Androscoggin County Budget Committee Opens Six-Month Budget Review

[0:11] Steve Robinson: So we need one more person to work with? [0:15] Chair (presiding officer): Once we make appointments, we'll only be seven. We can call him to order, and then do you want me to call you to order? [0:30] Speaker C (unidentified): Some of these folks have picked up books and whatnot, so. [0:35] Jerry Green: He has no book. [0:37] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, I know. He was a last minute ad from Clark a couple days ago, but I've given books to talk to a lot of these people, so they were aware, I guess. All right. All right. Thank you, Matt. Yeah, this is your meeting. This is their meeting. All right. This is a budget committee meeting. [0:58] Chair (presiding officer): I will call the meeting to order. If you can all stand and leave to the meeting. [1:10] Steve Robinson: And to the republic for which it stands, one mission under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [1:22] Chair (presiding officer): All right, next item that we have on our agenda is to elect a chair, and then a vice-chair, by nominating myself as chair, if nobody else wants to. Is there somebody who would like to volunteer to be Vice Chair? Steve, would you like to be Vice Chair? I'm going to nominate Steve Robinson to be the Vice Chair. There we go. All right, we'll go through the introduction of those of us that are here. [2:09] Speaker E (unidentified): And then I shall take. All right, I didn't get the first and second on that for her. I was the. [2:16] Chair (presiding officer): First. Okay, and thank you. All right, I'm going to go through appointments first, and then we will go through introductions for those of us that have been on the board before. So I'm going to make an appointment that we appoint in district one after Catherine. Is there a second? The bullet on favor. All right, I'm going to then appoint Phil Crowl from district five. I'm sorry. All right. All in favor. And not here. But we have a replacement for this one for Brett Martel. And I can have a second to appoint him for the board. Second. All right. All in favor. Okay, so there's a whole budget. We still have one person short. I'm sorry. Yeah, oh sorry, yes. [3:19] Speaker F (unidentified): You can sit wherever. What district? Sheep will be district lunch. Thank you. [3:28] Chair (presiding officer): We still are short somebody from district four that represents Lisbon Sebastian Wales unless Noel shows up next week, but we have no communication back. We're going to go around and we'll start with you. Noel is. [3:54] Speaker E (unidentified): Garrison, did you mention Brett Martell? [3:57] Jerry Green: And so what replacement? [4:02] Chair (presiding officer): Replacement of a replacement, typically. Yeah, okay, I'm with you. All right, we'll go around the room and just introduce yourself, tell us a little about. [4:11] Asher Havlin: Yourself and where you're from. Okay, hi everyone. Thank you for appointing me. My name is Asher Havlin. I'm a Lewiston resident with me and my partner. I'm in a duplex on Ash Street. I'm very happy to live in the true streets. Most of my budget experience has been working in the non-profit world, but I'm looking forward to learning and to be paying with you all. Thank you. [4:35] Steve Robinson: For your service, thank you. Hi, Steve Robson, home selecting the phone. I'm definitely collecting. [4:56] Speaker H (unidentified): I'm glad to be in the class and although the fire needs right here for this. [5:02] Jerry Green: Hi, Paul and Sally. I live in North Six from Lawson, but I'm in Story. What are they three years? I disagree, which is more to this. Jerry Green, I've been ten years on board of appeals in Lawson and I'm a warden at the Folds for building, and I've been on several other more minor committees. [5:29] Chair (presiding officer): In the city of Auburn. Lisa Chesney, you still have one minute. [5:37] Auburn City Manager (former county vice chair): So the role of city manager of the city of Auburn, previous county vice chair. That's it. [5:45] Chair (presiding officer): Okay, our next item is consideration of the October 22nd, 2025 final minutes. It's for budget currency. Is there a second? I'll second it. All in favor? Anybody staying? Okay. We get all that. Phil staying. [Speaker E (unidentified): Technically doesn't pass.] Next up is if we can all turn to the tab in the schedule, so that we can discuss it. We'll have a second page. So tonight, Wednesday, the 23rd, we have several presentations that we're going to do. Move our next meeting will be Wednesday September 30th. Paul, we already said that you will not. [6:55] Jerry Green: Be present for that. I'm having surgery tomorrow. We are going to be masters. [7:00] Chair (presiding officer): Is there anybody else here that's not making that meeting? Okay, the next one will be Wednesday day of October 7th at 6 o'clock. That's our final meeting with all the department heads and then we'll serve on that one. Okay. We'll leave the contingency as Thursday October 8th in place. We have to go back and review the new items. Next is Wednesday, October 28th. That will be the public hearing and we will then finalize the budget and send it back to the commissioners. Any questions or concerns about this item? [Jerry Green: Great. All right.] Before we start with the view of presentations, I'm going to go over a few housekeeping items. And then I have sent Maurice and Jeff a laundry list of items that I wanted to discuss or have them explained to us before we started with the presentations. So I'll go through that now. So I went over the charter again, as the budget committee, if we want to modify or change a line, we are supposed to have 11 votes or more. So we have to keep that in mind, that the small committee being a short one and if we're not all present, it's going to be very difficult for us to suggest a line change. Now the commissioners in the past couple of years have been very good with accepting or taking a look at what we do vote on if we were short and kind of weighing the decisions that we've made based on the people that were here, if that happens in this year. Please remember to speak clearly when making the motion. Motion and if you're it's a second saying so that we give it at least enough time to nod the names of the motions in a second and keep your hands raised until all the building is happening so we can we will listen to each department owner present the line items and avoid delivering them and vote them as they are presented. I urge everybody to ask their questions. And if you're going to suggest adjustments, suggest them immediately. Please don't wait until the end of all of our presentations and say you want to send the budget back for a lower amount. Our opportunity to make our changes as we're reviewing those slide items. Anybody have any questions about, like, the city, you know, Boston? [9:45] Auburn City Manager (former county vice chair): Just one more. So the budget that we have in Forrest, there's no history here. So by the way of course it's already been approved by the community no we're trying something [9:55] Speaker C (unidentified): Different this year no they accepted the budget voted it to send to the budget committee yeah they're here basically to be part of the process they don't have a vote they're just here to transparency and work together there's an idea that was floated last year [10:14] Auburn City Manager (former county vice chair): So our recommendations that we have will be on what's already been approved by the commission [10:20] Speaker C (unidentified): Commissioners. They have not approved the budget to final approval. They approved to send it to the budget committee. So your recommendations will go to the commissioners. [10:28] Speaker J (unidentified): The budget for the tickets approved three times. One's to send it to you, one's to send it back to us, and one's to final approval. We just haven't approved the first approval. [10:36] Speaker C (unidentified): They're just, we're trying to sit here. [10:41] Auburn City Manager (former county vice chair): So no, it's not been approved. I think our staff happened to be doing that. I think it's a great project. I know the prior state said it, but the ADA is completely budging when it comes to progress, so you need changes. [10:53] Chair (presiding officer): Yeah, awesome. And we decided to try this year as a recommendation that we had. It's going to be the last year and we thought it would be a better approach so that everybody's hearing the conversation one time and not multiple. All right. Any other questions? Everyone knows it's six months. Yes. We're going to go into my laundry list. I got to take a break. [11:13] Speaker F (unidentified): I wrote them all down. Do you want me to just, you want me to, I could read it, read your [11:18] Speaker C (unidentified): question and the answer, or you could read your question. How would you want to do it? But I [11:22] Chair (presiding officer): can, I'll start asking and then you can answer. My best is to please summarize to the group the current standing of all of the buildings the county owns as sold and how the money was managed. [11:35] Speaker C (unidentified): So you have to, the overall, this is a six-month budget. Currently the county owns, It owns 1450 Lisbon Street, which will be the future home of the Anderson County Regional Public Safety Center. We currently own 774 Center Street and all surrounding the small lots that go with it, but it's on the market for sale. We own three residential homes in Auburn, and we've sold the JFM building back to them. So if anybody's wondering, we do not own 800 Center Street anymore. More so that's, that's the standing of our real estate holdings. [12:15] Chair (presiding officer): My next question was, can you explain, I know about two weeks ago when I was here you guys were proving me a budget that you're still looking for the possibility of a four million dollar plan and I thought that part of the reason we were moving to the six month budget was so that we could try and eliminate that. So can you explain why we're still looking for that possibility that we just would love to [12:36] Speaker E (unidentified): to answer that, you want me to grab that one? So because for a statute we can't bill the towns earlier than September 1st, so we still need to get from January all the way to September when the town stopped paying. So this year the January and 27 will need, still need the regular TAN that we always have. It's the year after when we finally get to fiscal year that we will be able to eliminate the TAN. Okay, or make it very loose, but hopefully eliminate, but it won't be [13:12] Chair (presiding officer): Until then, okay, questions on that? All right, and you go over what the pay increases are that are not a very contractual agreement that is built into the budget, but yeah, I talked to the department. [13:26] Speaker C (unidentified): I would need to put a 3% COLA in for non-employees. [13:32] Chair (presiding officer): And same with what are we budgeting for insurance increases right now? [13:36] Speaker C (unidentified): 12% to 15%. How much? 12% to 15%. We budgeted 15%, right? Insurance, we budgeted 15%, but we're expecting between 12% and 15% of an increase. Yeah. And it's 3% COLA in the hopes that employees don't take a loss of the day. We'll see insurance premiums hit them. [13:51] Chair (presiding officer): and i think without getting into personal details i know that there 's a huge increase in variable work and compensation and i