Okay, good evening, Oro. It's a warm one out there. Going to be even warmer tomorrow, but the pool is open. So, uh, good evening. Welcome to the town council meeting and budget adoption for Monday, June 23rd, 2025. Um, roll call shows we have council Lay, Council Hardison, Council Mars, myself, Council Demerit, Council Kenny, Council Powers, Council Baker is not able to join us this evening for a work event, but if we needed to get him really badly for something, we could we could get him if we need him. But, uh, I think we're okay. Um, that's roll call. Agenda review starts with um items that have been referred to committee as a reminder to us, staff, and the community of things we're working on in our committees. Those agendas and meeting times are posted online. Um and then we have no table on items and I know we've got a couple a discussion to have around agenda review and clarifications. So um councelor Kenny had a couple of items he'd like to bring up as part of our our budget discussion this evening and I wanted to ask the will um it came in um after the budget was published. Um, it takes a unanimous agreement of the council to add something as an order, but any councelor is certainly free and encouraged to bring up something as an amendment during a topic. So, one way or another, we're going to talk about councelor Kenny's ideas. And I wanted to ask the council, I guess, start with councel Kenny, how do you have a preference? Would you guys bring them up as amendments during the budget topic, or would you rather bring them up as orders ahead of time and then we could talk about it? I I'm thinking it's cleaner to do it as orders ahead of time, but I don't I think it doesn't matter too much either. So, as long as um we get a chance to talk about any counselor's ideas and I do appreciate um when anyone takes the work to write stuff down ahead of time so we have a chance to see it in writing. Um so is there a preference council Kenny would like to do them as orders ahead of time? Is that anybody have a concern with that? I I have one question about that. Council Marks. Yeah. My only question about that is if we were not to pass them as orders um can they still be brought up as amendments when we get to the budget? How does that work? That's my concern. If we have an something that is interacting with another part of the budget and we need to have a bigger discussion about it, if we've voted it, I guess down as an order, I don't know. I I'm curious how that works. If how if we get to the budget, then do you have a sense of that? I don't have any idea how that works. Um uh it I I guess I don't know if I do it in the budget where is appropriate to do it. That's I guess one of my would be my question. That's why I said if we do it if we did it beforehand and if it's if it's voted down, it's voted down. Um I wouldn't anticipate trying to bring it up in there again. And if and it but it does affect all the numbers in that part. So that's why I was thinking if it's done up front, if it does if it passes, okay, then then maybe quick math could be adjusted. Okay. I like that. That was my thought. Yep. And then yeah, we just for the sake of time and everybody's your goodwill, we probably wouldn't get very far trying to bring them up as amendments once we'd already Yeah. made a determination. Okay. So, without objection, um Leo, you have two of them, right? Do we have a a specific number? Uh so the budget is action item. Yeah, I do. 25. What's that? 134. Sorry, 134. So, what did I say? 133 A and B or something like that. Yeah, Amanda, how do you want to What do you think? What's the right numbering? Do we move everything? Do we They want to go between order existing order 25133 and existing order 25134. Do we want to go A's and B's or we just want to move everything down one? Or let's No, I may I Why don't you make them 158 and 159 and just take them at the point of 134? That way they're sequentially not messing up all the other numbers. All right, I got it. Cool. Cool. 158 and 159. Yep. Taken. But we won't do taken after 133. Yeah. And without objection, that'll be the order of the order of business today. Everyone okay with that? I like it when we work together. Appreciate it. No problem. Um, anything else under agenda review or clarifications? Yeah. Okay. I would take a motion to approve the minutes of June 9th, 2025. Moved. Second. Moved and second. Any discussion? All those in favor? We can vote by hand because we don't have the vote of six to zero on that. Thank you. Public comments. This is an opportunity for the town council. Your voice matters in Orno. As we uh remind ourselves and everyone, it's a chance for the public to comment on anything um of any interest that's not on our agenda. Do we have any public comment in the room this evening? You can certainly come back and talk about the budget when we get to that, but he just kind of budget this on the agenda proposing. There's something written somewhere. Is the microphone on? Sorry. Your Leah. Oh, probably not. Anyway, I'm Frederria Smith. I'm an orno resident and I guess this is kind of about the budget which is on the agenda. But since councilor Kenny is proposing something, is there something written down somewhere that those of us who did read the agenda carefully ahead of time did not have access to, can we look at it now? There is. Uh could we ask staff to maybe go print off a couple of those and for handouts? Is there anybody who could Sorry, Mitch. know that. Do you have the email actually? Here's one of Thank you, Frederica. That's a very fair question. Yep. Leo, I just texted you. And we'll read them out loud for the record, too. But we'll have a couple printed copies coming back in. So, thank you for the question. Any other public comment? Anything online? Els. Okay. Uh, number five, acknowledgement by councilors. We'll start with the power side of the table. Nothing at the moment. Okay. Councelor Kenny, what was that? Uh, it's acknowledgements by council members. Also, there's a lot. There's so much going on. It's hard to I I'll just acknowledge all that went on in Ornal this weekend. It was a phenomenal weekend. The the wear, the arts fest, the pool opening. Um it was uh lots and lots and lots of fun all the way around and a lot of it was uh staffed and volunteer driven and really wanted to extend a thanks to everybody who who played a role in or participated in all that was Orno this weekend. Council Marks. Yeah, I really didn't have a different thank you than that. Just I guess especially to the incredible number ofwalk volunteers since I was involved specifically with that. a lot of whom are sitting in the back. They're staff members as well as community members who gave their time to that event. Huge thank you, Council Art. I'm all set, Council Arway. Nothing additional. Thank you. Um, now we're going to move on to typically we do consent agenda next, but we decided we're going to move that to the end of the agenda. um for reasons that we talked about and had plenty of good reason to because we had so much to do with the budget and staff here and many of the consent agenda items are pretty pro- former once we get done with the budget. Right? That was the thinking. All right. First order on our action item are order 25126 order accepting the recommendations from the nominations, evaluations and call council policies committee on the council guidelines for pro proclamations and resolutions. Could we have a motion? So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Council marks from the committee. Um yes, this was referred to the committee primarily because the old um set of guidelines was built when we had a very different structure of council and where all counselors were serving on every committee. So originally um the uh guidelines indicated that something should go to committee first, but at that time committee meant the entire council. So we we rewrote to be sure that sort of the intention that everything would be seen by the full council at the very beginning was kept. Um you can see the most I guess innovative uh change there. There was discussion based on um wanting to be sure that community members could bring u a a resolution or proclamation idea to council, but also that it wasn't just one person. that they either needed to get a counselor who was willing to co-sponsor it or 25 signatures of people in the community who were interested in this proclamation or resolution. The 25 figure came from Shelley letting us know how many folks had to sign to get someone on the ballot. So, we gave the same number there. That's how the committee picked that number. Um, and the last part I guess I would say is that um, there's a stipulation that after council talks about it, if if it comes with 25 signatures or a counselor decides to co-sponsor it, if council says great, good to go, that's good. If council says, "Nope, we're not interested in this proclamation and votes it down, that's fine, or resolution. But at that point, we suggested rather than if it's an in between, like council kind of likes it, but they're not sure it's fully done, the suggestion would be that a counselor needs to volunteer to work with those community members to come back with the updated language council has asked for as opposed to sending it out to a full committee because our committees are pretty busy on a lot of important projects right now and we don't want to take up full committee time on that. So, those would I I would say are the highlights of those changes. Okay. Is there any public discussion? Any comments from or questions from members of council? I do. I I've got I've got two. Um it looked you you struck out the word controversial and I'm just curious what what went into that. So there was a discussion in committee about the words partisan and controversial and committee believed that the important word there was partisan that we wanted to be avoiding things that were politically partisanbased based on political party and something that was controversial might or might not be something that council was interested in weighing in on that would depend on council at any point in time. I I guess I' I'd personally like to see that remain in there because I obviously spoke about proclamations, Rob and I, a few times. Um I I think those at times fall outside of what our job is, which is overseeing the operation of the town. And to to engage in a controversial thing, I think could be, you know, I I don't think it's harmful being in there. And I think also it it's could be more of a distraction both for council and for staff if if we willingly are engaging in these controversial things. So that that's one I have one more response back I'm remembering from um committee discussion on that Leo which was just that the word controversial is pretty vague and that leaves a lot of burden on somebody to be deciding whether it is controversial or not before coming to council. council always has the right to vote as a council and say, "I feel like this is too controversial. I'm voting against it." But to put it in the guidelines seemed that it would be putting a lot of burden on staff to be trying to filter out like what is controversial and what is not potentially. Sorry, that was just the only other thing I remembered. Leo, do you have one other point? One other one. If I'm understanding it correctly, it's requiring that it'll come to council. It'll be a yes, no vote, or m or a maybe, but go work on it. I guess I would like to see it be at least like two readings, I think, is what we've typically done. I know I'm out of step here because we're trying to get things done fast these days, but to me, it feels like we've taken any any public input out of the process by sort of in making it be a yes or no on that first meeting. So I I guess I would just suggest that we always do a second reading and even if it's yes, but we haven't always done a second reading for proclamations and resolutions. Those have sometimes come through. Did you see the area where if there's one that staff brings forward that's important that needs to be done in a timely fashion? We've always had that language in there. So, I don't think anything here stops council from saying, um, you know, we need a public hearing or we want more input from the public. Do you see language you think would forbid that? We can fix that. Just point it out. Not not that would forbid it, but it just seems like I guess I'm thinking of policy and whatnot. At least typically in the past, it would always we do first reading, second reading. So, this this sort of feels the same to me. Um, I guess especially if you're putting controversial topics in there, if we're keeping that in there, it seems like it would be it would be nice to allow because I don't think people are paying attention to a lot of what we're doing. So, uh, I I just think a second reading or or a second Yeah, it' be a second reading, I guess, would be a good good process that would ensure that the public is able to have input. Yeah. But would it address would it address that concern on item three close to the end? Um would it address your concern if we added language? So council will consider the proposed proclamation and either vote yes, vote no, decide to refer it to a second council meeting for public input or indicate its general approval and send it off with changes to be made. We just add that. Sure. Okay. is that let's have a little more discussion than maybe have a a motion to change the to change it if that's somewhere where we want to go. Uh I think this really uh threads the needle pretty nicely. It gives I think it gives um you know I don't I don't feel like it's a litmus test uh you know start of the process litmus test on any proclamation but I think it does um it does set a path forward and and kind of a standard you know we get some of these requests that come through that are you know they start out you know dear orno select board um or you know mayor demerit and as much as I'd like that to be true it's not um so so we get some of these that are clearly aren't coming from an, you know, oro audience. Um, so I think I think the committee did a good job. I'm certainly we certainly have an opportunity as a council to delay and and table things if we need more time. I'm certainly open to this change that was suggested, but um I'd like to move forward with this, but I would say I'm in favor of the the second change that we that was just discussed. Um just adding a little bit more information as however you phrased it Sarah about um making sure it's clear about the the option of sort of creating a second hearing or meeting around this on the controversial section. I feel like everything that's sort of important about that word as far as I can understand what it means substantially is covered by the fact that we don't want to be a partisan body. There's plenty of language about that here. And then also that it we would not we would want to avoid proclamations or resolutions that are partisan nature or that likely would not enjoy a high level of community interest and support. Um I feel like those things cover controversy and controversy I feel like muddies the waters a bit. I think that that's what we discussed in committee anyway. Um because there are going to be important things that we may want to take a stand on or that it's important that uh we we issue a proclamation or resolution about that inevitably somebody will not like this or that. But I I I feel like controversial I guess Sarah already said it pretty nicely. It adds an undue burden on staff or us to try to figure out what does controversial mean. It just feels rather vague and ultimately no council can bound a future council or counselors in terms of you know what'll what'll happen. Um Matt anything you okay? I I just to throw in there I think um controversy is a subjective very very subjective and because we're all individuals with our own subjective point of view anything could be considered subjective and so I think it would be difficult for the staff to make that choice and that's what we're here to deliberate but if you would like to have the the community weigh in more on that to make sure Leo I'm fine with that change I think that that's not a bad change. Okay. So, if we're ready, why don't we take an amendment based on the language that Sarah had on that second item about the read? Do you want to read it out for the So, this is a a mo I'm going to make a motion to amend. Um, and actually looking at item three, I will point out to the council that one thing that's a bit wordy in this is that we keep saying um proclamation or resolution. The real truth as a council is we can really only act by resolution. We don't by our charter make proclamations, but the word resolution is a little vague to the public. Proclamation seems like something people understand better. So, we attempted to keep both terms in there. And I'm realizing on number three and four, we should probably add the word um or resolution back in. So, I'm going to propose to amend item three to read at the bottom. Council will consider the proposed proclamation or resolution and either vote yes, vote no, refer the proposal to a second council meeting for further public input, or indicate its general approval of the concept with a desire for certain changes to be made. Period. And then the remains unchanged. I'm also going to suggest on item four that in the first line it reads in the event that a counselor does volunteer comma the proclamation or resolution with the changes requested by council. Okay. Okay. