because we can't just call construction because you know they're not going to continue work and pick up the tab and do it the right way and not have us pay for it, like we again we have no good, we have zero all [40:44] Speaker B (unidentified): right is it possible to get some clarity on how much of this change order amount is due specifically to the problem repaving the bottom half of back hills which is what is causing the majority of the questions on this is it possible to get that itemization out of that before the chain orders approved or is this something where they're not going to continue working unless we approve of the entire amount just for the sake of clarity it's a discussion [41:17] Select Board member: we can have with them. I will say there are, there are two, there are two underdrains that need to be connected in that first item that they found, but they hadn't been connected yet, so that's why they're, they're included up there. If the board wanted to do a partial approval or, but I mean, I'm more than happy to have a conversation with the engineer and the contractor, because that was my question then, is why did you pave it and now you're saying the subsoils weren't good enough? I mean, that makes no sense. I definitely think that's a conversation to have before we agree to pay the change order. I would make a motion that we approve change order number three, two and three at this time, well item number two and item number, yes, on change order number two, yes is, so line items six through nine, so like it, correct, there are some additional, there were two additional under drains that need to be connected that will be in addition to six through nine that we don't have the number for, and then there's the, so it's going to be more than the 7032, right, because those two extra under, those two additional under drains are in that section that they were looking at rebuilding, so we can do that. I just want you to be aware that they'll, you'll be seeing another change order to finish the under drain. Okay, so hold on for clarification, Mark, real quick, is line item A, EGP, the EJP order pipe one, is that, so that cost of 7,000, 32, 58, is that's for one drain connection? No, one, that 7,000 is for all the drain connections that they've completed, all the extra drain connections that they have completed already, yes, so but there's going to be a charge for two more coming up in the future Yes, because right now the cost of those two more is within that almost $19,000. [43:37] Speaker C (unidentified): I think right now, I agree with Alan, we deal with the $7,000, improve that to pay for the work that was done correctly on hookups that were needed. And we have a discussion, or you can have a discussion with the engineer and Pratt again about why that was paid, why the geotech wasn't put down to start with, because that's like no, that's 19,000 dollars that they made a mistake on. And then for the, and we would approve the 55. [44:15] Select Board member: 72 6 and 7 that's oh that's the top right yeah that's the crown to help it rain right that makes sense that is i don't have any issue with that 's some seems like a normal change order. We do want them to find their last two under drains, and we'll do a change for that. yes of course but i definitely need clarification on how we get to those points where they will return stuff up there's nothing that frustrates me more than doing something twice spring street Oh, I'm sure. I don't know. I'm not arguing that point, but, like, it shouldn't have taken the rate before we go and pay that to figure that out as far as my, as my biggest complaint. Thank you for listening to my motion. motion [Public commenter: I] move that we approve item, items six through nine on change order number two that includes 5570 for the base of School Street to develop the road crown and 7072 dollars 58 cents for additional work to address the undergreens that are not shown on the plans. Second. Okay, a second [45:48] Speaker C (unidentified): by Allen, motion by J. Any other questions or comments on that? Seeing none, just choosing to [45:56] Speaker B (unidentified): abstain because this is all happening in my front yard, so just for the sake of, I just want to make [46:03] Select Board member: sure you guys know why I'm gonna save me. Okay, show a hand to prove it. That's for the [46:12] Speaker C (unidentified): full one extension, then we get to the new discussion item. All right, I'm [46:29] Select Board member: going to be very professional, I'm going to be very polite about all of this. We arrived at our meeting on September 8th with an amendment to the agenda to approve a new $62,000 contract for insulation work to be done at the public works building because the total information that we got was because the subcontractor hired by the general contractor who we awarded the contract to left the job at 50 percent complete and wasn't coming back. Actually, from the minutes, exactly. So I don't, I say you have to be accused of [Public commenter: any] The subcontractor hired by RH to complete the spray insulation work at the public works building did not return to finish the project. As a result, the town