was just at looking for what are you folks doing to address some of the issues around that cost increase and yeah it's a it's a two it's a two [14:11] Speaker C (unidentified): pronged issue. We did have a lot, our mod rate did get affected. We had some workplace injuries during that time, they caught our rate to go up. In addition, what you're seeing here is two years of increases. We're not notified last year before the budget closed of what the increase would be until after. So we actually had, that's why you're seeing the two years tied into one. Does that make sense? [14:37] Chair (presiding officer): And the last question, well, I'm sorry to follow up. [14:40] Jerry Green: So I'm just saying we still don't have it. Yeah. [14:42] Speaker C (unidentified): I don't like it either. No, I'm with you. I'm with you. [14:46] Chair (presiding officer): And the last question I have before we get started is, can you summarize the agreement or the changes that you have with Lisbon's 9-1-1 consolidating being to us as the county and what the tax implications are for that? [15:00] Speaker C (unidentified): $230,000 additionally per year. They will be coming on board January 1st. [15:09] Speaker K (unidentified): Is that the net? [15:11] Auburn City Manager (former county vice chair): So there's revenue coming and then obviously your expenditures. [15:15] Speaker C (unidentified): That's after revenue. Correct. [15:24] Speaker L (unidentified): I'd like to talk about the six month budget to find out whether this budget committee is going to be created again for the second half of the year. One of the questions that I had is looking through the budget is how much of this budget is from loaded in the first six months dues and subscriptions and that sort of thing may occur during the first six months. I'm concerned about duplicating that revenue over the second six months and how that's been addressed. [15:56] Speaker C (unidentified): We thought of that when we created the budget. The budget is the creation of the actual costs for the first six months. We didn't just cut the budget in half. We didn't put everything off in the second month, nor did we pay everything up on the first six months. We did the best we could to see what was actually being paid at what time of year and put it in the appropriate budget. I wasn't going to intend to go back in the second, do it for a year and have this giant increase because we didn't so nor was my intent to not put it in the first to get a low budget now and then have it magnified later so it's it's the actual costs okay so the second convening of the [16:29] Speaker M (unidentified): budget may will be for a full year correct that means six months time and we'll probably be in [16:35] Speaker C (unidentified): the early spring late with early spring thank you welcome thank you is there a employee account [16:44] Auburn City Manager (former county vice chair): change, either positive or negative, that's built into the budget in these first six months. For dispatch? Yes. What's the added? Four. Four dispatchers. So by bringing Elizabeth on, it's creating accounting to hire four additional dispatchers? Correct. [17:04] Chair (presiding officer): And, oh, sorry, go ahead. [17:06] Speaker H (unidentified): I just have one question on the county expenditure front cover sheet. On the very bottom, you have the 2026 budget at $23 million. million and then on the 0.7 six months you have 18 million but I'm assuming that's not [17:23] Steve Robinson: okay can you say that again on the very bottom yep of that page for expenditures total is 23 [18:10] Speaker N (unidentified): small things in the town and the september thing so it's a statute in the county no it's a main [18:17] Speaker E (unidentified): means state statute that we cannot build the towns before september 1st following the start of the budget so our budget will be from january to june so that will be due in june i mean september so we can't we can't build for any of it until september 1st for the statute [18:40] Speaker N (unidentified): So, you know, all the time we have to build towns for the full amount of the year. [18:47] Speaker E (unidentified): And so what we'll be doing this, we haven't even had this conversation commissioners yet. So, January through June 27 is going to be due to the town September 1st. July 27 to June 28. technically is due September 1st as well because it's the September following the beginning of the budget. However, statute also says commissioners can set payment arrangements. So we haven't talked about that yet. And I have recommendations. Just like when you suggested it, you know, [19:29] Speaker N (unidentified): The process last year where that, you know, from a community in the town and look at the town of Poland, you look at cash flow and having to pay the full million and a half dollars or whatever the number is for Poland on a yearly basis, it would be wonderful to be paid on [19:43] Speaker E (unidentified): a quarterly basis and keep the cash flow coming, and the commissioners are still encouraged that [19:50] Speaker N (unidentified): somehow we can accomplish that so that we're not hitting the towns with 18 months worth of charge, or we might be, you know, expecting something less than that, and that we're not out there borrowing on money to try to keep them, keep the things affordable. Let's try to be creative about this and do, and then I guess I would encourage that we contact the state and their statutes and say [20:12] Speaker E (unidentified): hello, you know, change this thing. Once we get to the fiscal year, it won't be a problem because our fiscal year will start in July and we'll be billing in September and be a one-time thing. I mean, this is going to be a tricky one. I just wanted to encourage you somehow we figured [20:29] Speaker N (unidentified): this out borrowing money and which to me is just, you know, just throw it out the window, and at the same time, you know, we're not slamming the towns and the communities because I'm not sure I can get a chance to and I meant to make the call and other things. Well, to what the town of Poland is expecting, you know, what are they, what are they really expecting, and what are they expecting for [20:53] Speaker C (unidentified): a bill? I'll talk to Matt Garcide a little bit about this, so he's talked about it, given his suggestions. We've had some dialogue with that. Very good. It's not interesting. [21:01] Chair (presiding officer): Any of the questions before we start with presentation? [21:06] Auburn City Manager (former county vice chair): So in your budget letter to the commissioners, you mentioned that the facility was in the story would have communications. Is that changed, or are there no, that's, that's [21:23] Speaker M (unidentified): the plan. So the plan is that communication will still be involved? Correct. Okay. [21:31] Chair (presiding officer): All right. Our first presentation is to turn to your book, How Are the Emergencies in Edmonton Town? [21:57] Chad Harris: Everybody ready? Good evening. My name is Chad Harris. I am the Director of the Emergency Management for Anderskogging County. I've been in this position about a year. I've met some of you last year. Fortunately, this budget I put together last year, I had two days to look at the old one. So in the last year, EMA has transitioned quite a bit from being more of a grant monitoring agency to providing more services to the municipalities. As far as we've built some sheltered supplies and arts so that we can respond out to the different municipalities should they need to set up an emergency shelter, we have cots and blankets and supplies that can go out with us. We can offload those right to the right to the agent the municipalities and have them set up for a minimum of 25 people fairly quickly. That was one of the things we've been doing some shelter surveys with the towns and they have told us their biggest concern is where they're going to keep their stuff. You know, where are we going to get all of these supplies that we need to have to have a shelter? So that was one of the things that we had offered and we've been able to purchase some of those supplies. We've also started a volunteer community emergency response team that will consist of volunteers. We just finished our first academy where we've trained them how to do certain emergency response items such as the emergency sheltering sandbags traffic control that sort of stuff so we can assist some of the public safety agencies with some of the I don't want to say less important but less critical needs so that they the public safety folks can focus on those tasks. This year, the federal government has increased our emergency preparedness grant funding from $136,000 last year to $145,000 this year, $145,000. That is a 50% matching grant. So for every dollar we spend, the federal government gives us 50 cents back up to that $145,000 for the year. So that pretty much covers the $3,000 that I have increased in my budget for the six-month budget this year. We have to spend the money in order to get the money back from the government. So I really think that it's important that we use that when we can get supplies and equipment at 50 cents on the dollar right now until the government decides that they're not going to fund those programs anymore. So those are pretty much the main changes that we've had moving forward. We've consolidated a few line items added a few other ones based on previous years bills. Yeah, do you have any questions on the line items? [25:09] Chair (presiding officer): I have one for you. So you have one line item for both superior articles and subscriptions that based on the last couple of They'll ask instead of $2,000, $2,050 on that. Is that specifically something? [25:28] Chad Harris: That one was, let's see, is it 63-105? Is that the one we're looking for? Yes. So that was actually, we moved 70190, which was computer software hardware equipment. We eliminated that and I moved it all up into that other, that 63-105 category. [25:54] Chair (presiding officer): Any questions for other pieces of it? Go ahead, Steve. [25:59] Speaker N (unidentified): So just for the linear nature of a six-month bill and in comparison or whatever, I think the gas oil increase is heavy in Greece. $798 and $1,000 for a whole year in 26, and now investing with $3,500 for six months. [26:21] Chad Harris: So we, as part of one of the other grants, we received a grant for a second vehicle for the county that we just purchased. And we are responding out more often. We're using the vehicles more frequently as of this point this year, not exactly where we were at, but we are spending a significant more amount of money on fuel as well as repairs and oil changes and that sort of thing. [26:59] Speaker L (unidentified): Regarding the fuel oil, I think we thought that you would combine some of the gas fuel and grease, but that's a heating oil. That's dramatically lower than it had to be in the past. [27:11] Chad Harris: We're heating which one? [27:13] Speaker K (unidentified): The one that just developed. [27:15] Steve Robinson: The one that just developed. Fuel oil. Fuel oil. Yes. [27:23] Chad Harris: So the fuel oil actually is for the – it's a backup system for where we're currently at, the fire station. We run natural gas predominantly, but there is, they do have a backup system should something happen, and being January to April, or maybe even March for heating oil, I figured that we were a safe bet cutting that back some floor. [27:53] Speaker L (unidentified): Okay, that opens up another question