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion on the proposed amendment? All those in favor? Okay. That's unanimous. Now we're back to the underlying order which is order 25126 as amended. Any discussion? Final discussion. All those in favor? Thank you. That's unanimous. And thank you to the committee for your very good work as always. It's probably my third favorite committee of all the commit because it's, you know, the one the two I serve on. And then All right. Could I get um on top of that goodwill I'm building, could I get an order for 25127 order accepting the bid received from the Trojan Technologies of Toronto, Canada for UV disinfection upgrades for a total cost of $317,527 and and 50 cents um with funds drawn from the WPCF Capital Facilities Reserve. We have a motion. So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Mr. Pru, could you introduce yourself and Yep. turns itself on. Is that better? Y. Um, so I had planned on one more year with reserves and by some stroke of luck, there's enough in there now. There's there's plenty in there now, which is a good thing because the system is starting to show. Could you speak up just a little bit because we've got the fans behind us tonight. So, sorry. So, I have plenty in reserves for this uh project. Um around $318,000. Um this work would be performed by the manufacturer. It would be probably a 30-week build once we tell them that uh to go ahead with it. Um the system is starting to show the signs that you'd expect with this age of equipment. Um so I'm kind of pleased that there's enough in reserve because I thought I was going to have to go two more years and just from other sources other than I've been putting purposely been putting money in reserves to pay for this. Um but there's been other sources uh for reserve money that's come about in the last couple years. So, um, I'm requesting those funds to make that upgrade. Good. Any clarifying questions from members of council before we ask for public discussion? I did give you all the narrative if you have any questions on what that was about. Okay. Any comments from the public? Any council discussion? I'll just say, you know, I feel like I remember us talking about this the last few years about this coming up eventually and uh I'm glad we're at this point. I mean, it makes sense. It's here. Yeah. Okay. Anything else? All right. Thank you, Chris. Thank you. All those in favor? It's unanimous. Six to zero. Thank you. Um I'd like to take a a motion on order 25128. order authorizing the town manager to enter into a renewed agreement with Axon Enterprises for a 5-year lease of eight tasers with funds drawn from the interest in on investment reserve for the amount of $10,000. The remainder is met by the annual allocation for tasers. Moved. Seconded. I'll second it. Okay. Chief Merrill Dan Merrell, police chief. I just had to adjust the height of it a little bit so you guys could hear me clearly up here. Um, yeah. So, I just wanted to ask the council, um, tasers, Axon, whichever company you want to use, um, is one of the tools that we've used in the police department since I've been here, well over 15 years. Um, it's one of those contracts like our body warn cameras, um, that every 5 years it comes due for a new lease. Um the best practice would be to sign a new lease with the company so that we can keep um our products under warranty and um up to date with what you know they would say is current industry best practices. If we let these things get out of date then there can be more liability that can be taken on because they're you know they would they would recommend that they get turned over um and used out for new equipment um essentially. So, the cost is $46,000 over 5 years. As is mentioned, um in talking with the finance department, there's about $10,000 that we can use um as a down payment along with what's scheduled in my operating budget to for a year one essentially payment and down payment. And then that would keep the remaining four years under budget on budget, let's put it that way, for the council. So, that's my recommendation. Okay. Thank you. Any clarifying questions before we have public discussion? Any public discussion? Any council discussion or questions? How often do we discharge our tasers? Do we very fortunate that actual deployments is low? Um, deescalation, right? So, it's one of those tools that we like to have to be able to use to deescalate. So sometimes just even presenting it can be like the warning that's meant to be the warning of we might need compliance is imminent or otherwise right. Um so I don't have the statistics. If you guys wanted them I could get them for you. I don't know. I just very I can tell you very low. Not very not very often. Good. Yep. All right. Thank you. So we're ready to move on this motion. All those in favor of order 25128 is unanimous. Thanks Dan. Thank you. Appreciate it. Um order. Can I get a motion on order 25129? Order authorizing the town manager enter to enter into an agreement with Moors and Cabat for bond advisor services at the recommendation of the finance and operations committee. So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Um is there someone Clinton you gonna lead this one or Jacob's not here? So Jacob's not here. Yeah. So the finance committee met last month. There was two proposals we received. Um I both were great. You worked with one in the past this council which was Moors and Kabat Joe CQara. I've worked with him as well. Uh I recommended we maintain that relationship since I've worked with him and you've met him. It seemed like the right fit. The cost was nominal of a difference and the real savings will be in who does the best job writing the bond issuance and getting us the best interest rate. So I think we got a good plan. Now we can move forward with them and try to figure out which ones we're going to bond and which ones we're not. We've got some needs coming at us pretty quickly. So at a minimum we got to issue one bond and then I think the other piece that we need to investigate is it make more sense to invest all the items that are in the capital plan now if we intend to do them in the next couple of years. So we're going to talk about timing. Okay. Any clarifying questions for the manager and any public discussion? Any discussion from councel? Okay. All those in favor of order 25129. It's unanimous. Thank you. Um now take a motion on order 25130. I won't read the whole thing, but it's an order agreeing the town of Orno will serve as a respon responsible entity for a HUD environmental review and delegate Isabelle Oxley town planner the authority to carry out the responsibilities etc etc. Can I have a motion? Moved. Seconded. moved and seconded. Mitch Stone. Mitch Stone, assistant town manager. Uh obviously, uh there's a memo attached to the gist of this is, and I apologize for the long order, but um it's required in the delegation process to have that order written a certain way. Um but basically the University of the Maine and uh the the regional um planner at the regional office for HUD approached Isabelle because um with some of the changes in the federal government um the regional office has one person working in it for the whole of the New England area and to do the environmental review um would take a ridiculous amount of time that they had to prioritize. So, um, UMain has a project at the Alphar Arena that they've gotten funds. In order to get the funds released, you have to do the environmental assessment. Typically, um, towns do participate in doing their own these environmental assessments when they're receiving funds. Um, and in a situation like this, because we are an agency that does um, these types of assessments and Isabelle can do them. Um, it's an opportunity for us to be able to do that for them and keep everything rolling from a project standpoint. Um the university also was uh willing um to pay for um Isabelle's time because of our contractual agreement so that it won't cost the town anything to do that. Isabelle had the time and is going to uh work with us to make sure that those hours are build out and the university will then reimburse us for it. So no cost of the town helps with the relationship with the university and keep that project moving. Um, and I'm not positive, but I think the university may have another project that has HUD funds, and if we ever have them in the future, we have the ability to do that. So, any questions? I'm happy to answer. Is there any clarifying questions from council? Could you just clarify for everybody that I didn't write this letter that calls the town chair the highest elected official in the town of Orno? Somebody else wrote that. I I can confirm that you did not write this letter. Thank you. I will sign it. I'll gladly sign it. Did not write it. It's interesting how people get you to sign things. I take it out. That'll be like I'm signing that before we leave tonight. Um taking it home, showing my kids. Um all right. So, any public discussion? Okay. Thank you, Mitch. Any more discussion? I think it's a great example of partnership. So, thanks for bringing it forward. All those in favor? And it passed unanimously. And if someone wants to pass me a pen, just sign this thing and we'll um Okay. Order 25131. Order assigning the finance and operations committee to review monthly statistics from the safer grant program positions and any potential cost savings. Can I have a motion? Moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Andrew, did you was this you brought this right? This was at your request. Yes. Start with it. Yeah. Uh with a lot of the conversation during this budget season being around the number of full-time employees and the funding for the safer program, I just thought it would be good for the fire department to keep us updated on what savings each month, the overtime savings that they are seeing from the safer position so that we already have a step ahead in the information for when we start to discuss next year's staffing levels and budget. Okay. Any clarifying questions or more from staff? I'd just say that we attached a copy of the report that we built during this budget season. That's what staff was going to be maintaining monthly. So from our staff perspective, we're just going to share that. That is the report that would be shared on a monthly basis. Does not relate to the January presentation that the council has requested on how it's its effectiveness for the year. Okay. And it'll go to the finance committee, right? So, any other comments from anyone questions? Seems like a great idea. I've look I've looked at it and I don't quite know what I'm looking at. So, I'll look forward to understanding it when we get in the finance meeting. Council Council Marks. Yeah, thanks for bringing it, Andrea. Um, I do have a question. Um, so we're indicating that it's telling us about cost savings, but it isn't actually. There's no financial numbers on here. What it's actually telling us is about number of overtime hours we didn't have to fill. Correct. So, I mean, I'm just Is it easy to actually put a number to those overtime hours you didn't have to fill on this report? Because that's what's missing in my mind is a cost about what those overtime hours would have cost if we had filled them. Likewise, the corresponding counter cost, which is what funding those extra, is actually four extra positions because three are funded through safer, but to operate at four shifts of six instead of four shifts of five is actually four positions. Three of them have been safer funded and one has always been taxpayer funded. So, if we're really calling this a cost analysis, what we're missing is the cost numbers. If we don't care about that, I'm fine to just look at this report as long as once we get to January, there are cost numbers added for what, you know, the salaries and benefits to those four positions were and what the actual dollar savings in not filling this many overtime hours were. I don't need to see them every month, but I do want to point out that right now, this isn't actually giving us any cost numbers. And that's why I shared what we're doing. If anything besides what we're doing is being requested, we'll have to build more. If it's just simply taking the overtime rate and putting it on that spreadsheet, that's easy. If it's analyzing grant versus non-grant versus when the grant ends and no, I'm not going to agree to the staff doing that. You'll see that in January. We'll have a nice report then. But as far as this chart and the hourly rate of overtime, we can put that on every month. It's a simple math equation. We'll just have that spreadsheet total it. That's fine. I just didn't want to get into the more deep analysis until we get to the January. If we're going to have the dollar savings from the overtime, can we also get the dollar cost for paying those four positions each month? Well, it's inherent within the spreadsheet. It shows you your filled hours and unfilled hours on that. So, when you look at the overtime, it does include the number of hours we had to call in. So, the 16 is the mustfill. The 282 is the vacancies, 266 is what we didn't have to fill. So, all three numbers are there. Must fill, don't fill. And I'm not asking that. I'm asking salary and benefits for those four positions that month because that's actually the