needs to retain another company to complete the work. Acadia Insulation is available to complete the project, but at a higher cost than the original subcontractor who we did not hire. The minutes definitely cleaned up my language as it was in full force and with no desire to excuse it because and I still feel to this the same way tonight. That was it, that was all we were provided with information on this sixty two thousand dollar fiduciary expenditure. Now there's nothing wrong with the expenditure, it's completely compliant with spending of public works reserves money, there's nothing wrong or anything like that with the expenditure. However, I feel we failed you all as a board by pushing through that decision without having more background information supplied to us. I feel we erred. I feel we let everyone down. We act as a board. We live and die as a board. It was a 3-2 vote. That doesn't matter. It passed, and I feel we fiduciary failed you all. That's just my personal opinion. But we shouldn't have made a decision of that dollar value with that little of background information. That motion should have been tabled and moved till we had more information. So after that was Tuesday, we had the meeting, thought of it over the weekend, through the week, really frustrated me. Like I was getting calls from people asking me what was going on, so I emailed Nicole a an email asking just for some clarification on timeline and role in the situation. When was she notified that the builders were not going to come, the subcontractor was not going to come back, how was she notified, who notified her, such like that. I'm going to read this email because I again, I want it to be incomplete. And these are all available for FOIA. They're on my town voting in email. So they're, you know, they're available for anyone. Hold on. This is the one from the town attorney. We'll get to that one here in a little bit. [50:55] Mark: Could I just ask, Alan? Yeah, sure. That because we have this issue on an executive committee [51:06] Select Board member: schedule. It's exactly why we're talking about it now so it's not an [51:11] Mark: Executive session. For the 13th, it is my recommendation that we wait for full discussion until that executive committee, because although you see this in one light as needing more information for our community members, which I agree, by the way, that as soon as possible, we should get information and we should get the information back out. Because this is a contractual issue that's been recommended that we discuss an executive session. [51:50] Select Board member: That's incorrect. Correct, the email I got from the town's attorney directly, which I'll read aloud and forward to everybody, it provides no, provides nothing about, I understand we need to discuss our legal proceedings in executive session. The only two, the only two statutes our town attorney sent were regarding acting as a board or a personnel. No, after lots of thoughts and comments from citizens, I would like points of clarification regarding this fiasco. I'm great, I'm good, I will [52:21] Speaker C (unidentified): be forwarding this email to fellow that you're out of work right now. I'm going to read my email, I'm going to read it. You can, Alan, if you're going to read that email, you have to go to the public because you cannot be a board member, but read that email because that is a private, it is not a, you have a right under to have your voice heard, but not as a board. I am not, that does not agree with you. Didn't bring that up for vote to have that, those questions asked of anybody. Okay, then [52:54] Select Board member: I'll read them during my comment section. It's the same thing. No, it's not. I was gonna ask for a motion from the board to agree to have these read aloud, so right, because that's the way that Nicole said. What would you then do it? I would then we email allowed in during, I would read the email during my select board members with comments at the end. That's what I would do, and I wouldn't ask for any discussion. I was reading the public and they could decide if they thought the question should be answering. [53:25] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, to speak at this podium. Him as any other general public. At this time, I'd like to make a motion that the board asked the [53:34] Select Board member: town manager to answer these questions in open public discussion. Is [53:43] Speaker C (unidentified): there a second here or not? [53:47] Select Board member: I don't know the questions there, so I emailed them to you. Yeah, everyone got it. Well, I'd read them to you if you want. Others, they're right here. None of them pertain to any of the legal documents. They're just asked for a timeline. There is nothing that regards to the contract. There is nothing that in nothing in these questions that aren't easy, shouldn't just be easily answerable. And the fact that everyone is denying answering them makes it look way worse, because no one, the town attorney nor Nicole nor anyone has given me any example as to how her answering these questions could jeopardize our future legal interactions. So Alan, that's why we have an executive