here after October 1st. [27:59] Speaker C (unidentified): We have agreed with the city to pay to start until the next fiscal budget. We have agreed with the city to continue to pay for the space until they start their new budget in June. So we will be paying our rent and our costs until June 30th of this year. Now when he's even done in October, his administrative office will be moved by space in that building, probably into the new year. We move all the EOC and the other equipment. We may get out of there in March, but in discussions with the city, we Ordered the fiscal year on that. I'm about to bail them halfway through. Welcome. [28:38] Chair (presiding officer): Are there any other questions? [28:40] Speaker N (unidentified): Yeah, I'm assuming just because I saw the training and things that the basic production and salary of the day is just to turn over to you guys in particular. [28:50] Speaker C (unidentified): To change the staffing matrix, it would be reduced by one in that area. And took that money and had a look at the staffing, and they felt at the time it was better allocated towards getting the supplies for the towns back up. [29:07] Speaker P (unidentified): Just real quick, maybe sorry to explain, but under equipment, can you help me understand why we budgeted zero but have spent $13,000 in 2005 and $19,000 already this year? You can answer. [29:22] Speaker C (unidentified): Sure, it was part of the grant is by reducing, you have to spend the money they give you where they take it away, so even though the money wasn't budgeted, we found the best place to spend it. [29:32] Speaker N (unidentified): Wasn't the equipment he talked about the towns, this equipment, is this a one-time purchase or [29:41] Chad Harris: is this something that's all i didn't answer that it 's a little bit of both previously, the previous budgets, we didn't have any money in the equipment line to take care of anything that may have broken. If our computers broke, we really didn't have any backup to purchase new ones for our emergency operations center, et cetera. It also, now that we've added our CERT volunteers and our sheltering system, those things may need to be replaced. We may have to get equipment for that team as it goes through the six months or the next budget next year. So it is a little bit of both. It's to make sure that we can replace the items that may end up getting used or broken throughout normal use and purchasing new stuff as we go through. With the new purchase of the building, we may find we need stuff in that new space as well. Also. [30:41] Speaker P (unidentified): Just the only other thing, I mean, always conservative with buying stuff with grant money that might have to be purchased again and grant money might not be available. So is there any of that in there where you might have to find money for it that maybe the grant doesn't look to the [30:58] Chad Harris: future? I do not have anything that is recurring from a grant other than the actual emergency preparedness grant that we get every year, and that's that shows up on our revenue line item at the top, that's the only thing that is, that is recurring. Everything else that we've done is a one-time purchase. Down the road we may have to replace some of these items. Like I said, we do have cots and blankets, and if anybody's ever been to or participate in an emergency shelter, if we hand out 30 blankets, we're probably going to get 25 back, so we will have to replace some of those. [31:38] Steve Robinson: Items along the way, thank you. Any other questions? Does the commissioners have a question? It's benefits that wouldn't pay for the employees, that's not included in this budget. Knowing that if we get back 50% from federal government, why do we not include benefits in this private budget? Thank you, Bill. [32:10] Speaker E (unidentified): And then it comes back into yours? [32:15] Chad Harris: No, I honestly, I don't have an answer to that question because it hadn't been in any of the previous budgets. I know that it comes out of a separate, the employee benefits come out of a separate fund that the administrator sets up. [32:34] Speaker C (unidentified): Why don't we nail that down next meeting, I can give you the answer. I believe it's billed, then it goes back in, but I don't want to, you know, give me a chance to verify that. [32:49] Chair (presiding officer): Thank you for the question. Us all right, would anybody like to either suggest a change or if there's no changes for a motion for the revenue and then a separate commission for these beverages [33:08] Speaker L (unidentified): What would you say the same month but it was seventy two thousand one thirty five for [33:13] Chair (presiding officer): Rather than using it tonight and save seven minutes on there when I'm imposed all right then we usually need a motion for the expenses [33:29] Speaker L (unidentified): So I will move extending 135 thousand seven hundred dollars for a six-month budget [34:42] Speaker H (unidentified): Good evening, everyone. [34:43] Speaker M (unidentified): It's good to be back again. I'm excited about doing this twice a year. Year. Twice the fun. It has been, in fact, and we're grateful to the county for providing us some guidance because it's been an interesting effort to put the budget together this year. I mean, the new arrangement. But Kayla is here. I'm Neil McLean. I'm the district attorney for District 3, including Ames County. And this is Kayla, our office administrator, who assists with the budget. So what we did, as we typically try to do, we've done for the last three years anyway, we try to just sort of stay within our means. We understand that the counties are not overflowing with cash, so we try not to get too, try to ask for too much. We try to stay pretty much in the means of what we've done year to year. I think this budget reflects that again, for the most part, I think if there are some increases, they're primarily cost of living increases, step increases of personnel. There's technology has become increasingly more expensive, so some of those line items have gone up for us. Well, again, we've tried to stay pretty consistent with what we've done in the past. And if there are questions within the budget, I'm glad, along with Kayla, to try to answer some of those questions you might have about specific lines. [36:10] Chair (presiding officer): We'll start with the actual Superior Court, which is 1-1-5-5-5. So this particular one has your revenue of $5,500, and I'm saying it's pretty simple. [36:36] Jerry Green: I don't know how you answer on this one. [36:46] Speaker M (unidentified): It's a fair question. I'm not sure I have an answer to that one. We do the best we can. [36:53] Speaker L (unidentified): Go ahead, Leo. Yeah, if you visited Merge's, I'm a little upset. This is a little exciting and district security board from the same time period, okay, is there a [37:04] Chair (presiding officer): second, oh there should be, that's perfect, and then and all the bigger and ultimately, okay, so we're going to go all right, is indeed the U.S. institution special, the next one, I'm sorry, Expenditure. I thought you were involved with that. I admire your involvement, I thought you were involved. I wouldn't have been involved, [37:26] Speaker L (unidentified): but my understanding was the rules required by the president. [37:29] Chair (presiding officer): Sorry, go ahead, my bad. [37:31] Speaker L (unidentified): I will now move about 70% of the $650 expenditures for the, I think I'm very, for me, Yeah, I get it. It's 55. Well, there's a $100 postage. I believe, is there not? No. [37:50] Chair (presiding officer): There is no way. [37:53] Speaker L (unidentified): Ah, OK. No, you're right. I'm sorry. [37:56] Chair (presiding officer): All right. And Paula has a second. All right. And. And my apologies. So the restitution specialist is the next one. Look at it and ask any questions. Are there any questions on this line item? Everybody's taking notes. Go ahead. [38:26] Steve Robinson: And I noticed that when we were going to be extended to choose the health of Maine State Retirement, that's 48% of the salary, but it seems extremely high in this group. And I'm jumping in here, I'm tapping into a little bit of the VA, they can witness as if it's it now is 35 percent of what they're doing, so this is curious by the [Speaker H (unidentified): one department which] one are you looking at, I'm sorry, that's what, so the resolution specialist with the benefits are equal to 48 percent of the settlement, thank you [39:22] Speaker J (unidentified): you're in health dental making your retirement and fucking all together, right [39:27] Steve Robinson: right we got 48 percent right and it was 14 months, yeah, so that is 14 thousand, it seems extremely high in the industry avenues this and that from Memphis [39:43] Speaker M (unidentified): Yeah, I think it's connected to the individual that's within the position. [39:48] Speaker C (unidentified): If they're taking the benefits, what they're using for benefits, frankly. [39:55] Speaker L (unidentified): Like they could have a family. Right. [39:58] Speaker M (unidentified): Multiple kids. One-on-one kids, yeah. [40:00] Speaker Q (unidentified): She's also been there for 15-plus years, so. [40:07] Chair (presiding officer): We shared this with the other palliatives, right? [40:11] Speaker M (unidentified): Restitute specialist, yes, she does. She works for all three counties, but provides services for all three. She's out of our Amherst-Goggin office, primarily. [40:24] Steve Robinson: So that salary only represents a portion, but the $29,000 is not her total salary? Is that what you're saying, right? No, it is. [40:34] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah. It's a shared position. Okay. [40:38] Steve Robinson: So her salary is greater than the S&P County's contribute, which I was not aware of. [40:45] Speaker C (unidentified): That yeah and it's like oh so you thought her percentage of her benefits is high because I understand what you're saying now your salary is it's a shared portion of it yes so the benefits are too but she uses I guess I'm still based on the benefit package she has [41:03] Speaker J (unidentified): That's what we're paying it represents one person when you're talking about sales right so she just has to be the high end of benefits why she'd love everything standard rehab like so she has possibly a partner and I don't know in their books but you're going to have to go then because of the single proteins it's going to be significant in power [41:41] Chair (presiding officer): Too but I'm also trying to say that you would expect that the other two communities are covering $14,000 in benefits at all, or? Well, they should be. Well, that's the thing. [41:54] Chad Harris: I think we're, I think from everyone's perspective, [41:58] Speaker N (unidentified): The same reason. You look at all the departments where they show salary and benefits. You'll benefit back in this relationship to the salary in the 28 to 30%, 48% of the budget. The question here is, there a clerical error or some sort of thing that there's too much in here? Consistent to the other years, it looks like percentage has always been that way. Right. That's my own comment, too. When I look back at the previous years, the percentages here are pretty much aligned. I mean, well, calculated to be exact, but it's been pretty much that way every year that it shows here. [42:38] Speaker E (unidentified): So this particular person has been here for a million years. So she doesn't she doesn't get