cost. We thought we'd just do the hourly rate of overtime. We can do the more deep information, but again, this is what I didn't want to get into is all the different ways of then let's not do it and let's see the actual cost numbers in January. But at that point, we need to see both. We need to see the cost for paying those positions and the cost savings for not pulling in overtime. I mean, and it does show you. I mean, yep, I agree. That's what I didn't want to have to get into is every month diving into who took benefits, how much benefits were on. I'm fine if we don't see it till January. Are you okay with okay with that, Andrea? But I don't want to see half of it. I don't want to see just the just the salary costs and or just the benefits of no overtime. If we're going to see numbers, I want to see both. Okay. Any other Well, is there any public discussion? Any more discussion from council? So, are we putting a bow on that? What What are we Are we going to be I'm I'm cur I don't still understand what these numbers are. I I wouldn't mind looking at this and understanding what I'm looking at in the in the finance meeting and even if it's not um attached to the numbers. I'm just curious to understand this now because so we'll start with the finance committee and if it grows and evolves it'll grow and evolve with their capacity. But this is the starting point. I think this is fine to start and we can probably stay here. I really am serious that I don't need to see the numbers till January. I do want to see them then, but I don't need to see them monthly. Flip side. It might be fun to do a dry run with finance committee somewhere's in the middle. We'll see. Yep. All right. So, the question for us is we have one finance committee member who uh we got a proposal from council hard. We've got a finance committee member says I can wait till January. We have another finance committee member Leo if you have a strong preference one way or another, but we ultimately have to vote. Dan, I wasn't actually saying I think as proposed this is fine because staff is telling us this as we see it in front of us is no extra work. Correct, Clint? You're tracking this exactly already. But my suggestion is we stay right with this and we don't ask for further numbers until January. Okay, that sounds like we might be ready for a vote on this one. Okay, all those in favor, it's unanimous. Thank you for that. Quick, good and quick discussion. Okay, we got um two more to get to before we start going out of order. So just to remind myself and all of us um order 25132 I'll accept a motion on order assum assigning the community development committee to draft a policy regarding the display of governmental and non-governmental flags. A motion moved second moved and seconded. Um this Andrea this one was um you had backtoback right? So you want to walk us through this one? Uh we had some residents with concerns about the number of and location of flags during um flag day and upcoming 4th of July. And it was discovered that there is not a current town policy on location numbers, date that they go up, date that they come down. And this is something that I we think that it would be good to have as reference for should there be more residential questions about the flags. Okay. Any clarifying questions before I ask for public discussion? Yep. Any public discussion? Any council discussion? I am wondering and and if there is a reason why to this date there's never been one. Clinton, you've 11 months on the job. Do you really surprised if there was an oversight to be honest? And I don't think there's an oversight. I think there's you can do it either way. Staff's had a procedure on how they've done it. Um public works works with the university. Um the bridge as I understand is the one unique component so that the university does put them up and down on the bridge. So we have whatever we do has to be at their convenience as well. And we work with the university a lot on the rest of the street. So we work with them on a convenience. strict rigid times if they're going to be and again I don't know if that policy would say must be up B must be down by but again we do a lot of inind bartering and that's at low cost to the community but it does do it and I know the big change this year is the bridge was under construction so we couldn't rotate flags so staff did an adapted plan and it was some liked it some didn't um that's the best we could do with the bridge out but we compromised to keep all flags displayed through Memorial Day Flag Day, Pride Month, and then getting them back up in time for the 4th of July. So, that was the plan on how the rotation, but again, with people being out, I can't even tell you for sure when the university might be back up to get the flags up again. Our goal was to get them up before the 4th of July. Would there be any, and I guess it could happen either way, um any potential legal issues if one group can't get their flag up versus one group that does get their flag up. And that's I'm just wondering if that's what we've intentionally stayed out of. Right now, we just do the two pride flag and the American flag as well as banners supporting the University of Maine as the astr because they do them for us. If you have a policy, you're going to have to write the policy envisioning all potential applicants to put up a flag and how they would request one if they wanted one up and who would review it and how. That's Yeah. Yep. Some communities and just, you know, they've done a community flag poll that's done by a private citizen committee that the polls available to you be to run those flags as that citizen committee does. That's a whole other different, you know, we'd have to create and build that kind of poll. But um this is just about our street banners and those remain a staff thing that we manage as best as we can and again the polls are owned by person. We have rights to attach to them. We do not own them. So there is another agency that we have to work with as well in them. So but yeah, Matt, you're the one you got to look at those flags all the time from your house, right? I I personally kind of like the keeping the tradition that has built up organically. That's me personally, but I'm willing to to discuss this and uh and I like the flags. They go up right in front of my house. They went up differently this year and I thought that was awesome. It's kind of fun to have a little bit of a change and was not just we had to work it how we could and we were able to scoot around the the truck just barely. They moved it for us to get out and it was fine. So, it's good. I I like the tradition and keeping it a tradition. Personally, a tradition versus a policy. Yeah. I'm I'm of two minds on it. One, I don't want people giving staff a hard time about when and where flags go up. And it's kind of like so, you know, you see it sometimes with you see it with the things that are kind of most public facing, you know, and the bins, you know, and we see it with um the after school program and and then now the flags and those kinds of things and people I'm happy for council to be the the where the buck stops on these kinds of things and people come well if you have a problem with with it, come talk to the council and we we have look, we have a policy and staff's just implementing it. But it feels like this might be one of those things where given the logistics involved, we haven't yet provided public works with that bucket truck that we, you know, was requested a couple years ago. And um it feel like doing the best we can with what we have is might be the right approach. And just, you know, if there's a ground swell of people and they really want to see want to see us legislate on this, we could do it. But I I didn't get the feeling I I I I encouraged this to come forward so we could have this discussion and that's what these are for. So I did talk to a few residents. I think yeah, some were upset, some weren't. A lot understood when they spoke to us. I I you probably know better than I do if they were still upset afterwards. I mean, we stuck to our plan and that's what we did. Um we did run into some issues that we didn't have as many flags as we thought and we ran out and bought a few um on a Thursday afternoon and got them out. Yeah. And I don't want to have to, you know, you don't want to see staff have to run around looking for, you know, I'm always looking at We're good either way. I mean, if you want to kick it to committee just to consider it and come back whether it should or shouldn't or if you want to not do it here or if you want to go for it and say do it. I councelor Marks. Yeah, I think on a preliminary thoughts for me are kind of what I've already heard down the table that I mostly think like what we've had in place has been working just fine until this year, which is a pretty unusual year with the bridge construction. So, my inclination would be not to send this to committee. Our committees are pretty busy with a lot of really important things. And to me, this just doesn't rise to the level of important enough right now to take up committee time on it. Certainly, if the bridge construction gets done and flags continue to be a problem in next year, then maybe we bring this back and we reconsider whether one's needed, but for me at this point, I'm not feeling it needs a formal policy. Andrew, if you feel strongly about it and have energy on it, I'd support, you know what I mean? If that's where you want to see it go, but I'm gonna follow your vote on this one. I guess I'm going to leave that to you. I'm I'm half one way, dozen the other. It you can't make everybody happy and it just was a thought that if we had something to refer back to, um that might be something. But if it's something that we should table for now and look at if it comes up again, then I'm in agreement with that. Okay. So, I guess I'm inclined to vote against it now and then we can obviously you see how easy it is to get something on the agenda, right? So if we need when we need to do it again, we'll we'll do it. If we have to have another conversation about it, we'll I if if I hear a bunch of public comment out, then I'll be the first to jump on the bandwagon getting this on. And if I and if people are coming in and and want us to take care of it, then I'm happy to do what the public wants. But I think for now, I think I want to tell them we need five o'clock every other Monday and then they can come to a community development meeting and be a part of the conversation. That's how we get things done around here. All right. Okay. So, if there's no more discussion, all those in favor of order 25132, all those opposed. It goes down unanimously and I really really good example. Thank you for that, Andrea, for for jumping on that and saying I'll I'll grab it. So, that is what you did. So, appreciate that. Me, too. Thank you. Good. Um, next up is order 25133. Order authorizing the carry forward of up to $2,775,241 from the balance of the FY25 municipal budget into FY26 to complete projects identified in FY25. Okay. Get a motion. So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Haven't missed one yet. Lost my spot. Yeah. Is this going to be the town manager or Zach or I think Zach has a short 2530 minute presentation on this if he wanted to come up. No. Um we haven't sent Zack to the podium as much as uh you know as much as we like. So well no and I just to take the lead. So this you did this in September last year and I kind of talked to Zach and I said I'd like to see this come up twice. I'd like to see it come up before we close the year. This is an up to amount. These are the projects we know we're rolling as well as some staff projects of things that we'd like to see done. So, but when you look at this, the majority of these are related to capital projects, road projects, um you know, all the way right down to where you see uh the block ceiling by public works. That's all projects that they want to queue up that are in the existing funds from this year's budget to do and they want to roll them so that they can finish them. Then starting at the fire hose, fire nozzle, some fire gear, that's some some funds that they would like to see roll forward that weren't fully expended so that they could do them this year. Um, like we talked about in the budget, I added the safer wages to this line so that it's clear and understood that we're carrying forward operating funds to make that funding work for next year. That ties to the budget just a little bit. Um, Union Street boat launch as you get down to the bottom that's left over uh from that. That's still not finished. That's still there. So, we're rolling it one more year to fully expend it. Um, some is being expended as we speak. But again, rather than reconciling it, we present this now. It's the up to number probably around September. We can bring you the finalized what we did roll and what was needed. Um, but it would be less than these dollar amounts. So, that's kind of the way I thought we'd approach it. So that way you're not asking in September what we rolled. We needed permission to roll beginning next fiscal year which starts next week coming right up. Okay. Any clarifying questions from council before public discussion? Public comment. So these numbers because I was wondering about that because I thought we've spent some money at the boat launch and I thought we only put 10,000 down there but maybe I'm off on that and it looks like the whole the whole thing is being moved forward. She's encumbered. Yeah, Megan can answer that specifically, but it is 10. She's encumbering it, but we haven't spent any of it yet. Haven't spent anything. U Megan Misilla, parks director. What you might be thinking about, Leo, is the removal of the knotweed, which was um part of the environmental uh manager budget out of the public works department. that was a larger project to remove invasives of the entire town and didn't affect the development that the $10,000 is attached to. Does that help? Yeah. But and that was I guess another question like when we said $10,000 I I didn't know if that was also to pay for because we had heard earlier that staff we got three weeks worth of work down there public work. No, no, it's three weeks. We'd heard a year and a half, but then corrected it to 3 weeks. Yeah. But but I mean, so that doesn't play into that 10,000. That was staff labor. It's already paid for. So this is above. Yep. The 10,000 work. If you like this, we'd like to see these carried forward. And then the expectation is in September. My understanding of the 10,000 was for like improvements like a gazebo or like maybe ferris wheel. Yeah. you know, slip and slide permanent. Yeah. Okay. Any other any comment from the public? Any discussion from council? Okay. All those in favor of order 25133 as presented. That's unanimous. Thank you. All right. Now, we're going to go out of order to order 25158. And Leo, I think this is the staffing breeze one. Is that right? Yes. So, just just to read it out, I guess how I I think it's how I sent it. Sure. Uh, in an effort to stabilize future tax rates, freeze staffing levels at the current 2025 staffing levels. This will create a reduction to 385 from operating expenses. Yep. That's all right. So, Leo, you want a motion? Move. Second. Moved and seconded. And Leo, you're presenting, so why don't you um you want to walk us through your thinking and Sure. Yep. So, I've introduced uh the two