session. But once we go an executive session, the town can never know the answers. [54:36] Speaker C (unidentified): That is, that is not true. It is true. Will be a report when this is done of all the facts and how we got there and what the remedy is going to be after the remedy is taken care of. But we don't [54:49] Select Board member: I don't know that till we 're not going to the attorney has advised us. Yes, our journey lives. We likes to use executive session to shield citizens from municipal government activities. Wholeheartedly and appropriate comment. Well, it's my problem and I'll stand by a 1000%. [55:08] Mark: Okay, I move this discussion point and then we move on with the rest of the agenda. Agenda. [55:18] Speaker C (unidentified): Okay. Vote to move this. [55:24] Speaker B (unidentified): It needs a second. [55:27] Speaker C (unidentified): A second. Okay. Vote to move this. Show of hands. If it's not, I guess we're going to keep discussing this. [55:37] Select Board member: I think we have a member from the public who has something to say. Can I come up? Yes, can you please? [55:49] Public commenter: So I think that I'll throw out questions I have. Okay. The August meeting, you all approved $135,000. There was a statement being made, November's coming fast. So that work should have been done in November. It was not. My understanding is, I don't know, I'm guessing by watching you guys at the board last time, and based on what's being said here, this was the first time some of you have ever heard that this was going on. That's over a year, so what happened? So who know what, who knew what, who was talked to, what happened. I understand you can't probably talk about the contractor, that's probably legalities, but somebody knew something was going awry. If not, if it took a whole year for somebody to catch wind, we got, we got make some changes, because that means there's incompetency happening, right? I hope to God that's not true, but this town should know how it got screwed up and how it's going to be fixed in the future. Because in this discussion tonight, we still got big problems. We still have huge problems with paving. Something's being missed. Something's being missed, and that's not okay. And that this board won't be transparent, I don't buy the legalities. I don't buy it. Because knowing when you guys were notified, how you were notified, why the board was not notified, why there are these two board members that didn't know, and I only know that because of the votes. Okay, that is completely 100 unacceptable. So we screw up, so own it, move on. Right now y'all looking like you're trying to cover something up, because probably you're. My statement, it's ridiculous. Any [58:04] Speaker C (unidentified): other comments from the board or in discussion? [58:08] Shane Atkinson: Welcome, Shane Atkinson, River. Really, so just trying to wrap my head around this. So we hired general contractor, right, on me on the same page. Then they subcontracted same days. Why is the GC not held? There's a hell of a lot of, we paid him, right, and he subbed it out. So basic math, basic jobs. If I send a job out to an individual over here and I didn't, he do the job, you're going to come after me. That should be the way we are handling this. Unfortunately, that's not what I'm hearing. It kind of sounds like we're heading down the same road with the paving, finding problems. Now they're forfeiting the bill to us, and then we're just going to pay the bill. That's kind of what it sounded like on here, right? So sounds like we're just repeating ourselves and with not a lot of answers. Correct me if I'm wrong and fall back on the taxpayers in my pockets. Yes, go ahead. [59:18] Public commenter: What he said is, it seems like we need a few more hundred ounces of prevention in the future, so we don't end up in a situation like this. Thank [59:38] Speaker C (unidentified): you, Amy. Any other comments? Okay. Seeing none, we will move on with the agenda, which is the town manager's report. [59:54] Select Board member: We have bulky waste day is scheduled for Saturday, October 3rd. As we discussed, Pratt Road, Pratt is currently working on constructing the sidewalk on Back Hill, and they are ready to pave Spring Street. DOT Giddix has extended their public involvement website for the Main Street sidewalk to the end of this month, and I've asked them if they would do a presentation to the board after that. For the River Road violation, the last two boats are supposed to be removed by this Monday, September 28th. The survey for the four-way stop demonstration project has been posted online and the survey for the cart machine traffic comment has been mailed to cart machine residents. When will those surveys close? So how long do residents have to comment before those close out and we're done with it? I believe they'll both be beginning of October. So current machine, I think, is October 7th. So we should have we should have feedback ready for our next meeting on October 13th. We are still waiting on a decision from DEP for the transfer facility license. Since we have our grant meeting for the world tribal assistance grant for the design of the Merrimack schedule