the max amount that's 15 oh she's messing around I'm sorry [42:52] Speaker C (unidentified): So you get the maximum I'm sorry maximum benefits back for the time [42:58] Steve Robinson: She has family and the when you say it's shared between all three of us that the amount we pay [43:04] Speaker J (unidentified): Is prorated based on population right so we don't necessarily pay in thirds we pay whatever [43:13] Speaker M (unidentified): It's prorated amongst the other two counties. I don't know that it's done by population. [43:23] Speaker C (unidentified): It's a state population. That makes any sense? [43:30] Speaker L (unidentified): You may have answered this before the hearing, but the proration is the same for the benefits and for the salary, is that correct? The Androscog has not picked up all the benefits. No. So that's prorated as well in the same formula as the salary. Correct. [43:49] Speaker M (unidentified): Yeah, she's employed in Androscog County, so she utilizes. So, for instance, the VWA or another position might be employed in one of the other offices. So their benefits in those packages would be consistent with those county benefit packages. She is primarily, or she's employed out of our office, but expenditures are shared with the other, the endoscopic office, but expenditures are shared between all three counties. All the expenditures, the salary, the benefits. [44:21] Speaker L (unidentified): To prevent that, we'll progress the history before you start about the apparently high ratio of benefits to salary. [44:30] Chair (presiding officer): So, any other questions? Go ahead. [44:35] Speaker P (unidentified): Just real quick, probably more for information. How do you calculate the revenue for the restitution specialists? The state does it. The state does it? So they estimate what you might bring in? [44:47] Speaker C (unidentified): I'm just kind of curious. I'm not sure if there's a state that's what they do. [44:52] Speaker J (unidentified): So why did them in the state? I don't know. [44:57] Speaker E (unidentified): This is restitution. How it's billed. I bill it to the other two counties. And it's it's kind of like I'm billing I just build now for this current year so it's fine but we take the budget divided by three so whenever we budget we divide it by three I build them too and we pay authority that this is the victim witness the victim witness is the state that gets okay we're not there yet [45:29] Steve Robinson: Yeah sorry so the expenditure line I think what this is doing is that the county employees need [45:38] Auburn City Manager (former county vice chair): This individual so that's their full package that we see as it is and then you're seeing the revenue line on an offset right the other two yeah offset that so it's not this is the expenditure isn't just [45:51] Steve Robinson: A third of versus right it's the whole thing yeah okay any other questions all right would [46:02] Chair (presiding officer): Anybody like to entertain a motion on the revenue of the hand-to-hand expenditures are we [46:11] Speaker L (unidentified): Having two motions So just to make sure, all right, I will move acceptance of $18,000 as a revenue. [46:23] Chair (presiding officer): Do I have to give that first or second? Second. All in favor? And we will close. Okay. [46:31] Speaker L (unidentified): And I will also move acceptance of $43,259 as expenditures for restitution. Second. Second. Seconded. [46:45] Chair (presiding officer): So now we'll move on to the disability attorney assignment, and we get ourselves to the unit statement. I did have a question on the lease agreement. That number seems to be fluctuating all over the place, and if there's any explanation on the difference for behalf of the year is not the same as 2026. [47:19] Speaker C (unidentified): The property is part of an HOA. We share all the CAMs, the common area fees. Those have gone up pretty significantly. That reflects those CAMs fees. So it's split amongst the four floors, constitute store removal, building maintenance, heating, cooling, maintenance costs, anything to do with this outside the actual office of the district attorney. I can tell you we labored pretty hard to get even to this number. So that's about the best we could do for that six months. Natural gas was one of our biggest increases in electricity in the building was huge. [48:15] Chair (presiding officer): Go ahead. [48:17] Speaker H (unidentified): The fractional fees. [48:21] Speaker N (unidentified): Jamil's question. It went down by a bit. [48:26] Speaker E (unidentified): It's most of [48:27] Jerry Green: the bills only. [48:29] Speaker Q (unidentified): Most of the bills for the professional fees are on the end of the year. [Asher Havlin: Yes, correct.] We'll get the bigger bills closer to the end of the year. [48:45] Speaker L (unidentified): I suspect it's a similar answer for the dramatic increase in maintenance agreements for hardware and software, that those are front-loaded, but there's still a dramatic increase of $1,500 to annualized $16,000, so it's nearly a 1,000% increase. Someone talk to that? [49:06] Asher Havlin: So you said the hardware? One. [49:12] Speaker Q (unidentified): You so that would be just technology in general has gone through the roof astronomically, and we require so much more of it even just interacting with our normal day-to-day with the court. A lot of our other technology is needs to be repaired or replaced, and that in itself, just for one tablet or one laptop, is about $2,000. So all of that has gone through the roof in general. [49:48] Speaker L (unidentified): So I've heard that there are increasing costs for baseline services, but there's also new services that are being added because of new ways of communicating between law enforcement and the DA's office and courts. So you've got a new software involved? [50:05] Speaker Q (unidentified): Involved, correct, we have, we are dealing with different databases for sure. [50:11] Chair (presiding officer): Before I get here. [50:14] Asher Havlin: Any other questions? Yeah, it was a very similar question. Would you be willing to explain a bit further what the hardware maintenance like specifically entails? So it's, is it iPads? [50:32] Chair (presiding officer): And I believe bakeries is there other things that you can explain it? [50:39] Speaker Q (unidentified): It include includes all of it, honestly. We have had to replace so many of our items all at once, especially recently. So the fear is that we are going to have people with outdated tablets. Even the storage capacity on tablets that are two years old, cannot deal with dealing with the court's database, our databases, our share file. It just can't handle us utilizing all of these systems all at once. So we end up having to call our IT services constantly daily to try and figure out how to clean out our storage, maintain the hardware to keep us running efficiently without having to restart every 20 minutes. And that's a daily concern we have. It's a complaint I get every day where I'm going into trial assistance computers to try and clean it out the best I can to my capabilities. And then hopefully it'll work after that. [51:56] Chair (presiding officer): You hear it, of course, in social media. Yes. Do you want to talk about it? [52:02] Asher Havlin: Yes, it is in the case of it at the main, where it's supposed to be a cross-council. Council is confirmed. Yes, I see that. [52:10] Speaker J (unidentified): All right, I have a question. Is this more for the state's technology than for our own? And does this have to do with their disastrous rollout of their product? Yes. [52:25] Steve Robinson: You don't have to answer the question. I'm following. [52:27] Speaker F (unidentified): I think that the answer is yes, so a part of the budget does include the prosecutors [52:34] Speaker Q (unidentified): but also the trial assistants, which is the county piece, but the prosecutors, their tablets, their [52:40] Speaker F (unidentified): technology is included here, right? So I'm just going to give some education for everybody, because [52:46] Speaker J (unidentified): I have therapy next. I don't, I do believe that this number is because a software agreement for the prosecutors new state mandated software has been way over budget. State put a ton of money into it, didn't work the way that it's supposed to, and they're doubling down on it, and so it's requiring us to pay more. And because if you're going to buy computers, wouldn't that be more in office supplies rather than software and hardware maintenance? No, not office supplies, office supplies [53:22] Speaker F (unidentified): liaisons, and sticky notes, folders. [53:27] Speaker J (unidentified): Is this for software maintenance, or is it for the actual computers? [53:34] Speaker Q (unidentified): It's a little bit of both. [53:36] Speaker J (unidentified): But that increase has come from the state, has it not? Are they charging you more for that software? [53:42] Speaker Q (unidentified): I think, again, it's a little bit of both. Inflation across the board with general technology, because we utilize it more, And because even the implementation of AI with so many different platforms, that even something as simple as Adobe, which I think we have under subscriptions, but still, we don't have enough there either because everything is so much more expensive now. So it's a little bit involved. Yeah. [54:13] Speaker J (unidentified): But yes, I'm not surprised. [54:16] Speaker M (unidentified): With the system computers and the stuff, the equipment that we purchase is more expensive. [54:23] Speaker J (unidentified): Because it's required to run more on a system that just didn't work. [54:28] Speaker C (unidentified): So as a rule, this system budget doesn't have really any capital. This is one area that I really wasn't comfortable not ensuring that they have what they need to do the job. So there's a little bit of that few new items in there. It is mostly software, not software. but I just didn't feel comfortable not giving them that stuff so [54:51] Steve Robinson: there's no error of the problem [54:53] Speaker C (unidentified): right it's not like under a capital line there is new equipment in that line just to be transparent but the cost of that program [54:59] Speaker J (unidentified): is getting passed to the DA's offices it's a cost that the state is kind of [55:07] Speaker C (unidentified): forcing us to pick up what's our next conversation next meeting I love it [55:13] Auburn City Manager (former county vice chair): I think I would I would feel comfortable maybe not proceeding with a vote on this and not with our staff to move that, but to provide the information to the county minister to break this line item out. Because I think for a future budget, because we heard tablets, and tablets shouldn't really be in line item 7190. And so if there are any equipment or tablets or anything should really be in that line item, that would help us know also hopefully we'll get information regarding is this a full maintenance agreement of this software system that we're uploading in this first six months and what we anticipate for next year based on that. [56:30] Chair (presiding officer): Okay. And Steve, you have a question? [56:32] Speaker N (unidentified): I'll wait out, really, and then look at the two categories, you know, which side of the bench you're going to ride on, and things consistently, you know. I mean, in total, the dollars are actually less. If you look at it on a yearly to semi-annual basis, the dollars, the $8,000 there is actually less