orders that that that's the first one. Both both aimed at providing um taxpayer relief. Um I do want to first acknowledge as I look out at staff. I want to be 100% clear that I appreciate all staff 100% and this is not an enviable position, but it's also not a personal position to talk about staffing. It gets personal if people are getting cut, but we're not we're not talking about that. But um highest regard for all staff and uh hopefully it's this is nothing that's taken personal and at times it sort of feels like it it does go that route. So I hope I hope it's not. Um so again um this this really it it stems from taxpayer relief. Um you know Maine is the number we're number one in the country. Uh we have the highest um we're number one with what is it called? Uh Maine's ranked for for property tax burden. Maine is ranked number one. Um and that's not that's not a number one I want I want to be obviously and I don't think anyone else does. So and and as council we are the fiduciary for every every taxpayer in this in this town. Um and I think a lot of people are are struggling. So that that's why I'm bringing this this forward. At the end of the day, the buck stops with town council and the school board. We are we we control the budgets. So, um it's uh and and I shared with with um council members earlier as well and Sarah's corrected some of my numbers. Um I don't think they weren't too far off, but um I I do want to share publicly that a few a couple of stats. And I think it's important that we acknowledge and understand this as we're making these types of decisions. And and the stats I shared were in 2018, our operating budget was $7.2 million. This year's proposed is 12 million or 11.99. So it's a 4.8 million increase in eight years and that's a 65% increase. Um and I I just think that's it is what it is. We're here here we are. But it it's just not sustainable. We've been saying that I think for for several years. Um the other statistic which Sarah has slightly corrected. Um but I had there were 71 and a half employees in 2018. Currently we have 86 I thought 87. Um and that's you know so that's 14 additional staff. Sarah highlighted that where they all I think lie at this point. And it's unfortunate there are I I use my data from last year's budget and number Sarah's gone through it I think in fine detail. So I'll I'll trust that she has uh put the work in and and her numbers are more accurate. But either way it's it's an increase of 13 or 14 um um employees. And that's um and when I if you think about someone who might have retired, you know, 10 years ago, there's just no possible way that someone's revenue someone's um the money they bring in is keeping up with 65%. So, um they they certainly and even people that are working, most people in eight years haven't seen a 65% increase in salaries. So, I think we we need to we need to be lower. I always think that obviously. Um, so I add, oh, I was going to say we also, you know, this Orno is obviously a desirable town and we hear a lot of people that really want to live here and want to move here, but I've heard probably as many stories of people that say, "Yeah, I want want to live in Oro." Then they they look at properties and they see the taxes and they say, "Uh, they choose another town." And so, um, I grew up here. I want people to be able to afford to move here, uh, to keep supporting our great schools, obviously. Um, and I want people to be able to retire here, too. And I So, this this to me feels like, uh, an appropriate move to STEM. I mean, it's one of our first bullets on long-term financials is one of our first bullets on every every agenda, and I think this goes towards that. So, um, that's that that's on that's okay where I'm at. Thank you, Leo. Any clarifying questions for council Kenny before I open up to public discussion? Then we'll come back to council discussion. Anything from staff right at the top or just participating? Yep. I'll be here for any questions. Yep. I mean, you're on your amendments. So, that's the spirit. Yep. Yep. Um, any public comment? I just have one clarifying clarifying question. Yep. Um, is this for one year only? No, this is for the 2026 budget to say this is all we're obviously we don't make any decisions about future council. So, this is for the 2026 budget. Okay, Frederria, please. Yeah, I'm Frederria Smith. I'm a citizen in Orno. And the number that Leo gives is that um cutting a halftime position would save $38,000. That's about $4 per per person in town. that is not a number that's going to put anybody in a poverty situation. The um information that Sarah worked out was very helpful because obviously all of those positions are in the public safety realm. And I think there are a number of issues there. One is that if you look at the quality of care that emergency medical staff, for example, can provide now compared to what they could provide 10 years ago. It's enormously different. All of the personnel in the fire department are EMTs, if I've got that correct. And that means that they're saving lives. That's incredibly important. And looking at, as you know, I'm a physician. And when I look at what medicine can do now compared to what they could do 10 years ago, it's incredible. So, we're saving lives with those extra people. Part of the issue there too is that there's an awful lot of stress associated with those positions in police and fire. And if you don't support the staff with adequate personnel, they leave. They go somewhere else. That increases the load on the remaining personnel. Recruiting people to come into a very high stress situation is difficult under the best of situations and it gets worse if you cut staffing. So in terms of the general um departments, I think we weave to Clint how best to distribute the work that needs to be done. But I can tell you from looking at the town clerk's office where I am usually maybe five or six hours a week that the amount of work there has increased enormously. General assistance applications are up. That's been added to that department. Freedom of Information was added to that department. As you heard at the last meeting that Shelley is now the town treasurer, will become the town treasurer. So you need to provide adequate staff to do all that work. Last year there was at least one or was it two additional elections. That's an enormous amount of work for each election. I think I've been told that from the very beginning of an election process to the end is about takes about 90 days to do all of the development and tracking that goes with that. So you really can't ask staff people to do more and more and more work with fewer resources. Then if you do, either the work doesn't get done well, which is not the case here, they bend over backwards, work extra hours to get it all done, or you drive staff away. And every time you drive away a staff person, the figure I was given as an physician employing my own people was that it cost me six months of wages to train a new staff person to come in. So being pennywise and pound foolish is not a good thing. So, thank you. Any other public comment? All set. Council discussion or questions for Matt? I like on the one hand I can see the principle that you're you're setting up which is um us being trying to be as fiscally responsible as possible um and and trying to make sure that we don't overcommit. And so I I get that sentiment and I also understand where you're coming from and I think it's a it's a a good place. On the other hand, it also take it we have to be a lot braver if we are actually taking an individual request from from the from the the town for a position that they think is vital. At this point, all we're doing is we're saying that there's some that we're just not going to do anything. If something comes up and they ask for a new position, we've already made the decision without knowing what the request really is and we don't know what the situation is. It's a lot scarier to be in a situation where um we have to make an individual um choice of staffing when Clint asks us and he has good reasons for it right on the spot. And so in my mind, I think the braver thing for us to do is to not make this commitment and then really bite the bullet if we have to. If Clint asks us we need this position and gives us good reason for it, um then we have to say no and everybody knows that we're saying what we're really saying no to instead of biting that off before he even has the chance to to come and have that ask. So, I'm not in favor of this particular one, although I am in favor of the sentiment and I totally understand um where you're coming from, Leo, and I think it is unsustainable in some ways if we can't go up another 64% four years, but I'm not in favor of this. Okay. Um just I do want to just clarify obvious. I think everyone understands that I'm not asking for a positional cut to what we're doing today. I I assume you understood everyone understand. family. Um, and and you know, I don't I maybe what I read in the paper isn't accurate, but I do know our neighbors one town over, I believe, are cutting 10 full-time positions. So, my request is to not add here. Just just to put that into perspective. So, from a got to clarify then. Yeah, go ahead. Well, because I saw the order and and I guess I just want to know from implementing this came up two weeks ago and we went forward with a you know the conversation of the FTEES and it was asked why I didn't bring forward cutting that half time FTE. We have been in this process since I started for the past year for redeveloping how everything works and we've shifted a lot of positions. This budget represents the net effect of that 50,000 that was set aside. Those are all in place and those wheels are all moving and that is being done. If this 385 was cut and no FTEEs, is this telling me to eliminate that halftime position that may or may not be filled at this point? Because I don't want to get into individual employees. But as we discussed, there are no vacancies outside of a police department, soon to be maybe one in public works and maybe one in I'm thinking I got one other and two at the fire department, but those are in process right now as we speak. Those were the vacancies I was asked to share that I have. Am I allowed to figure out how this FTE equivalent is being attritioned or is this being dictated where it would come from? Because I'm confused with the way that got delivered. I I guess Leo, you'd have to Well, you know, my my hunch is it it it may be a moot point, but my intention was the additional halftime FTE that you were adding in that location. So, that was the intent. It's not, you know, it's not that. And I would only clarify for full disclosure that was part of the 50,000 for last year. I presented in March and April on what I was doing and I've implemented those steps. That has been done. Okay. So that was part of that that was part of it. So it has been done. I've got I guess if no one else says anything I've got first. You go first. I have something. I'm going high level. You want to go details first? You go first. All right. Um we're good that way I think. Um so we passed the budget tonight. You don't there's not a bunch of there's no positions you're we're creating no I mean the positions that are exist today will exist after we pass this budget there aren't so we're not um so essent I think and essentially I think the free the passing the budget is a freeze on the staffing levels that we have right now because we're not increasing staffing with this budget right by hand you want to look at it there was 50,000 in last year's budget for me to utilize for not for eliminating and transitioning that netted at year end if you take it forward one year a half-time increase but again that 50,000 is paying for it so there is no increase in cost you set aside 50,000 last year I have used that 50,000 the net effect for next year of all those expenditures ends up being $53,800 in pay increases for next year okay which is a half a position up so I don't want to get into semantics right the 50,000 was used to pay for it it's a half a position more the net effect of all those moves Yeah, I think we have um so to take it a step back in a higher level. I mean, I think we've established that it's pretty hard around here to add a position or add, you know, add staff. I think that we have um held those requests to a high level of scrutiny. Um you know, we very nearly, you know, I we had three positions of the fire department that are fedally funded for three quarters of the year and we spent a lot of time talking about whether we were going to take on that quarter that extra quarter of the year. There's a lot there's going to be a lot of scrutiny for staff and in the community about adding positions because positions no one wants to cut anyone but positions are once they're filled they are persistent. Uh, so I think that I also want our town manager I don't want to undercut what I think is one of our town manager's best qualities which is the willingness to try and I like that you know solutions and things are being worked on and I I don't I just I feel like bring it to you know bring these items to us as they come um as opposed to and I understand Leo what Leo's trying to do and and completely believe it it's coming from all the right reasons But, you know, I'm I'm inclined to oppose this as well. Um, because it's just I feel more comfortable talking about it in terms of the budget and making the decision that way as opposed to a a a standalone order. So, but Sarah, you had things you wanted to talk about. Yeah. Um, I guess I agree with a lot of things that have been said so far. Leo, I want to say that I'm in full agreement that the 4.8 8 million increase in the operating budget over a 8-year time period is something that we seriously need as a council. It's one of our major responsibilities to hold that in check. And in the paper that you all have in front of you that I did this afternoon, um I will say that I'm going to tell you there's a couple small errors here. Leo, I think sent this to staff on Sunday, but I don't get on my town email on Sundays typically. So, I saw it this afternoon and did these numbers much faster than I normally would. Um, I'll point them out with the ones I've found so far. They're very tiny. But as we look at the 4.8 million increase in operating expenses, I really think it's important that we consider what we know about where that's coming from. Um, when we take a look, if we look at where we were at 8 years ago, our operating budget, as Leo points out, was 7.2 million. Um, a simple inflation increase on that budget would have added 2 million over those eight years. inflation over those eight years was high because we had a very significant COVID bump as people will remember in there. So two million of that increase is inflation and I think that's important for us to note. Um after that, you know, we've spent a lot of time with the fire department looking at safer grants. They've been incredibly helpful and incredibly collaborative on helping to look at that data. Um although there are 10 positions that were added to the fire department, those 10 positions have cost much less than you would think 10 positions would. Um upfront the first five only cost us $100,000 which is crazy cheap for five positions. Um that's because this was really just a shift of hours from staff having worked and I'll get the number wrong chief jump in. But I believe