for work six OBP did start the construction for the new platform for the work and we're waiting for their the contract work the concrete work to be completed RH construction has completed their work up at public works and Acadia the new installation contractors expected to be completed by the end of this week recycling will resume their normal hours starting this Saturday they are closed they were posted and will be closed again on Thursday Okay I have not seen that posted online anyone that they're going to be closed on Thursday has that done just from the website I believe it was not there today this afternoon but I know also Oh, we'll double check that and make sure that it's up. I mean, I could have, in my state of private state, I could have missed it. [1:02:37] Speaker C (unidentified): So I don't know what Tuesday's was, but I'm not sure on Thursday. [1:02:41] Select Board member: So we can get that up. And then you would ask, so right now for our solar system on the fire station, we've produced 31.8 MWH megawatts of light for the solar system. 73 of that has been consumed on site by the fire station and the remaining 8.5 has gone back out to the grid and it's we have credits that then go through our other like what's all Through our other accounts Nicole I stand credit it is on the website about the clover and we'll Sure we can look that up on Facebook already I believe achievement of salaries page okay [1:03:37] Speaker C (unidentified): Next we've got select four members comments and requests good [1:03:45] Select Board member: Afternoon after lots and thoughts of comments from citizens I would like some points of clarification regarding this fiasco I will be forwarding this email to fellow board members individually so they are apprised but no quorum will be had as to not violate public meetings I would like to have these answers presented to the board at this Tuesday's upcoming meeting, please allow me tonight. Question number one. On what date, by what method, and by whom were you, Nicole, first notified of the issue with the subcontractor builders? Question two. Was anyone on the board apprised of this situation before our last meeting? If so, who, when, and how? Question number three. 3. Who and when was the determination made we would be required to hire and find a new subcontractor on our own, even though RH Construction had hired the original? Was the search for a new subcontractor put out to bid? That was question 4, sorry. Question 5. If there was no bid process, how did we come to find Acadia? [Public commenter: Question 6.] Was any preferential treatment given to RH Construction based on any personal relationship you may have had with one Randy Hinkley? Question 7. Please provide any and all correspondence regarding this subject matter with RH Construction Randy Hinkley directly, Builders Inc. and Acadia Insulation. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I sincerely hope my questions don't lead to more questions. Any other comments? Well, I was going to read the whole email chain, actually, if you want to, just like all the responses and stuff from legal, the quotes, the statutes that legal actually quoted me, why we couldn't talk about this stuff in public and needed to go to an executive session. And neither of them were regarding legal disputes or litigation. They were personnel, because this could be considered an accusation, allegation of misconduct, or investigation thereof, even though I made several direct points that it isn't. So and again I want to make it clear I would love for someone to point out in state statute where it says a report can be made of discussions from an executive session and then released to the public after the fact, because I know MMA legal gave you some sort of interpretation on that, you know, maybe not all executive sessions are the same. It doesn't matter whether they're personnel or legal discussion or in, they are the only thing that we talk about when we come out is any action taken in those. You know, and then we take a vote on it, we can't vote in executive session. Executive session is confident, it's confidentiality, we're like once the toothpaste is out of the tube in that room, once everybody's gone, nobody else can use that toothpaste, it can't be shared. So the only way that the public is going to get answers to these questions that I just laid out before them, which I don't feel offensive or intrusive, I think they were pertinent to the point, they were all just getting background information that we should have all had been provided to us before we were asked to vote, can be answered. There should be nothing in those questions that's hard to answer. There should be nothing in those questions that, there's nothing in those questions that any litigant who we may be going off against doesn't already know, because they're already a party to it. So like, it's not like we're giving away secret information to any possible opponent in court, and Nicole stated in her last email to me that she does agree that the public deserves answers, and she would be happy to discuss this in the open if the board was up to it. So once again, I will make one more time a motion to have