By Natalie De La Garza
Staff Writer
CARIBOU — Councilors narrowly approved a decision to delay purchasing materials required by the public works department for chip seal/shim and patch road repair projects during the May 13 City Council meeting. Those in favor of delaying the expense made it clear that the move had more to do with waiting on revenue sharing than proposed street repairs.
Even though the materials have already been budgeted for, some councilors seemed concerned about large expense due to the totality of its $240,500 price tag and considering the state has yet to announce what will occur with the anticipated reduction in revenue sharing (meaning Caribou’s percentage of state sales and income tax revenue set aside for municipalities to use as property tax relief).
The city planned to spend roughly $193,000 on chip sealing and around $47,500 on shim and patch; Councilor David Genthner reminded the board that chip sealing is a less costly alternative to repaving roads.
Councilor David Martin emphasized “It’s not that we don’t like the bids, it’s just because we don’t want to commit the money right now,” he said.
Bids for shim and patch were received from Lane Construction of Presque Isle for $74.30 and from Trombley Industries of Limestone at $79.85; bids for chip seal were received from Aroostook Asphalt Applicators out of Presque Isle at $3.35 and Sunrise Materials out of Orono for $3.44.
City Manager Austin Bleess stated that the shim and patch bid was lower than last year’s by about $5 and the chip seal bid was about five cents more than last year.
Discussing a motion to accept the low bids, Martin expressed his concerns.
“My concern is until the state legislature gets done, we need a ‘plan B’ in case we lose $200,000 or $300,000 in funding — and this would be part of my plan B,” Martin explained, asking if the expense had to be made now.
“Mr. Martin’s point is well taken,” said Caribou’s Mayor Gary Aiken. “We still don’t know where we’re at, or where we’re going to end up.”
As the board deliberated the unknown revenue sharing figure, Councilor Philip McDonough interjected a candid question.
“Are we going to sit here and just continue to ‘what if’ operations for the rest of the year until we find out what’s going to go on … or are we going to have some sense of credibility in the system and hopefully, we don’t have to do too many of these heartbreaks or heartaches that we continue to bring to the table?” he asked sincerely.
The council discussed options for tentatively accepting the bids, and the possibility of holding a special meeting if need be to approve the bids within their 30-day window and ultimately rejected the bids in a 4-3 vote – councilors Joan Theriault, Genthner, Martin and Aiken opposed to accepting the low bids, Councilors Kenneth Murchison, Aaron Kouhopt and McDonough in favor.
With the councilors tied, Aiken’s mayoral vote served as the tiebreaker.
“I’m going to vote not to accept [the bids], only on the basis that I don’t see any problem with us calling a special meeting here in a couple weeks if we have to — and by then, we may know what’s going to happen only because it’s so much money, and I know it’s one of the areas we’re going to have to look at hard if we lose a substantial amount of revenue sharing,” Aiken explained, announcing that at this time, the motion to accept low bids were defeated.
While discussing the bids, Martin asked Bleess if he had a “plan B” in mind should the city lose an unexpected $200,000 or $300,000 in revenue sharing.
Bleess informed council that there are areas in the budget identified for possible cut backs, should revenue sharing be far less than anticipated, and the expenditures for chip sealing and shim and patch were two such areas.
“Obviously $190,000 on chip sealing is a lot of money, but we want to make sure that our roads are maintained as well,” he explained, mentioning that the entire chip sealing figure wouldn’t be eliminated “but there are areas that we can look at throughout the budget, if needed,” Bleess explained.
While the city is still uncertain as to what they’ll receive in revenue sharing from Augusta, councilors are well aware of some of the things they have — and expressed that they’re willing to share.
Unanimously, the council will be extending an invitation to the RSU 39 school board to use the Councilors’ Chambers at the Municipal Building for in order to utilize the city’s electronic equipment to broadcast future meeting.
“Certainly the [RSU 39] staff and teachers would have a much better idea of what’s going on with the school board and the issues they’re dealing with — and I know I have a greater appreciation for our education system after the time I’ve spent at their meetings, so I think it would be a great opportunity for them to get the word out to the public,” Aiken said.
Council authorized Aiken to extend the invitation to the school board at their next meeting, which takes place tonight at the Superintendent’s Building at 7 p.m.
“I think it would be great,” said Genthner, expressing that people who have questions on the school budget would probably be able to reach a greater understanding if board meetings were televised.
Council also spent a good portion of their meeting discussing the possible replacement of a 2003 trail groomer, and additional information about that topic will be available in next week’s paper.
The next meeting of the Caribou City Council will be held on Monday, June 10 at 7 p.m. in the Councilors’ Chambers.