it was 56 hours down to 42. Correct? So really that increase was zero increase in staff hours and only an increase in funding benefits for five new people which came out to about 100,000 um for the next three safer positions. We've looked at a lot of data with staff and those come out to be we've guessing it'll be around 150 in cost. It will not be the full 290 it appears to be because of all these overtime savings that you know Andrea's brought to our attention again. So, you know, the remaining um two positions I suspect have probably cost about 150 when we look at that. But, um that really is only 400,000 an increase for 10 positions, which might be half of what you might expect to see. And I think that's important for us to note as we talk about those fire positions. There have been three positions in other departments over those same eight years. I threw in a guesstimate of around 250, right? I don't know. Clint would know the exact figure but it's a rough guesstimate. So you know we can see that yes the FTEES have added about 65 million to the budget. Um there also was about 65 million in some significant salary increases that we engaged in as a council from in 22 23 and 24. Some of us were here some of us weren't. I was here for part of it only half. But what was explained to us at the time was that our our salaries were low compared to where they needed to be compared to neighboring communities. And there was a three-year step plan to bring our salaries up which were implemented in those years. So above inflation, there was an additional probably around about 65 million that went into getting people's salaries up to where they needed to be to be competitive in the community. And I think that's important that we did that also. So you know those things were about 3.3 million of our 4.8 million increase. And I think it's important that we note that what's left is about 1.5 million. and Clint would have to spend time to probably dig in or but what I can say is that as we look forward we can see that our fund balances have gone up very significantly over this same time period. So it seems likely to me that some of what has been happening here is that we are you know being very frugal and excellent managers perhaps or maybe we've padded the budgets a little more. I'm not sure. I'm betting on the first um and that a little bit more money has been running in to our general funds at the end of each year. Um and you know our funds are up high and we talked about this early in the budget process. We had well early no early in our final month here right in our last council discussion. We talked about this and you know, we talked about the fact that we've taken on a building across the street and we're about to bond out a lot of money and that next year might be the time to really spend these reserve funds back down a bit because they are high. Our audit pointed out that they're high. Um, audit said they needed to be between 8 to 16% of a certain amount of months of operating expenses. We're actually at 26%. Bond agents have said they might like to see us at 20 or 21 or 22, but no matter which number you look at, we're high. So, If we're going to look as a council at doing anything here to reduce taxpayer burden, I really think the logical place to look is at our fund balances. Um, so I just want to say that to my fellow counselors rather than cut capital projects which I deeply believe need to be done. Um, I would be looking to take more out of reserve our our fund balances if we're going to do anything. I am also comfortable with us not doing anything and waiting till next year with an intention as a council that we will look at those fund balances and be sure that we are spending them down appropriately so that our taxpayers do not carry such a big burden with the bonding and the building projects that need to happen next year. Um so that's the primary bit I want to say. I do want to make myself two corrections on the third page. I did not delineate that that was the last little paragraph before analyzing capital expenditures. um that is over a five-year period, not four. I did say a similar time period, but I should have specified that's over five. And on my very first page, um under differences on positions, um I believe that central office positions, by which I mean everything that is not our fire department, our police department, our library. I did not include parks and wreck in central office. Perhaps I should have, but I didn't. um nor did I include public works or WPCF. Um but those other departments have moved around and I just want to say that um I believe our central offices from 2018 when I just rechecked through the whole spreadsheet actually went down by a full FTE, not a half since 2018. You need to read the next paragraph to understand that it did that because we outsourced other positions to contractors. But I believe I actually underestimated Shelley. So I think it's important what Frederria already brought up that these positions have not been equally spread everywhere and some departments really may need that that growth to have happen and Clint is doing I think a good job helping us to figure out where we need to grow um and where we have been able to shrink in the last two years. I just want to point out we have not grown FTEEs. Our FTEES have gone slightly down by half a position. All right, I'm going to see if anyone Thank you. That was wonderful. Thank you for all the work on it. Um, Robert, Andrea, do you have anything on this before I go back to Leo for a final word? I agree with trying to find ways to save taxpayers, and I appreciate Sarah's effort and looking at reserves and the numbers and whatnot. I have to say I disagree with being overstaffed. I think we're shortch changing our employees a lot. Um, we have code enforcement officer and a fire inspector. they're both stretched thin and could use additional help whether it's a one shared full-time employee. We've got town clerk staff that um they need there's they've talked about lunch coverages, vacation coverages, cross trainining and Shelley taking on a lot of extra projects and responsibilities. Um police department I'd like to see another patrol officer. We we've got levers coming up that the um good neighbor community is looking uh committee is looking at and I would like to see us stay with Clint's recommendation of where they're at if we need more and less but um I just want to say I think that we need to be looking at providing for the off the different departments with additional staffing. Okay. So, we'll go back to Leo for a final word and then we'll call the vote. Oh, I rob I thought it gave me a no. No, I had before. I'm sorry. I mean, I I guess we did discuss I guess this exact question at our most recent meeting and I I'll just reiterate what I said last time, which is I think Lance's doing a fabulous job navigating us and um all of the needs of his various departments. Um I'm in favor of maintaining this position. Okay. Thank you. Leo, the final word. Well, I appreciate everyone uh allowing it to come on to the table and have the discussion. Um, and Sarah, I guess you jumped ahead a little bit on the fund balances and not spending down on capital, but I I do want to speak back to that and and I I I 100% disagree with us trying to spend down because of what we have coming on bonding. I think I think we better save every penny we have because we spent down all of our capital reserve. So, um I would we'll get to that ne the next mo the next motion, but um I I definitely disagree with us spending money down knowing what's coming in some way, shape, or we don't know exactly, but it's going to be ugly. So, I just want my name. So, yeah, I do want to clarify back, Leo. I wasn't suggesting that we do that. I'm suggesting that if the will of the council is the taxpayer burden needs to come down this year, then that is the only place that I'm willing to look. I am not willing to look at reducing capital. I think it's better to wait for next year when we have a more comprehensive vision on the building and all the things we're going to bond and I think we need to leave this now to the next part. But I wanted to clarify that's not what I said. I said if we're going to do it, that's the only place I to look. Not that I recommended we do it. Gotcha. All right. Thanks for clarifying. Uh and and just I guess maybe a comment about obviously we hire professionals and we we take their word and we want to take their word but with that said if if the idea is that anything that gets proposed because staff suggested it is going to is going to happen then I don't I mean what are we what are we sitting here for? So I don't I guess that rationale of you know this is what staff's recommending so this is what we should do I I I disagree with a little bit. I I wouldn't characterize what what many of us have said in those words. Um I I think we we've spent a lot of time deliberating about many of the recommendations of staff. Um and we've asked them to make some really hard decisions about how they're funding their departments or proposing that we fund their departments. Um I I agree that with you in that principle. I also don't think that it applies to what we've done and discussed here. Okay. All right. So, I think this was order 25158. Yeah. Thank you. Uh I guess we're ready to call the question. All those in favor? Yep. It's one in favor. All those opposed. Okay, that's two, three, four. I never have to do this. Five opposed. So, it's councelor Kenny in favor and remainder opposed. Okay. Thank you for that and that was a good discussion and thank you for bringing it forward. Um Leo, do you have um next up will be order 25 159 159. Yep. Um you want to read it off, Leo? Sure. Uh order 25159 to reduce capital expenditures by 443516 which would deliver a 0 tax increase to the Orno taxpayers for 2026. I've put in here suggested removals of various capital projects that are being paid for with tax dollars um because there are other that are play paid with other but the first was CRM software 15,000 the public works facilities truck 50,000 public works excavator 200,000 public works pickup truck 3/4 ton 50,000 into reserves public works Taylor road preservation 33,000 for the total savings of 448. Um resulting in a capital budget of 1862 375. And I also put in there for comparison. It's only the last two years that we've ever spent more than that in capital. And the average from 2018 to 2023 was 1.4 million. So it's not like this is a capital budget that's not in line with the last eight eight years. Again, last year was definitely an anomaly. Uh, I'd also add that we are we already voted to move a bunch of items to this year's projects that are going to carry on next year. We're also going to be hiring a new director of public works. So, I don't think I do not think that the stall of of is going to is going to create hardship for our town or for departments. Is that a motion? back a little bit. So, it's still so moved, right? And then second move. No problem. Moved and seconded. Is there anything else you want to present? Um, Leo, in terms of that, I guess I I guess I kind of just did, but again, it's it's very much in line with our typical capital budget. And given where we're at, I don't I I do and and note that we are going to talk about what we're doing. We're going to do that in July. We're going to have a real discussion. But I really would like to cut cut the expenses down, bring our budget in. The schools come in at zero. I'd like for the town to come in at zero um and have a zero tax increase for taxpayers. This this accomplishes that. Okay. Any clarifying questions for councelor Kenny is the lead proponent. Any comments from the public? We don't have a lot of public, but the public we got. Thanks, Frederria. Okay. I'm Frederria Smith again, a resident of Orno, and I would argue against I'm not on council obviously, but I would argue against the things Leo's suggesting for several reasons. The first is that you don't know what the tax rate is going to be. You don't know that until it's committed. You don't know what the value of the property is against which the budget is being expended. So shooting for a dollar amount does not make sense at this point. The second thing is that we know unfortunately from our personal experience that the cost of everything has gone up and we also know that if you delay projects they become more expensive. Some of them become predictably more expensive. Some of them you have a catastrophe and you end up spending $30,000 to repair. I don't know, I'll pick a police cruiser or something that you didn't expect to spend that you wouldn't have spent if you'd bought the new police cruiser. So, I think it makes much more sense to listen to the staff about what needs to be done and to have them make their best judgments about the most coste effective way to do it. But I I think it needs to be made very clear that it's not a Z tax increase. What you're saying is a decrease in the budget, which is a different thing. We don't know what the tax commitment will be. And I would personally hope that this would be defeated. So guys, can I just re just respond to that? Thank you. Sure. Let's have a council discussion. Anybody online though first? Nope. Kip, I don't know how they're sitting this one out, but Okay. understood that there are but we do show on our on our sheet that this is the tax this is the tax liability. So that's the that is the number and yeah it could be wrong on the sheet now understood but there is a number there that we look at and that that is what this aims at. So just to clar you probably knew that but um and you know there's really no these aren't projects these are mostly vehicles and I we are getting two we are getting two new police cruisers the you know so I I we've we've historically moved vehicles around and and I I don't I don't think anyone's going to be it's going to create a huge hardship for any anybody to be having a slightly older vehicle my my opinion but I appreciate your feedback. Okay. Any discussion from counselors or staff want to weigh in at all? Or this is another one we'll take questions as they come. Clint? Yeah. Yep. Okay. Any comments before we move on this one? Okay. Council Marks has a few. Actually, first I really do just want to hear from Clint. I mean, these are some very specific things and I imagine they have impacts. My real basic belief is that we've heard from three town managers in a row. Um that we had a time period of underfunding what we needed to be funding um capital-wise for both buildings and equipment. And I'm pleased that we're as a council getting serious about working ourselves up to something that's sustainable um and steady going forward. I don't want to kick a can down the road. Fria's right. Costs only go up on projects that get delayed. Um my inclination is as um already Freda brought up to assume that there would be some significant consequences to not doing these right now. Um but if you have I would like to hear something since Leo put some specifics out there. Thank you. You know and I was prepared. I just wanted to be asked. So I do appreciate the ask but I didn't want I mean council sets the budget. We've given you the draft manager staff version. It's on you. Um we'll make them work. Uh sometimes it'll be harder and easier in this situation with this one. Um, you know, I'm going to start right at the CRM software. That's something I've