this, these questions answered in public session, chair. [1:08:00] Public commenter: After [1:08:04] Speaker C (unidentified): a discussion with the attorney, I was advised not to. [Select Board member: Under what statute?] She did not. You can send it to me, but it's there. Yeah, so I'll tell you what statues it's going to [1:08:18] Select Board member: be, the same statue she sent me. This is crazy. All right, wearing, election day is coming up. That's okay. I mean, this is, this is, this is, we are ignoring our responsibility to our constituents wholeheartedly at this point. The 62 grand isn't even worth it. I have any answers, frankly. We spent 92,000 on a lawnmower with no approvals for anybody like that. It's just ridiculous. Any other comments or questions? I'm just, I'm, I'm really curious if RH Construction has been asked to make a difference. Have they, have they just been, because before we go to court or do any sort of litigation, I'd want to know. Well, that I think that was question five, you know, who made the determination that it was on us to pay for it anyway who made that call but nobody will answer it 's like a big owl out there in the wilderness it's a joke it's an absolute joke [1:09:28] Speaker C (unidentified): Any other comments or questions? [1:09:34] Select Board member: Yeah, I can't, I'll keep going. I mean, I can't, can't think of enough adjectives to describe the disgust I feel with my fellow board members right now. [1:09:48] Speaker C (unidentified): Okay, we'll move on to comments from the public. Yes. [1:09:54] Select Board member: Oh, sure. I'm just letting you through. That steps in. [1:10:02] Public commenter: Ari Chingley has finished their job. You all said at the last board meeting that $62,000 was going to be the third installment for Ari Chingley. So I'm assuming that was not paid to Ari Chingley. Did you not say that? I thought in the meeting you said, no, that's the third installment for Randy, because I think [1:10:25] Select Board member: you said well there was a third installment that was going to be withheld but that alone wouldn't [1:10:30] Public commenter: cover the additional new cost so that's my point was that still withheld he finished his work so that money is still being withheld okay this is just out of curiosity it's not a contentious question at all you might not be able to answer it right now but the solar panels on the on the fire station is that covering 50 percent of the municipal electricity or do you know that I don't believe so do you know what percentage it is covers it would have to yeah I know it's mostly the fire department this is awesome you got enough on your plate I was just [1:11:04] Speaker B (unidentified): curious you [1:11:07] Speaker C (unidentified): have a question from father the policy is going to name Amy [1:11:18] Public commenter: Walden carding She ran, changed the subject. On September 15th I brought a cat into Midcoast Humane that had been hit and killed on Coaster Oak. This is something I unfortunately had to do more than a few times now. I had even purchased my own microchip scanner just for these situations. While I was at Midcoast Humane they were extremely interested to learn of the open position for animal control officer in Botham to the point that one of the women even asked for the business card I had for our town manager. If not, I strongly recommend that the town reaches out to Midcoast Humane regarding the open position for ACO since they are the contracted animal shelter for Botham. From what I've heard from them on numerous occasions, I have reason to believe it would be very prudent to speak with the staff and it goes to name before hiring someone for that position [1:12:23] Speaker C (unidentified): thank you any other comments from the public just one last thing you know Jane Atkinson River Road [1:12:32] Shane Atkinson: first meeting I've been to in a long time so what I'm asking the board and I guess I'm not asking I'm demanding because that's why you are all folks that are in this position is complete transparency on everything that was discussed here tonight. I'd like to know all the details about how these people, like because I've heard Al mention the background checks of these companies. I mean, we just hired anybody. We're just throwing money away and saying, hey, you know, you're the first contestant to come on up and get the job, or are we actually doing homework to find out that we're not going to get taken advantage of like I've heard here tonight. Again, I'm with Axe Fares like everybody else, including you all as well. right so the best interest we need to do is we need to be covering and taking care of our investments not just willy-nilly right so again i 'd appreciate transparency on everything that was discussed here tonight and going forward any [1:13:27] Speaker C (unidentified): Other comments? Okay, our next meeting is October 13th at six o'clock, and then we have an October 27th at six. Is there any requests or anything them from the board to be on the agenda that we've missed? Yes, here are none. I'll take that motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor of turn and I have nothing in the rule is 712.