than what the light items were for all the year. [Speaker K (unidentified): And that's happening.] them so the whole perspective i'm not paid with it choose which side of the fence you kind of put it on that thing then it's consistency to the budget you're going to hold you and it's good [57:12] Speaker J (unidentified): I'm just curious, did you move to a an agreement with, you said you're an IIT, I'm assuming you outsourced your IIT. Did you move to an agreement where they provided the whole thing, all of your all your hardware and I.T support and that kind of stuff? [57:26] Speaker M (unidentified): Yeah, we do all of it. We've always done all of our work through our DA tech MDATs. [57:33] Speaker J (unidentified): No, I'm just saying, so there are some agreements with IT that have been set up where they will then give you the tech you need, take the tech back when it's old, and then give you new tech. And that's all usually folded into the hardware meetings. It's always in the agreement. Agreement because they're they're they know what how much they're how often they can tell you absolutely, and so they'll say you can't spend a thousand dollars a year, we'll make sure everyone has tablets every two years, so then whatever, so those agreements exist. I'm just curious if that's [58:00] Speaker C (unidentified): I think when I dig down in this like Phil said too, I'll find out how much this stuff is actually, you get the trial systems, you have the prosecutors too, so I think what you're saying might be true for some of the prosecutors, but some of our trial systems is on us, so I can dig that down. I don't teach you the breakdown of what we're doing. [58:17] Speaker Q (unidentified): For DA tech, it still fluctuates from year to year, whether it be the people they're employing, their salaries go up, or implementing new programs, new databases, and spearheading the rollout of it. [58:37] Chair (presiding officer): Okay, any more questions, David, do I have any? [58:39] Speaker L (unidentified): Yeah, I'd like to get a sense of how much the cost and the DA's office is being driven by the adoption and new technologies by law enforcement. Now, in Houston, for example, we have funded Axon body cameras that have all kinds of capabilities. And one of the selling points was that it facilitated communication with the district attorney's office. Did you have costs that were incurred at your level to accommodate that through communication? [59:08] Speaker M (unidentified): I don't believe so. So their system is a better system for them and how it interplays with us is the product that they send to us to upload it to Discovery, to have in Discovery, to use in our cases is a better product. But I don't think it's changed anything for us. In fact, it's probably made it more efficient. [59:31] Speaker L (unidentified): That's good news. I like that. Cost is concerned about hidden costs that we don't see on the city side but we actually see [59:41] Speaker M (unidentified): when we end up paying the county bill but you told me that 's not the case no so if we wanted to do advent like they have which we've looked at it would be incredibly more expensive and quite frankly i think cost prohibitive so we haven't asked for it we'd have to have our own separate advent program and again i think it's cost prohibitive i don't get the sense that everybody here is going to have the appetite for the amount of money that [1:00:10] Chair (presiding officer): would run us. Thank you. So I think we can look for emotional revenue. I don't think that's going to be affected by the question. So if anybody would like emotional revenue, I will move acceptance. [1:00:26] Speaker L (unidentified): Is 27,375, and revenues for the attorney's not very [1:00:36] Chair (presiding officer): first. Okay, all in favor? All right, and so it's not huge. I'll make a motion, and let me [1:00:48] Auburn City Manager (former county vice chair): postpone the expenditure line item for [1:00:57] Speaker L (unidentified): I'm sorry, was that just for the one-line bill or for the entire expenditure? The entire? Yeah. The entire. Okay. [1:01:05] Chair (presiding officer): I'll second that. Okay. All in favor? And anybody opposed? We have one vote. Okay. [Asher Havlin: All right.] Can we add that back to the agenda for next meeting? And we're going to move to the joint budget. [1:01:31] Jerry Green: I don't have any [1:01:43] Chair (presiding officer): questions on the joint budget. [1:01:51] Speaker L (unidentified): Can someone explain what the joint budget is and how that differs from the straightforward budget of just double development? [1:02:00] Speaker M (unidentified): Joint budget is unique here in Amherst County. Public County, to the best of my knowledge, is the expenditure. It's certain budget items that are shared amongst all three of the counties. And it's been here in the seat of Androscoggin County where we've held the budget and generally asked for the contributions from the other counties to be paid in us. [1:02:28] Speaker L (unidentified): So the budget that we just, the revenues that we just, about the expenditures we'll talk about next, but those are solely underscored accounting, correct? And what we're talking about now is a shared wrong, the three accounts, correct? Yes. [1:02:47] Chair (presiding officer): Are there any other questions? [1:02:51] Speaker N (unidentified): Oh, sorry, I just, when you just look at the registration, you look at the insurance and liability within these certain scenes, is that just the timing and the front end of the six months or? Correct. [1:03:11] Speaker Q (unidentified): Well. Because it includes the Oxford and Franklin, whether it be bar registration renewals, which is the big one that we see. [1:03:22] Speaker N (unidentified): I anticipate that a little fast. [1:03:29] Chair (presiding officer): Go ahead. [1:03:30] Speaker P (unidentified): Sir, quick question on the insurance liability, where we budgeted $2,200 in 2025, zero actual, and then we budgeted $2,200 in 2026, and we're already at $2,800. [1:03:48] Speaker Q (unidentified): So I can't actually speak to the 2025, what happened there, because I had just started. But, I know there's been an increase in insurance across the board anyway, but I, am not entirely sure why the increase. I'm not sure if Clarice can speak to that at all. [1:04:11] Asher Havlin: No, it must be, it must be from the state. [1:04:16] Speaker M (unidentified): We get this information from the Attorney General's office. They send us our annual liability insurance payment. And so I don't know why the discrepancy, but that information comes from the Attorney General's office. They send us a bill for what our yearly liability insurance is. So it'd be safe to say that it's that big one of some because if they all of them we've already received the bill yet same [1:04:52] Chair (presiding officer): Question is this insurance procured through this at the risk [1:04:57] Speaker C (unidentified): No this is a bill that Neil's getting from the state to cover his prosecutors by correct [1:05:02] Speaker M (unidentified): Yeah it comes straight from the Attorney General's office yeah it's not nothing [1:05:06] Speaker C (unidentified): We're not supposed to no well [1:05:11] Chair (presiding officer): The right answer question okay we're going to take another one to pop in the motion on these finishers [1:06:20] Speaker J (unidentified): So in food you guys get to hear my ear when you spill to me I think I think access to justice this is probably one of the most pressing issues not only in county government but in state government as a whole Neil knows this I talk about this every single year in our own graduate meeting and this is really the only opportunity we have the cops department has about their future and about what's going on in their department so I'm gonna we seeded that when we decided these two but Neil can you can You just talk about the workload of the department and can you talk about I always ask you this every year but if there was one thing that we could do for you like what could we do and I know you always say like salary increases but is there something that you can that we could do for you outside of that and I just I know your workload is heavy I know it's not getting lighter and I think when you talk about having a democracy and our system justice and it's like the baseline of that I just I Don't think that it's enough for [1:07:46] Speaker M (unidentified): That so I do appreciate it and glad the question came, and it's also an opportunity. This has been probably the most difficult budget season for me because not only did you change it to six months, which was brand new, but I'm not even in Andrew Scoggin hardly at all anymore. I'm I'm I'm working out of Farmington for the most part, my deputies in Oxford most of the time. We've got a shadow of a crew here trying to keep things going in Androscog. And we've got a 13-year-old shooting up downtown Lewiston. So personnel is a huge issue for us. We do talk about salary. I do worry both at the county level. We've had a massive turnover at our county staff employee levels right now. We were we're supposed to have 14 personnel, we've been down to about 11 for a good part of the year. We're we're we've got a brand new hire in, I think we're at about 13, we'll be at 13 next week with another brand new, but it is hard to bring on new people to learn the complicity sort of the intricacies how complicated what we do is. So again, you can't have this conversation without saying, I think competitively, we can't pay them enough to keep them. I think they keep coming in, seeing how hard they're working. It's overwhelming. They leave for other jobs and more money. That's something on the county level we see. It's also something we're seeing with the attorneys on the state level. But it isn't just about the salary. We also need at least a couple more prosecutors to make this work. So beyond just salary increases, We need personnel increases. We do have two positions in the supplemental budget before the state right now. One would be for Andrew, one for Oxford, if we can get it. But with the new administration coming in, we'll see if it actually makes it through. and increased personnel is important but the last thing I'll say and I do appreciate this question because this is where we could use a lot of help but it 's expensive to keep up with what we do we are just getting absolutely overwhelmed with litigation in our office and there are there's better technology out there 's better programs we talked about advent that would be a better program for us, but it's highly expensive. There's better Westlaw Nexus programs, but those would come out of these subscription lines and they increase significantly, but they can help us with more efficiently drafting briefs, handling appeals. So there are all kinds of things we could use to assist the attorneys and the staff through technology, things as simple as Acrobat to be able to actually not have to go through documents by hand and black blacken things out. It'd be nice if we had three licenses for the office. We could have a program that we could go in and redact things efficiently and not take days to go through, you know, hundreds of pages of discovery. So there are there are a lot of things we could use that would bring us technologically to a place where you do our jobs better, keep up with litigation better. People may have seen the recent article in the paper about from the chief justice telling prosecutors they need to do better. Though a lot of those problems