looked at since I've get here. If you want to delay it a year, we'll delay it a year. But again, from my perspective, it's a your voice matters. It was something I was looking at that I thought would be helpful. When we do that, that's our customer engagement was a way to invest. It's probably high. I'll be genuine as I've been vetting it for better part of 8, nine months. I still can't find the vendor that I love the most and I got a couple I like quite a bit, but I'm not sure which one's right. So, that's the one, you know, as I that's on me. That's one of the ones that I brought forward as administrator. As far as public works, um with the meeting in July, we actually have had some early discussions and trying to prep that prep that paperwork on where we would move things. Um do not agree with the two trucks. We need them both. In fact, there's even discussion of should a third being brought into the mix. The excavator, however, delay it. You know, that's that that's something that sta the the staff would probably lean to. Uh yeah, take the excavator out, leave the trucks in. Um if you have to do something, uh my thoughts were is the excavator money if we delay could be set aside for other projects at the councils for the days that are coming ahead. But again, that's the next month conversation. Um Taylor Road preservation, that's one we've been looking at ourselves. We were setting aside that amount of money. It's not enough to do it all. However, one of the recent discussions is is that Margin Streets in there and if we put some of the Taylor Road project to it, we could time all of Margin Street in the fall and spring and then see where we are with doing all of the Margin Street because we shrunk Margin Street and we were going to phase it trying to reduce the amount of work and it's kind of maybe been a better idea maybe to left Margin Street in at 100% and delayed Taylor a year. But again removing it completely. Um I think from my perspective in working with the team in the first year we were trying to sustain prior funding levels as a stay flat year because there is justification being built that we're underfunding our capital needs. And I think that's but to say I know that with unequivocal certainty I don't. I'm only one year in. There's a lot to this. I think we've learned in this year's capital plan there's a lot of pieces to knowing what we have to get and when we need to do it. Um, so that's why I felt it was a good year to try to do a sustain. We actually ended up doing a few small cuts right at the end of the impact to taxes. So, it's slightly under what last year's impact to taxes were. Um, but I would say if anything that would stick out to me as a glaring don't do it. Leave the public works trucks in, please, without question. facilities, the facilities, public works trucks, all three, every vehicle on there right now. We'd like to see theirs because we were going to have a discussion with you about the age, need, and why. But they feel they're all replacements and two for sure and a third real close. So, and I want to get that I want to get a better handle on why the third's coming in like that, but it's it's they have significant needs in their trucks. Just a just a the CRM piece. Honestly, my my take on that was it's it's not that huge, but I also feel like I think you're getting a budget software, a finance software, and my my sense is like we're going to inundate you with trying to roll out new software, and maybe that's not a not a great idea. So, that seems like an easy one. Um, but does anybody else have anything on this? And the only last piece, not all of these were funded through property taxes. So, if you do, not all of them. Some of them were using reserves on the list that I had. They they were all Tim was using the interest on investment reserve to fund it. Okay. For this year only. That would be the one that stuck out. Okay. But the rest were not rest were taxes. Yep. All right. Anything else from anybody? All right. Why don't we call the question then? All those in favor of order 25. Well, hold just one second. I mean, I'm I'm willing to amend it for pushing the excavator and I, as I said at the last meeting, I I do like the idea and and that's why we sort of did that. But after I finally actually got to see where everything was lining up, that's that's how I came up with these. And uh I I know we're going to need money in in reserve that we don't have, but I still am more interested in coming closer to a Z increase for taxpayers. So if if other council members are open to I guess the excavator I guess that's it. What would you say about what would you say about Taylor Road again? And was Taylor Road meant to be paved? Taylor Roads a preservation project for reclaim and and other work because they're having there are some issues with it. I felt it was better. This is one of the ones that's in there and I'm leaning towards delaying just because of Margin Street. But we didn't want to take the money out. It was what was requested so we left it there. But I thought there was more work needed on what the exact project should be and how we were going to design it and build it before we said yes because I think it's a long-term upgrade to that road that we'll have to maintain moving forward. So um you know public works has done great research on all of these. Um I just felt a little bit more was me needed on Taylor Roads that was coming in with a fund it but delay it recommendation. Still going to need the money at some point just like Chris needed the $300,000 for his need the money at some point but we weren't recommending implement this year. So council is open. I'm open to amend it to the 351. That would be those those tailor excavator and the CRM if that seems real reasonable to Clint that he's not going to have time to roll out CRM software. So it's all right. So you're you're going to you're making a amendment to your order striking striking out what two pieces or what pieces? the excavator 200,000 not striking out at only keeping only keeping uh it would be the CRM software uh excavator and uh Taylor Road preservation Clint remind me how much do we pay to um rent an excavator every year I know it's half the year right excavators are built into the end up coming out of the project cost themselves Um, I think the last number was $3,600 a month somewhere's around 375 total. That was like half the year, right? Last year. Yeah. And we last year we rented it for six months. Okay. All right. So that's Leo. I just You're asking that we You want to You want to pull or you want to keep? I'm not I'm not Those are the ones I want to keep. So 15,000 for CRM. 2,000 for 200,000 for the excavator and 1335 for Taylor Road. Keep them in capital funds. No, I want to keep them in this motion. Okay. In this order. Sorry. Okay. So, everything else, strike everything else, but keep those items for a total of 100. And Zach, it's a total of 351. Are you not adding this up? I I don't know what the I don't know what the capital do, but So, it would be 15. I'm the word guy, not the 3485. All right. So, right. Yep. What's What are you talking about? 3 200,000 plus 1335 plus 15,000 3485. We okay on that? So, that's a motion. It needs a second. Is there a second? Seeing no second. The motion fails. Any more discussion on the underlying order? Council marks. Yeah, I just have one more which is um again, thanks Leo. I really appreciate your care and concern for the taxpayers and I share that concern. I really hope that going into next year, we are going to take seriously where our reserve levels are and not keep passing on such a high tax burden with new projects. But for this year, I feel like we're in a good place that our staff has proposed. And I do want to ask that when we look at these numbers, just as I pointed out in the operating expenses, if you're going to look back and try to compare what we spend on capital projects in FY26 back to FY28, FY18, sorry, you need to inflation adjust numbers because they go up significantly with inflation. So just for the future as we have these discussions as a council, can we please remember that those capital numbers also need to be inflation adjusted if we're looking back and comparing. But I think I don't I'll have to look it again, but capital tends to go up and down. So it's not either way, it's not a direct line. Either way, each individual year, you can say we spent 1.4 million on capital projects in FY18 and in the current day that would be much closer to 1.8. Right? So, as we look at those numbers, we need to inflation adjust them. If we're trying to hold ourselves steady, it isn't going to stay flatline and be an equal amount of work that gets done is all I'm trying to say. The amount of work, if we have to do the same amount of work each year, it will cost slightly more due to inflation. Okay. Anything else? We can call the question. The underlying motion is on order 25159. All those in favor? Okay. It's one in favor. Councelor Kenny. All those opposed, the rest opposed. So, five opposed. Okay. Thank you for the discussion. Thanks, Leo, for the work. Um, next up is order 25134, order approving the fiscal year 2026, municipal budget as amended by the town council from the manager of proposed budget, expense, and revenue. Um, can we get a motion? So, moved. Moved and seconded. Um, who seconded? I thought I think we had two firsts. So, can we make math a second? We did. It's like photo photo finish second. Um, all right. Is there uh Clint, do we need to hear anything else from you? I think I want one quick Yeah. 30 seconds. So, there's some questions from two weeks ago when they came forward. I've had some clarification. Some questions came and I wanted to make sure. If you look at the first and fourth alternatives, there was a projection that was given two weeks ago. The numbers in the bottom line of 3.23 to 3.25% changed the impact of taxes. That's because we impacted wages. Wages have percent increases for workers comp, pay, etc. So, there's some rounding. So, we knew when those alternatives were presented, it wouldn't be dead on exactly the same number. There was also some direction from the council to leave the capital reserve items in for police and public works because we moved capital items out because they were smaller. They were like tasers, uh, a trailer. And I said, let's get out of the habit of putting those and let's just put a small an amount. Um, and again, roughly 25,000 in each of those to cover those leases and to cover those purchases. Put them in the operating budget. I took away that the direction was leave them there. So those initially in alternative one showed up as an operating expense to come out because it would have been moving it back to reserves, but we ended up deciding to leave them there. So that made that number look differently on that projection to the one you have in front of you tonight. The last piece with this is the um was the revenues transfers. Oh, and the use of reserves. There was one line that were used a reserve amount and it was easier to show it in the item four safer as being an impact towards the operating expense. That was a misstatement. It was actually a change in how we budget it for revenues because we did like the equipment. We are going to pay these staff. So I had initially taken out the cost of paying the staff the town match out of that operating expense. Same dollar amount 92,807. But when we were rushing to get out those four summaries in three days from the meeting on the 2nd to the having to get the packet out, we did some rounding within the summary sheets just to make them work. This is actually the lines they hit and it did move things. Bottom line, exact same number, but I don't want anybody coming back with the comparison of the one and four to what we're implementing and saying who played games with the numbers. Nothing. We rushed so much to get out four projections. We ran the totals up into different lines and some were in the wrong lines based upon the directions I received. Again, we can move things back. That's where I think the council has their prerogative of what's operating and what's not. Um, I just moved them to where I thought your directions were. So, I want to make sure I got that out there. Appreciate you clarify. We clarifying we had a conversation because because of that misalignment Thursday or whatever day it was. So, appreciate that. Yep. Can I just I'm sorry. It might have gone by me too fast. Can you explain again what is in operating or not at this point? The smaller expenditures are staying in the operating and not going to the capital. And then what about the safer grants had to do with the operating that expenditure out of the operating bond made it look like it was $92,000 lower because in order to do this we had to move the money in from reserve to move it in to create a reserve. So that was a discussion. We would have a reserve account for the sake of So, it had to hit other lines, had to hit our revenue sheets. It's my miss. Okay. Just paid into the operating expenses rather than putting it in. And when you clarified with me on how we handle tasers and all the others, I'm like, well, it's a salary should be in we should keep the expense. We shouldn't deflate our spending. So, right now, the safer grants are showing where on the operating expenses or out of a reserve, right? But the cost is showing where the income is showing in reserves. The cost is showing in operating expenses. I just want to be clear when we go into next year. Thank you. Okay. Any other is there any that was clarifying? It was presentation. That was clarifying questions. Now we're on to public comment. Any public comment? I think we're good. Thank you. You're welcome to talk, but you're welcome to come up. Um any discussion from council? Just want to thank the staff for all the work. I know this is a long process for everybody. We learn a lot about our town when we do this and um very proud of all that we do and all that we learn in this. So, thank you very much and it's an honor to vote for this. Okay, all those in favor of the budget as presented. That's five. All those opposed. Council Kenny's opposed. Passes five to one. Thank you and thanks again for all the work. Um apparently we're not done yet though. Um, order 25135, order approving the water pollution control facility budget for fiscal year 2026 in the amount of 2,19,416 for operations and $350,000 for capital improvements for a total of 2,459,416. Could I have a motion? So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Um, any we don't need any further presentation on this, right? Any public comment? Any council discussion? All those in favor? Okay, it passes six to zero unanimously. Order 25136, order approving a sewer user fee increase from $6.25 per 100 cubic feet to $79 per 100 cubic feet with a minimum quarterly charge of 8508 effective July 1, 2025. Billing date. Uh, could I have a motion? Point of order before the motion. Okay. The attachment rate sheet. The current rate is 675. The order says 625, but the attachment was right. The order is wrong. That's an old rate. Okay. Supposed to be 6. It's just a typo, but before you made the motion, I think you could fix that there as a Okay. Do Do we want to go through the rigomearroll of amending just a clerical difference just to do it? Okay. All right. Let's get on the table first. We had a point. I was Yep. Sorry. Yep. No problem. We had a point of order. So now we we still need a motion. So moved. Second. moved and seconded. Um I move to amend. Nice. 25136 to say 67 7075 instead of 625. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? Okay. All those in favor of Rob's amendment, the 675 amendment. It's not really Rob's amendment. It's okay. That passes unanimous six to zero. All right. Now, in the underlying back to the underlying order, is there any um staff presentation? We've talked about this several times, right? Any public comment, any council discussion? All those in favor of order 25136 as amended. It's unanimous. Thank you. Order 25138, an order approving a fiscal year 2026 economic development budget of $879,587 for operations and $130,000 for capital totaling 1,9587 funded by the following tax increment financing district development programs as listed in the agenda. Which one did I skip? Do you let me read the whole thing before I Did someone put you up to that? All right. I I skipped one. I was out of order. Um, order. We are doing order 25137. Thank you very much. Order approving the five-year capital investment plans FY2026 to FY2030 for the town water pollution control facility and expend the funds for FY2026 consistent with the plan. Could I have a motion? So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Uh, any council any staff discussion on this one? Think we got any questions? We'll covered it. Yep. Any public discussion? Any council discussion? All those in favor of order 25137 as presented. That is unanimous. Thank you. Can I do order 25138 now? Thanks. Order 125138, approving a fiscal year 2026 economic development budget of $879,587 for operations and 130,000 for capital totaling $1,9,587 funded by the following tax increment financing district development programs as listed in the agenda. Can I have a mo motion? Read it twice. So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Any uh discussion from staff? The order looks different than last year, but it's the same information. Okay. We just broke things up. Great. Any public comment? Any council comment discussion? All those in favor of order 25138. It is unanimous 6 to zero. And finally, on the last action item of the evening is order 25139, order approving revisions of the town of Ornal fee schedule effective July 1, 2025. Could I have a motion? Moved. Second. moved and seconded. Any um any discussion from what's it going to cost to get married, Shelly? Um so I'm teasing you. It's my favorite one. Um all right, any staff? Nothing. Anything from the public? All right. Any council discussion? All those in favor of the fee schedule order 25139. We're unanimous on that, too. Okay. Okay, that ends the um action items of our agenda. Good work. Uh we move on to the consent agenda. The consent agenda is we move and vote on items as a single action item. Any member of the public, any member of the council could pull anything off the um consent agenda. And I guess we'd have to go back into action items again to deal with it. But we would because we that's how we roll. Um anybody want to pull anything off this? There's a number of them. Okay. All those in favor of the consent agenda? Oh, I need a motion. A motion to move the consent agenda moved. Second. Thank you. And thank you. Um, all those in favor of the consent agenda. That's unanimous. Thank you. That takes us all the way down. Jeez, that was a well done. Now we're on to item eight, council committee reports. Okay. Uh, community development committee. Matt, I was uh in New Hampshire all this weekend. I don't and I haven't been able to keep up. Is there um something more beyond our We're going to talk our next meeting is on um Thursday at 3 and we're going to be talking a lot about um the Orno um days festival days. Yeah. Yeah. And a couple of other things. If you want to look at what we're going to be talking at, you can look at our um our um what's going to be on our schedule. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. And our next workshop is July 8th at I think 5:00 pm or or the 5:30m for the oro um festival days workshop finance and operations. Anything from any of the committee members given a miss Jacob but anybody? Nope. Yep. Nominations valuations and council policy committee. Um, I think the only other update other than what you voted on tonight is that you will get uh our suggested final draft of the 360 um surveys coming in July. Clint, I don't remember which meeting in July, but it's one or the other, right? Um, we're waiting for some final tweaks back from our consultants who are finalizing that based on uh the last round of input from the committee, but it's very very close and you'll see it in front of you in July. Okay. Thank you. DEI DEIB committee, Matt, some of the members have been helping to coordinate moving the um pride animals around and I and thank you for all staff who may have helped with that too. I don't know. I wasn't here for that and um I wanted to say thanks for all that. Ordinance review committee. Nothing new. Our regularly scheduled meeting uh accidentally was on Junth, so we will be meeting soon enough, but nothing new to report. Okay. Um the good neighbor committee um uh the council chair update um we have the standing good neighbor committee that's been meeting every Monday. We're making good progress on that. Um we talked about wanted to just preview the council. We are working on um the ordinance we're working on primarily is is the disorderly property ordinance and we're making some really good progress on that. We have uh I think we're going to get some language back from uh attorney at the end of this week that we'll be able to bring in next week's meeting feels like. Uh and wanted to just kind of raise the issue and and have a conversation with the council. Um our next our work is scheduled that that committee is scheduled to end its work on well have it have something for the council for our July 14th meeting which I think is our next council meeting, right? So, uh, there's really nothing more for us to sequence. For some reason, I thought we I don't know what this July 10th I think we the you need to call the hearing on the July 14th council meeting. So, they'll mount on the 10th. It'll be on there to call a hearing and you not have seen it. It'll be in the same packet where you're calling the hearing. Okay. So, it's the same time. So, wanted to make sure we wanted to know that they're getting it the same day they're setting the hearing. Thank you. So the thinking would be and you know we'll discuss it as a council but I wanted to raise it first as a thank you for the reminder Clint u that when you see the agenda on the 10th the Thursday the 10th it would it likely include an agenda item um for the 14th that would call a public hearing on the ordinance um work that we're doing in the committee. So Leo's on the committee, Rob's on the committee. Um, we're being staffed. You know, Clint, Mitch, Chief Merrill's with us. So, um, we'll have that. So, just don't, and it's not going to be a public hearing on the 14th, but it'll be an item to call a public hearing at a future council meeting so we can move things along with the hope of finishing something by um, in August. And any questions about that? I just want to say thank you for bringing it ahead to let us know because I also think for the public this is kind of an issue that a lot of members of the public care about. So just having it on the record here that it's possible that at our next meeting on the 14th we'll be calling a public hearing for the 28th just gives people lots of notice to be aware and show up if they have things to share or say. I don't like to surprise anybody as you all know. I kind of like to I'm teasing. I surprise you more than I should but I appreciate the indulgences. Um, so we're talking about cancelling an August meeting and I wanted to um give staff a little break from us and um we ask a lot of staff and and frankly of ourselves. We're we're serving on a lot of different committees and in different capacities. Um so looking ahead to August and wanted to get the sense of the council these the 11th and the 28th I think I'd prefer for is that right? 11 and 25 of course. um kind of more inclined to cancel the meeting on the 11th if that makes sense to people, but we could decide it on the we could wait and decide it on the 14th as well. I guess we need an order in front of us at the next meeting anyway to cancel the is that that's the process. So, what do we have? Um does anyone have a preference? I would prefer cancelling the 11th uh because I I won't be available anyway that evening. Yep. I think that makes sense, too. And then we'll get the ordinance. I mean, anything we have out of the good neighbor committee that would give us the right amount of time, I think, Shelley, I don't know. I didn't I haven't asked you yet specifically, but you know, to sequence a public hearing and then vote on an ordinance on the 28th of August would make sense. So, that was my only question is for any of that work if we have a public hearing on the 28th of July, is that what we're looking for? And does that set us up? Well, if we have no meeting on the 11th, Shel, we're good. As long as we hold one on the 25th of August. Okay. Thanks. Holland, do we have to wait from the Well, we don't I think we disagree a little bit. Yeah, they're figuring it out. Is there was that for us? Are we okay? Is for the hearing is what you're referring to. I mean, if you have the hearing on the 28th of July, Yeah. you could vote to make it take effect that night if you wanted to. And then it just doesn't take effect for 30 days unless you do by emergency. Ah, which is a seven which is is the unanimous vote and instant. Right. Thank you. So if we I think so. I I want to double check that. But there is an emergency provision as well. Okay. So if we if for any reason on the 28th of July there was enough public feedback that people didn't feel ready to vote right there on that ordinance change because we frequently don't. We frequently wait till the next meeting for people to digest feedback. That sounds Yeah, that sounds like it would lean toward cancelling the later meeting in August because I don't think you'd want to wait until the 25th for that discussion, Dan. So, I think we need to do that the other way around. Would you be all right, Rob, if Yeah, it's all right. All right. So, why don't we to keep things moving along and because we've got work that we're going to want to finish in time for oral festival days and back to all that kind of engagement. Why don't we plan the or unless someone strongly disagrees and we we'll plan to bring an order before us at our next meeting to cancel the August 11th meeting. No, the 25th meeting. I'm looking at the 11th on my calendar. All right. So, we're going to going to be here on the 11th. We're going to take the 25th off and uh that'll be the order that we have in front of us on the consent calendar. So, I I really ran that well, but thank you for the indulgence and the help. Um, all right, town manager report. Okay, so we're going to skip B for a second. Uh, first an update on the Wabanaki interpretive plan. Um, I did have a chance to talk to Tilly Laskkey who's doing the work. Um, they're probably at a 50% draft. The committee's been working quite a bit on it. Um, more information coming as they go through, but that's roughly where they are. Um after school registration update, we had some good community feedback. We sent out some clarifying emails. I think council was in on some of them. Um one of the big issues was the ability for people to share. They want less than 5 days. Shared some information where one of the cheapest afterchool programs you can find in the area. Um and our our 3-day rate is actually cheaper than our 5-day rate is cheaper than one of our nearest competitors 3-day rate. And we do try to be careful not to undercut other people because we don't want to have government providing a service that competes with everyone else as well. So we balance a fine line there. Um that being said, it was shared out that it would be nice if people could share and we have made it known and we will work with them more. But sign up and if people want to coordinate sharing a five-day plan as long as they don't have two kids showing up on one day, that's completely equitable and we're working with them on that. Um, I will say going into publicly, it goes live on Saturday, it's first 64 in. We're hoping we don't get 64. And Karma, tell you anything, we're going to have 164 applicants is what I'm just kind of gut. But we'll see. We'll cross that bridge we get there. Stay tuned for the next little deal. But at least we've done it early. So there's the after school registration. Um, crosswalk plans. I think there was an did the attachments get in? Tell me the attachments got in. I haven't. It's here. Yeah. So, we put in some information there for the paving and marking plan. It would be a significant amount of time to do the 30-ish what you would consider high impact crosswalks. Um, talked a little bit more with the team. I guess take that a peek at it. Give me any feedback you may have. Um, but we do have a bid to do the crosswalks and I'm going to, unless I hear otherwise, move forward with getting the crosswalks painted by an outside consultant and put this as good information for future years and better planning. Um, it's just that it was a lot of hours. I figured it would have been, you know, if you didn't do two people, it would have been a couple weeks worth of work at nights because of the amount they can get done in an evening. And again, that was just off of doing one crosswalk this year. Uh it's the bigger one. Bridge construction update. It was open on the crosswalk you asking us. Sorry. Of order. Is that Yeah. You like it now? Like coming back the other way. Um so is this what you're going to move ahead with? Is this the this will be the you're going to execute this plan and let I am not going to have staff do crosswalks. We are going to go to a bid bid service. We are going to keep looking at this, but we are not going to pull on a night shift and have people taken off their other duties this year. And you don't have is there an ask for us I'm sorry and I'm sorry if I missed it in the memo. Uh it's the budget's going to be strained. Let's just put it that way to approve those. They'll be on the next agendas to approve the bids because they are a little bit above but we'll we're going to make them work with carry forward and paying a little bit and yeah. Okay. Council Kenny has a question. Yep. Yeah. I also had a question on this which is just that um we own equipment that we were told at some point we bought to touch up crosswalks or something along that line. What exactly will we be doing with our own equipment if anything? And also how often are we going to monitor and get these repainted? Because for me I believe we've done them. I don't know is it staff could say is it twice a year or once a year traditionally but whatever we do it isn't enough because they wear off and remain invisible for big chunks of the year which is just a serious safety concern to so many people in the community. So I'm curious here on this plan you're presenting to us. Is this the same number of times repainting them as we've already been doing? And if so I'd like to see a plan that repaints them more often because I don't think once a year is what we got in there for a plan. We have a hard time getting