you're seeing are based on the fact that we just can't keep up. Nobody's doing anything wrong. Everybody's trying as hard as they can. They just simply can't keep up with the workload. But we in Androscoggin County and District 3 generally are not going to stop prosecuting crimes. We're going to continue to prosecute crimes at all levels. And if that's what folks want us to do, and I think the community does want us to do that, and most people we speak to expect us to do that, 's hard to do with the lack of manpower or personnel at the county level, at the state level with attorneys, and with the lack of resources we have and you all have been fantastic working with us and giving us the basics of what we need but there are a lot of things we can use that would really make us much more efficient at what we do and take a lot of stress off people. We've lost at least two prosecutors to burnout. I don't know that any of the trial assistants have said it's burnout, but they certainly talked about being overwhelmed by case loans, which I think is the same language [1:12:33] Speaker Q (unidentified): which three of them were recently and I think that just goes also because of the implementation of the court database e-file essentially is doubling their work as well. So not only are we understaffed overburdened with a caseload in general regardless of the department they're assigned but they're also having to double up their work with and not just inputting it in our system but also inputting it in the e-file system. So something that we normally do just once we're [1:13:07] Speaker M (unidentified): also doing twice in the court. So it's also time that goes to your point about the work that's being placed on us from other entities within the system. Yeah, that's that's frustrating for [1:13:18] Speaker J (unidentified): Me personally, because I know they're using certain districts to try things, but I don't, I don't have an issue with, I just, it presents a problem when you have to put information twice so that the state can conduct an experiment, and I, that's very frustrating to me. One of the things that I would love to see you guys bring, this really goes for all, departments, is, I mean, you know, you talk about we'd like to have more licenses for Adobe, like I'd like to see wish lists of things from people, not incorporated into the budget. I'm not saying that we will fund these things, but more so that we're able to pay them. Especially when it comes to something like this, because I know that caseload is high. I know it's high. There is more crime. And it has to be [Steve Robinson: thought through. So,] I would like to know more about what you can do to make the caseload lighter, and how we can do things more efficiently. [1:14:24] Speaker M (unidentified): And there is, maybe people have heard about it. [1:14:29] Speaker C (unidentified): It's been sort of out there. [1:14:32] Speaker M (unidentified): It's a new position that we've looked at creating for District 3 and District 3 Administrator. And it really is created in greater part to sort of explore these things. One of the things I've learned through the first four years are all the things we could do better. And there are always things we could do better. So we do have a new position we're creating that would be seated. So it'd be similar to the discussion we had on the restitution specialist. This one would be seated in Franklin County, but would be shared with the three counties. And it is a District 3 administrator. And the purpose of that person is to centralize, update, unify what we're doing, to look for ways to be more efficient across the district, to train personnel better. I think that's a problem we've had. We're so busy, it's hard to train people when you say, train me when we can, but we've got to go input these other 30 cases. So we do have a new position that we're creating to address just this issue, to bring more unity into D3, and to identify those things that we could do better, efficient. And I think that might help us put together a list of some of those things as she sees what's happening in all three counties and what would benefit all of us generally, the district general. [1:15:50] Speaker C (unidentified): What's difficult is we really want to wait for that position. So we're going to set that position January, am I right? The way we're funding it, his deal is being modest. We're not filling one of the TA positions to be able to fund it. That's why I don't see the increase in your budget. So it's a challenge, but something that had to happen right away. So he's actually giving up a position for six months and giving up filling one for six months to fill that. [1:16:16] Speaker H (unidentified): Well, thank you for the work you do. [1:16:18] Speaker N (unidentified): I appreciate it. [1:16:23] Chair (presiding officer): Can I say something? [1:16:24] Speaker N (unidentified): That yeah, I mean, I understand that, I understand the headcount things, that you know prosecuted that thing, whatever, but I'd like to know how is a new starting county compared to the other county in the state in regards to some of those things, that periphery things, talk a little bit about, you know, this tumbling county, you're kind of having these types of things that have the efficiency things, and Anna's talking just doesn't, and we're not doing that, or is, are we consistent with the other counties and how things are done in the system? [1:16:58] Speaker M (unidentified): So each county has a DA, right? And an elected official who has a philosophy on how things should be done. And I can't speak for the other seven counties, but we, and I won't go back into detail, but as I suggested, we have a philosophy that we're going to address crime as it happens. That means we're not going to set certain crimes aside. So you will see different approaches to how crime is handled in all eight counties, and that might play a role in terms of efficiency. If somebody is saying, well, we're not going to pursue these 29A cases, you'll knock a bunch of cases off your case loan. So we're not in a place where we think that's the appropriate thing to do. But the other part is it gets layered. You have the attorneys and some of the issues they're having. But primarily, I think, to the point of the county's role in this, you do employ the staff that we have. And right now, we're at a huge disadvantage in hiring to places like York and Cumberland because they just pay much better. So that's where the disadvantage might come in from county to county, when you can pay somebody much better to work in one place and with things as expensive as they are, you can really enjoy an environment. You can like the people you work with, but money matters. So we do lose a good number of people to the PDS, which employs their staff through the state, and they have deeper pockets. Pockets. We lose some to Cumberland because they pay significantly better than we do here in this county. So I think that's where we might see the greatest disparity is our ability to maintain staff and pay them consistent with some of the other counties. [1:18:44] Speaker C (unidentified): That's actually a real deal for Hawks, correct? Yes. [1:18:48] Speaker M (unidentified): Yeah, we've been below even Toby and all of these [1:18:51] Speaker N (unidentified): other systems, all of them use the same system and [1:18:54] Speaker F (unidentified): act with us and all of that or are they already done no e-files being rolled out statewide though [1:19:01] Speaker Q (unidentified): so Cumberland was just here the train with us go ahead well no but so those are all those are [1:19:09] Speaker M (unidentified): across the state but the one we're talking about these programs we're talking about are different from county to county it's dependent on what they present to their county commissioners into budgets, that ADVET system. I think there's a nice program that's the equivalent. I think Canterbury County has moved away from ShareFile, which is the system we use, which is more expensive, but has a greater lifetime and isn't dying constantly like our system. But all those things cost more money. They have to be put into the budget and approved by the counties. So yeah, there's a good deal of discrepancy from county to county. [1:19:49] Asher Havlin: I think we went to one of the more sophisticated systems. Would it integrate better with the state's new e-file, or would you still be, as other systems out there that would integrate, would you have to do the work twice? [1:20:06] Speaker Q (unidentified): That was the plan originally, but it just didn't work for our office. [1:20:12] Speaker M (unidentified): And the problem is larger than that, though. So we have to work within the same IT as the rest of the state. Otherwise, it would be a massive increase. If we hired our own IT department to have our own IT, one, it might not integrate the same way or interface with the cores, but we'd also have to pay for them. Right now, we're splitting the payment for our IT between eight counties. So there's actually a huge benefit in doing it that way. But we do have a new program coming, and we've already started the funding for it. It's that e-prosecutor, but it will not integrate either. We already know it's not going to integrate. And they know it's not going to integrate. We knew it wasn't going to integrate when they started rolling out e-file. [1:20:57] Chair (presiding officer): Unfortunately. Any other conversation? [1:21:06] Speaker F (unidentified): Okay. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you so much. [1:21:58] Speaker R (unidentified): Okay. It was pretty much the same as every year. Okay. [1:22:07] Chair (presiding officer): Just six months. Yeah. [1:22:12] Speaker R (unidentified): I mean, some of the stuff, it, says zero, like registration and enrollment because that'll come the next half of the year so it was zero because that's not till August but I mean it's pretty it's pretty clear cut if there's any anything you want to ask me I mean it's okay my question was it just it kind of quickly stood [1:22:46] Speaker N (unidentified): out to me when you looked at revenues. Revenues are definitely below what the first six months of this year is and what previous has been. Okay, so affecting that is, [1:23:08] Speaker R (unidentified): there's a, it's called an act to support workforce development by establishing the Housing Stability Fund. So they're taking, the state is now taking additional money. We used to keep 10%. Now we're keeping 9.2%. So that's hitting us. The other thing is it's a first-time home buyers program. And again, it's through Maine State Housing Authority. And these people apply for the program if they get accepted then if they buy a home for let's say 300 000 they don't have to pay any tax when they come into my office they are tax exempt the buyer is tax exempt and so isn't the seller which is hitting us hard yeah we are making up some of the money through what we call a mansion tax which is anything over a million dollars so if someone sells a house or whatever for two million dollars the first million is at the regular 4.4 up four dollars and 40 cents per thousand but the second million is taxed at 12 per thousand so we are making up money in that sense but I mean how many million dollars you know it's unfortunate and I mean there's a talk you know let's talk about the increase in interest rates for mortgages right now housing spring everything is under the snow a lot of people aren't buying they're looking but that revenue is not coming in as much at that