a getting a vendor that would do them the once. If you want to do them twice, it would be at least doubling, but there's not many vendors that want to do it. Can we use our own equipment to touch them up as they fade off one by one, or can we not do it? We could do some touching up. I just want Now you have the understanding of the amount of time and hours they have to come in at night. Yeah. It's not like it takes 15, 20 minutes. It takes a couple hours per crosswalk and then they have to let them dry. So, they do a few and a half, go back and do the other half. And you got to be careful because once commuters start, you got to get off the roads. It gets busy quick because you're closing off that lane. They have to go out and around. I would just like us to continue this discussion as part of our or no stops initiative because at this point the single biggest thing I hear from community members is that the crossworks are invisible and it's hard to get people to stop for you when the crosswalks are not visible. Yeah. And I think this should be uh I just looking at the numbers it looked like it was investing 16 to 20,000 and 1,6800 in paint and then the then the labor to do it but versus 50,000 for the crosswalks one time. And that's kind of what I was a little concerned with. I thought I heard you say that because uh I mean so so we if the 16 to 20 is for the better piece of equipment to do it. Um, if I I I I'm fine with doing it this one time, but I guess I would echo what Sarah was saying is we we definitely should look at the longer term. I mean, if it's a hard to get a vendor and it's so expensive, I mean, that'd be 100 grand versus, you know, cost us seven grand to do it once we have the equipment plus plus labor. But, I mean, I think I think we can refine it more for the you got the capital plan back in front of you in July. So if we have to do some shifting that could be a way we could shift. Did we also talk about having further discussions about putting the blinking lights and stuff like that? Is is that coming up too? Because I think that is part of this. I still think have no blinking lights in any of this. Yeah, we're going to get some. Yeah. We like blinking lights. So we're going to get um and those speed bumps don't fade. Um so we're going to go um speed tables. Speed tables. traffic calming measures if you want to be. Oh, there you go. Absolutely correct. So, we're gonna have we've got a number of projects that we're looking at the community development committee. We'll come back to council and talk with folks about them. So, but I agree that this is part of oral stops just like anything else and I appreciate that we're having to go this route, but we'll talk more about it. Great. I have a question. Council Larson, I don't know if Bill can clarify this or you, Clint, do we have an actual line crosswalk painting equipment or are we just talking a smaller piece of equipment that just does touch-ups? So, if we wanted to see more, we're talking the difference of having a shovel and having an excavator. We own a shovel. We can go out and paint on the street with a line striper to touch things up and take care of them. We cannot go out and commercially stripe all our lines ourselves in an efficient manner. That's kind of what the numbers are getting at. So that's kind of what I know when we shared that the last time that we bought something so we could touch things up, it wasn't quite to the magnitude of being 30 doing 30 full crosswalks or 113 if we do them all. Okay. Okay. Good. Okay. And then my last one. So bridge construction update officially. I expended some money last week helping the DOT and us open the bridge for the weekend. I don't know how much. I know it's underneath my spending thresholds that I had to come back to the council. There is a chance slim that we could have it open most weekends through the end of the project. It's going to be about 10,000 each. 10,000 from the town, 10,000 from the state. And I do not have firm commitment from the state to do it. But that would be us. It is their project. And in order to do it, the best we've got to is a 50/50 split. If I I am not authorized by a strict reading of your policies to spend $10,000 on a single thing unless you take the extreme collaboration analysis of our policy. I am collaborating with another state and agency on services for the town meaning MDOT. That is one stretch I wasn't going to make with you quite yet. But again, this shows you where our spending thresholds are quirky because a lot of people want us to do this. Um, I was very close to saying go for it and spending the, you know, and saying we'll commit to 10 grand. But I finally got it back to a point where I knew it would be under that. Um, but again, if the council wants to me, we're going to need to either tonight have a conversation that it's okay and that I'm the collaboration vein or I'm not and we didn't give me authorization to do it. So, you didn't you didn't entertain spending $1,500 six times, which I'm glad you didn't because that would have been right. That's not my that's not my role. Yeah, that's good for you. So Clint, just to I did do it once. Yeah. And I don't know how much it was, but I know it's under 7,500 for the one time I did it. And so you believe that it would cost how much to get the bridge open every weekend? 20 grand. We got to split it 50. And the best offer each week. No. M 20,000 total. Total 10,000 from the town, 10,000 from the state. We is what I proposed and they have not answered yet. They've kicked it to two different people to get an answer. So you need the answer yet. you need something from us tonight about whether we want you to spend that 10,000 if tell me what you want if you I need something otherwise I can't spend up to 10 and I got to keep it to 7500 and as I understand it the biggest concern although I live on the other side and it's very difficult and inconvenient a lot of times but when I spoke with you individually it sounded like your biggest concern was businesses in town can you speak a little bit about that and why we would be wanting to I I know three businesses that shared with me some direct significant impacts uh Um, I walked around, spoke to a couple others. The weekends are the harder ones. Um, they'd love to see it back. I got one. I'm waiting on the call back, but it was generally stated that if it could be open for the weekends, that's better than nothing. Um, and then one rule is I will not allow this to delay the project. It's the project. If anything we're doing means that the project could get done in six weeks and this is going to make it seven. I said no way. So right now this is not I spoke right directly to Sean McDougall of the B BBM BB I'm now I'm blanking on the name of his company name but he said no we're on schedule no worries there this would be just something I could do every weekend but was not asked to and it would have a cost and he gave the cost to MDOT and I yeah that's where I'm at. I think it was Can you Yep. Sorry. I think it was phenomenal it was open this weekend. Um, I love that you collaborated to make it happen. It was a very big weekend in Orno and I thought it was um, wonderful that it was open this weekend. I'd be in favor of expending $10,000 over the life of the project to get it open every weekend if it's helpful to the businesses and I think it's helpful to the community. Um, we heard a lot of people from a lot of people frustrated about it. I think we're it's getting a little better, but I'd be in favor of it, but I'm that's I'm not gonna I'm not going to lobby hard on it, but I I'd vote for it. So, Can I ask Clint where you would be funding it from? Again, probably the majority is going to come in next fiscal year. So, it would probably come out of the public works operating budgets and there are some lines there that that that could cover this. Um, I would probably bring it back as an order on July 14th. Um, as a collaboration with MDOT, but I I can't say yes now and bring it back to you the 14th. It's got to be known that I'm saying yes. It will come back for council approval to meet that term. and you got to say yes. So, this is your chance to say no, I guess, is where I'm getting at. So, for me, if you're telling us that it's not going to go over our budget, it's within our public works budget coming up for FY26, I am perfectly fine with you're making that choice and moving forward on that. That's two of us who've chimed in now. Yeah, I would I would concur. I think it's important to support our downtown businesses. Um and and you know I would love to think that it's up to 10 grand and maybe if they get it done sooner than 8 weeks it's less than that. So let's think we're working on that. We're working on that. Would it be helpful if I mean you haven't Yeah. Yeah. Anyone we could do it tonight if people are ready to do it. Do you have a We'd have to all agree to do it though to put it on the agenda. The mo majority of the complaints that I'm receiving is during the week. They have appointments to get to, work to get to, and not so much on the weekend. Yep. So, considering costs and discussions for budgets and where money is going to come from, I'm okay with not spending the $10,000 to open it on weekends. I was feeling kind of similar. Uh, Lee, I I mean, I appreciate the potential cost to businesses. Um, I'm willing to entertain the motion, the idea. I just uh my my first inclination was that it felt like it it is of limited utility for most people uh for most of the time when they actually are being inconvenienced by it. But I've talked to business owners that are really concerned and um they would find this to be very helpful, especially restaurants who get a lot of business on the weekends and they feel that it's a deterrent to have to people on the way back from the university just hit the freeway and miss us. And so I'm for it and I'm for supporting um our local businesses and especially the restaurants and pubs who make most of their money on the weekend. So I'm for that. So I don't Rob, you I'm I'm comfortable with moving forward with it. I'm just I was just saying that was my initial thinking, but I'm fine going with that. That that sounds like the will of the council. Sarah's I think tracking the trying to track it down. I believe that we're can put an order on our agenda right now by unanimous agreement and vote on it right now if you want us to. chair is double checking to make sure there isn't anything that prohibits us from doing that at the We can do it anytime at the start of a meeting. I don't think there's anything that prohibits us from doing it at the end of a meeting. I don't know, Shel. Do you know what do you know where that is right in the charter off the top of your head? I was just looking, but I don't know if we've always done it at the beginning, but I don't know that it specifies that anywhere in the charter. No. Okay. Yep. I just found it. It's right here and it's in it says items may be added to the agenda at any meeting with the unanimous vote of council members present. So it doesn't say what time in the meeting. Add it now. I I'd prefer to give you the authority right now so you can have something to negotiate up to 10,000. Is that okay? 10,000. Okay. Anybody object to have putting an order on the agenda so we got a unanimous agreement to do it. And I I guess I'd propose that an order authorizing the town manager to expend up to $10,000 um to facilitate opening of the Silk Memorial Bridge on weekends. MDOT with the MDOT. Yep. Second. Moved and seconded. Any more discussion? Okay. All those in favor? Yep. Thank you. I'm sorry. It's unanimous. Okay. Thank you. Um, so that's six to zero. So then it spend it if you don't. And I just wanted to take a quick second say thank you. It's been a great year. This is the last meeting of this fiscal year. I had the first one of the year and this is the last one. So next time will be the first meeting of a new year in my year too. And the other one is I got to say wish Fria had stayed. And I'm glad the BDN's still here because her question was spot on to a wonderful conversation we had today about the budget and why we didn't have a projected mill rate in there with the budget this year. And I said I'm taking it under advisement. But again, we just don't know a lot of the pieces. So to come out and say the mill rate is this would be wrong. And it's been a lot of fun working with the newspaper and I just was so apppropo to have her ask that question in this meeting before. So perfect. So we can't announce anything on the bridge. We're just We're trying. We'll get it out as soon as I know. Now that I've got So I can't go on the little parents group tomorrow and tell them. No. All right. I won't, but we're trying. Okay. And as soon as you get it done, I'm going to tell them. Yeah. All right. Thank you. No public petitions. Any future agenda items or council requests for supporting items? Councelor Harson. Um but wondering if Clint and Chief Merrill, we could have a discussion on resources that are available to the um potential increase in the homeless activity um specifically under the Main Street Bridge. I've had some calls, questions from residents who are concerned about the safety of the people, specifically children using the po park um and also pedestrians and um just asking what our policies are and what we can do to um assist them, assist families or assist the people who are experiencing homelessness. is assist uh what our stance is as far as what are we doing to protect residents but also our resources to assist the homeless. Okay. Follow up with the manager. We'll follow up with the manager on that one. Thank you. Anything anyone have anything else? I was curious how we would uh approach I think we must have lost a a street light at the Webster Park because it is dark as a pocket that whole length of the park which I just found out a couple times last week because there was a poll that went down and I'm wondering how we find out about getting lighting on there. I don't know who is that the hydro or how does that work? I think I think it's something that we should somebody should consider a look at because tone our lights. Why don't we send someone down take a peek at what's going on with those? We own the lights on the double poles. Can't imagine we don't own the lights in Webster Park. We own all our street lights. Yeah, we own our street lights. So that it's either a street light or a park light. So we'll look into it and let you know. We'll give you an update. All right. Thanks. Yep. And anything else? Yeah. Sure. So, as I raised at a previous meeting, I was waiting on some more information from the people at the Caring Community Cupboard in Oldtown. Uh, and I have a letter from them that I'll forward to council and hopefully we can discuss uh the contents of that soon. Okay. Thank you. Council Hardison, you had another one. Thank you. Um, I just want to thank Bill Cody for his service as the director of public works and the organization, the direction that you've brought, and the projects that you've made sure to be completed. And thank you, and good luck in your next adventure. Thank you. Okay. Anybody have anything else? Okay. Thank you. I guess um we'll take a motion to adjourn. Oh, public comment. Final public comment. Cody, you've been stacking them up. How deep? No, we're all set. All right. No public comment. And motion to adjurnn. Second. Moved and seconded. All in favor?