time it usually hits, you know, like May, June, July, August, it's going to get the other end of the six months. This is the bad six months as far as revenue wise. We do have an increase in recording fees, which is good. We get $40 per document. Not so good for mortgages, because before it was $22, two dollars for the first page and then two dollars each additional page after that. Mortgages come in 20 pages, so we're losing there, but we're gaining in other places. So it's, do I wish it was better? Yeah, but this part, the this, the stability one, you know, and that's supposed to end after 2027, and it's supposed to go back to our 10%, but I don't know. What's the state takes? Yeah, exactly. And then the homebuyers, I'm pretty sure we'll go back and try to have that changed. At least the seller should have to pay half the tax. I don't know why the sellers are exempt. I understand the buyer, because they applied, and they're the ones that are getting the financial aid through Mainstay Housing. I get that part, but why is the seller exempt? That's, but I mean, we were up there fighting for all of it, and it's unfortunate. So that's, you know, what the revenues are at. I'm being cautious, very cautious. [1:26:46] Speaker L (unidentified): All right, go ahead, David. I will move the sentence of $325,000 for the first three days to the first six months. [1:26:53] Chair (presiding officer): All right, is there a second? Sealed. All right, all in favor? And there is no opposed. And for expenditures? [1:27:03] Speaker L (unidentified): I will move the sentence of $130,122 for expenditures for the rest of the first six months. [1:27:10] Chair (presiding officer): And Pauline has a second. All in favor? And all in favor? And there we go, folks. That's good evening. And last up for the evening is Tom. Good evening, [1:27:42] Speaker K (unidentified): folks. My name is Tom Reynolds. I'm the Registrar of Probates. And as Tina indicated, some of the line items are zero, but they will be reflected in the next six months or the next six-month budget. Some items that are noticeably larger, if you look at line item books, periodicals, and subscriptions, 63105, our judge had previously used his own personal LexisNexis account for his law practice for researching, and now that he's wound down his practice, that it's a cost that we are incurring, and it's an online subscription. It's not with LexisNexis. If we had not found the resource that we're using, which is about a thousand change. LexisNexis would have been incredibly, I forget the exact number, but a staggering amount that just would have impacted our budget negatively. All things considered, I'm very happy with that solution. The $600 will be reinstated for lodging for the judge who has as a conference or something related to his position here as the judge of probate. And the larger number is in the salary we have put in to add a clerk position. And the office is busy and we can justify definitely the need for that. Also, above and beyond our work at the counter with people coming forth for probate needs is the passport aspect or service that we provide. It's become almost unsustainable overall and [1:30:24] Speaker C (unidentified): the revenues that we appreciate the adding of the position we figured it would be the second half of the $6 million budget you're not seeing a full position for full time I think it was April we talked about Tom starting to post it so you're seeing a portion of it that we raise the revenues up accordingly because we believe we've not even advertising yet with passports. They're overrun with them now. And it's regular work schedule. The other work is suffering as well. So I do believe that in the full year, revenues will almost cancel out that position. [1:31:07] Speaker K (unidentified): Yeah, no, I think that's it. Questions? [1:31:12] Speaker L (unidentified): Can passports be, are those fees fixed by an internal agency? [1:31:17] Speaker K (unidentified): The Department of State, yes. So we charge, we have to charge an acceptance fee for each application, which is $35. We also do photos here. I incorporated that in 2018. 18. Thus far, so for last year, we did $72,275 in agent fees for passports. Photos alone were $32,475. Yeah. And during COVID, our counterpart, Oxford County Probate Court, they did passports the Lewiston post office did a huge number of passport business they have both stopped and so people so we're the ones that have really picked up the lion's share of that business not that we wanted to but that we're the only game in town we have people that come from Rumford, from Oxford County, from Falmouth, Westbrook. And I think part of it is because we have walking service every day, 8 a.m. to 2.30 p.m., where other facilities, you have to make an appointment and stuff like that. [1:32:41] Steve Robinson: Did you have a question over there? No, I'm all set. [1:32:44] Jerry Green: Is CMCC still doing the best work? [1:32:47] Speaker K (unidentified): They do, but they do a limited number each day, I think. And it's by appointment only. I think Sabatus does, but I'm not sure of how they conduct their service as well. [1:33:03] Speaker L (unidentified): So I'm not sure I heard an answer to my question. There's no way that we can increase any aspect of the revenues generated by the passported service. Those are all fees that are dictated by external agents. That's right. That's right. Everything is set by someone. [1:33:20] Speaker K (unidentified): So there's two fees. One is, well, all right. So the agent fee, which is mandated by the Department of State, $35 per application, whether adult or child. And the photos, we charge $15. And that's, you know, a little bit less than what others like CVS or other businesses are charging. charging. And we also charge a dollar a page for copies, just because. But that's just a service that goes along with that. [1:33:59] Speaker L (unidentified): But you do have control then over the fee that you charge for the photograph? [1:34:04] Speaker C (unidentified): Yep. We feel we're at the fair market rate for that. [1:34:10] Speaker L (unidentified): I'd suggest you look at increasing that fee. It is driving a need for additional personnel, and it's a revenue over which you have control. And you just told us that you were charging [1:34:24] Speaker K (unidentified): slightly below the market. Slightly below, yeah. In the market, yeah, I'll leave it at the cost for the service with the key is good, very good. So I believe two things, if I could, before you ask the question, that it's not just to support the passport aspect of what we do. We're a probate office and that's a sideline. And for a bit of recent history, we've been without a clerk since March. The clerk that we enjoyed left on maternity leave and then ultimately decided to stay home and be a stay at home mom, which is absolutely fair and honorable. The person that we hired was here for a short period, and we're in the process of finding somebody, which has been very difficult this time around, due to the nature of the business and having the right person and the lack of applications in general. So a combination of that is challenging. And going back historically, this office had a clerk, a deputy register, and a full-time register, going back to Register Philippon, I think it was, who opted to become an adjunct professor at the University of Maine or Central Maine Community College. And they reduced that position to the current part-time position that it is now. Above and beyond those positions, they also paid for 15 hours for a file clerk. and we did microfiche before we scanned everything online. And I was unaware of those positions being different, or actually the microfiche one, which decreasing those and then the gradual buildup of the passport, it's just come to the position of- [1:36:59] Speaker C (unidentified): The workload of probate is increased, and the steady foot traffic of passports is constant. So at this position, it's not just going to support the passports, it's going to support the office as a whole. [1:37:09] Speaker K (unidentified): It is about the office as a whole. [1:37:11] Speaker C (unidentified): And revenues will offset it, though. [1:37:13] Speaker K (unidentified): And so somebody being out of sick time, sick leave, or vacations and other life situations impacts the office. So I'm sorry for that. That's okay. [1:37:29] Auburn City Manager (former county vice chair): So I think I've lost track of the head count, and so because you said somebody has been out and [1:37:35] Speaker C (unidentified): haven't filled that spot, but now there's another, now there's three budgeted, one they're currently working without, one there's only two folks. Well, Tom's part-time. The probate is three positions, two full-time positions, and then Tom. So right now it was last year, same amount, same amount. [1:37:54] Auburn City Manager (former county vice chair): So the added clerk? [1:37:56] Speaker C (unidentified): I'm proposing to add one the second half of the six-month budget. [1:37:59] Auburn City Manager (former county vice chair): Okay. That's not in this number. [1:38:00] Speaker C (unidentified): It is in that number. Yes. It is in that number. Yeah, the second half. It is. But we increased revenue accordingly. [1:38:10] Auburn City Manager (former county vice chair): So we don't have, for this line item, this account, we don't have the line item detail. When we do the other accounts, it's just something we just sent this. [1:38:21] Speaker C (unidentified): Oh, you don't have the – No. [1:38:24] Auburn City Manager (former county vice chair): So I guess the question I would have is that providing the password service isn't a requirement. It's an added revenue source that we've identified, and we were being competitive in that market, I guess you could say. So, I think that if we were to add a position, I think it would be important to show that the passport revenue is covering that added position so that it's not taking, you know, and it should really be increased rather than just a neutral offset, right? I mean, there should be a cost benefit to that position. Or we only do X amount of fast forward per day. That's the revenue. We budget that revenue that we're going to be able to bring in. But I'm not sure if there's a direct need for that. I'm not sure it's the best benefit. Yes. [1:39:31] Speaker K (unidentified): And you're absolutely right. Right. But I think the situation we're in, we've already increased the revenue to justify the need for the position. [1:39:44] Speaker C (unidentified): We do it separately is what you're saying. We get the bulk revenue. [1:39:48] Speaker K (unidentified): And I think that there's more room for expanding the service with extra people to support and justify the added person, if that makes sense. [1:40:03] Auburn City Manager (former county vice chair): I think what you're saying is you're going to be using that added clerk's position for other services within the office, or is it just really to meet the passport certifications? [1:40:15] Speaker K (unidentified): No, we're utilizing an extra clerk person to help support the demand of the probate services that we provide, along with the added the passport extra service that is provided as well. [1:40:39] Chair (presiding officer): Are there any other questions? [1:40:47] Speaker L (unidentified): I'd like to hear a sense. I don't think we ever would still have to make this bond representation, as you know, for us in the past, and I go back to increasing the photograph fee for the passport service. That like they hear the budget, many recommendations or cents on whether or not it makes sense to do that, and perhaps in order to do that most effectively, we've got a breakdown of the revenue for the 150 000 revenue. How much of that comes from probate filings and a lunch box for $35 application fee and a lunch from the photographic service? [1:41:23] Speaker K (unidentified): That is the plan. Thank you. Yeah. So thus far, through last week, we've done $41,020 in passport application fees, $19,575 in photos. 2025 we did $72,275 in passport application fees, 72, 275, 72,000. Yep. And in photos, $32,475. 2024 was $65,030 and $26,160 for photos in [1:42:28] Speaker J (unidentified): your turn 15 photos. Yes, and in 2026 or 25 it was 30 175 dollars. [1:42:37] Speaker K (unidentified): Was the number you just said in 25, 32 475? Yeah, so that's 2,165 photos, which means we increase [1:42:48] Speaker J (unidentified): it by a dollar, like a thousand dollars, but it would probably actually decrease the number of people who get. Absolutely aren't the same price going down, CDs. I don't believe that. I don't. I [1:42:59] Speaker K (unidentified): believe that it's a convenience thing. You're absolutely right, commissioner, that and so prior to us having the photos done in-house, we would send people to CDs and they'd have to come back and it was just it's more work for us, it's more of any inconvenience for them, and it was a win-win situation, you know, and you know if it's the pleasure of the board to make an increase, I mean, I would definitely consider that. I mean, I don't, I don't think it's unreasonable. My position has been that just because we could charge them more, do we need to charge them? I feel that it's, it's, yeah, that's amazing. So this is, you said the seven [1:43:53] Auburn City Manager (former county vice chair): two thousand five is for the passport fees, the, that's right, last year. Yeah, the, so is that our net? So that you said that there's, we give a portion of a fee, right, as accounting [1:44:07] Speaker K (unidentified): is this the total? That's, that's the total. So for each house we get, it's a complete transfer to [1:44:15] Auburn City Manager (former county vice chair): You know, for the passport, if you're, you're submitting that, we're not tracking any of that revenue for a reference, correct, passport, when you bring in, when people are paying you, they're writing out a check separate, one freighter, so I'm counting for the European, that's right, and another check separate that's going to be said submitted with a big one, that's right, so we're not trapped, this is just the county seats that we're seeing, you're [1:44:44] Speaker K (unidentified): Not checking the technical problems, no, but I mean it's easy, so if you take 1 172, you know, so you know, yeah, so it doesn't, it's a new point, what is going to the feds, yeah, I just want to make No,, no,. That's all fees for the county. [1:45:12] Speaker L (unidentified): Well, discussion. Tom, if you are not charging the consumer for the photograph, the excess costs are being passed on to the taxpayers. And I'm suggesting that the consumer can afford to pay another a couple of dollars for the photograph even if you're at the same rate as cvs, that would add about four thousand dollars to the budget if you process about two thousand annotations a year, that's [1:45:46] Speaker C (unidentified): Charging more, I guess I don't understand how you're passing the taxpayers [1:45:51] Speaker L (unidentified): Not charging more because you have a fixed, you have expenditures and those expenditures are paid for either by the consumers of your service or the taxpayers, now you are right now a cost center, at least for the first six months, and I think we have been a cost center [1:46:14] Speaker C (unidentified): This division is much more than passports though, I feel like much more than passports, that's like saying you're, you're, you're an auto body shop and all you do, this is, I think getting hung up just on passports, so this is much more, and I'll be honest with you, I was against raising the fee, so I mean I don't go to you guys, only because I think it comes a point where for extra five dollars people will go somewhere else, and I do one of the reasons [1:46:44] Speaker L (unidentified): That I suggested two dollars, if you're trying 15 dollars for a photograph right now, charging 17 $70 is not going to drive that many people away, particularly since the one-stop shop. [1:46:56] Speaker C (unidentified): It would be an even number, though. [1:47:00] Chair (presiding officer): What does it cost us to make those orders? [1:47:05] Speaker K (unidentified): I'd rather not say. Yeah, the markup is appreciated. That's right. That's right. That's valid. [1:47:20] Steve Robinson: There is something not to say that someone right [1:47:26] Speaker C (unidentified): Service here enough, it is get the picture [1:47:28] Speaker K (unidentified): It's it's great and our true service, you know, really is the probing service that we provide, and this is a sideline and side hustle, side hustle years, and you know, and so I just want to direct you back to, like, 2022, you know, we're coming out of COVID. 2023, every year, it gets more and more busier, and we've got two choices. One, we add staff, this is my opinion, personally, or we have to roll back the passport service so that we can focus on what our job is with the capacity that we have. and so then we like we it 's a balancing act in one way or another you know well i think what [1:48:28] Auburn City Manager (former county vice chair): continues to get missed, I just I recall this from serving on the kind of these departments do not have all the true costs for their departments, and so when you take a look at this, there's no there's no benefits in here for these positions, so there's no, so we said, you know, we when we say, well, it's you know the revenue is greater than the expenses, it's not, because we're not capturing, we're not capturing the new benefit package for this nuclear either in this in this lineup, so when I'm when I talk about wanting to know what is the true cost for the probate office minus the work that's being done for passports. That's why I'm asking that, just so that, you know, should it be a service we continue to provide? If it wasn't, could we be running this with one and a half people? And then the revenue from just the proletariat would be beneficial. But if we're adding this task to bring in this extra revenue, it may not be covering all the costs. That's my biggest concern. That's the only thing I would ask. [1:49:33] Speaker K (unidentified): So in the line item for wages, the host clerk's position is $22,303. [1:49:46] Chair (presiding officer): That's full-time or set-apart? [1:49:49] Speaker K (unidentified): That is full-time for this six months. [1:49:53] Speaker C (unidentified): So I think what Phil is saying, though, is he'd like each budget to say the actual person in there and what their benefit package is costing. [1:50:01] Auburn City Manager (former county vice chair): That you for because I think the reference that was used was that you're saying, right, so if there's a concept that it'd be nice to hear the true cost for this center to be able to say that service is either covering its cost or it's not, and so and right now, okay, it's not, so that's, but I don't know, is there if there's added duties within that office that I'm just not sure what would that cost? Because it's not broken up. That's my only concern. So if we had a position primarily for a service that we don't need to provide, but it's increasing our costs and not offsetting with revenue, I don't know if we should be in that business. [1:50:51] Chair (presiding officer): That's all. But deeds is the same way. Absolutely. Absolutely, yeah, I'm broken up that way, that there are events that are in that line, that part, so it's at fifteen dollars an hour, minimum wage is thirty one thousand two hundred dollars. [1:51:06] Steve Robinson: We want to move the line item board, we want to continue to discuss it. [1:51:22] Speaker J (unidentified): I'm sorry, I just have a question, what would you know what the next closest place is that [1:51:28] Speaker K (unidentified): does that works, you've got CMMC by appointments, yeah, limited number of appointments, and you've Sabatis post office, there's not a lot, right, yeah, there's there's, yeah, the point being we are providing a service to the community. [1:52:05] Jerry Green: I'm sure. All black immigrants come here for their passports. [1:52:18] Speaker J (unidentified): It's not always successful. [1:52:22] Speaker C (unidentified): That's right. I mean, we really want to go up two blocks. [1:52:25] Speaker K (unidentified): If you want to go up $5 for the photos, have at it. I do not. Yeah, I mean, I get what you're saying. [1:52:35] Auburn City Manager (former county vice chair): To be clear, I'm not looking to decrease that revenue. I just, I don't feel like we know whether or not we're providing a service that we're not mandated to provide. I think that's the piece on that. And so if we're not mandated to provide it, should we be increasing the costs rather than just saying you may need a wait line? That's the piece on that. [1:52:58] Chair (presiding officer): But I think he also explained that this person is not just doing passports, they're doing other duties as assigned. [1:53:07] Speaker K (unidentified): Yeah, probably work is increased. [1:53:08] Speaker F (unidentified): There's a need, right. [1:53:10] Speaker K (unidentified): It's not just passports, but the impetus, the watershed is the passport, the increase in what we're dealing with. [1:53:27] Jerry Green: We want to see [1:53:28] Chair (presiding officer): do we want to make a motion to accept deferring, change do the revenue first [1:53:42] Speaker E (unidentified): Yes, I make a motion to accept revenue. [1:53:47] Chair (presiding officer): It's all in favor and I want to say that you're the same. We can discuss that later or we just let you folks decide what to do that since we don't have a quorum. Sorry, that didn't pass. I was thinking of changing it. Sorry, I'm divided. And all of the expenditures, do we have a motion? [1:54:18] Speaker L (unidentified): Yeah. I'll move to be set on the great way. I'm going to say, you're ready to get the program. Yeah. [1:54:27] Chair (presiding officer): And. And then you're a closed. Every bill goes. [1:54:34] Jerry Green: And they don't bleed job. Cause I had to. Yeah. Yeah. Josh. [1:54:48] Speaker C (unidentified): Thank you, folks. Just a gentleman has something to say. [1:54:54] Speaker L (unidentified): For clarification, we will be talking about the sheriff's department, I'm sorry, the DA's department, whichever department we pass. [1:55:01] Chair (presiding officer): Yes, the sheriff's department, we agree to never meet senators, and I'll just send a notice over and look at what's on the list. [1:55:08] Speaker C (unidentified): Clarification, we're going to have the DA come back. We'll do the whole budget on his whole budget again, or just that? I think this is that. I'll break that down. I'll have an info for you so the DA doesn't have to come back. If you have any other questions on that, please send them to me. [1:55:22] Speaker F (unidentified): And at a time I can face those. Yeah, they're not going back. No, okay, good, that's all I'm making. [1:55:27] Chair (presiding officer): Sure. Yeah, I'll take your call under and your second. [1:55:36] Jerry Green: Thank you very much, see you next week.