Lebanon Building Code Ordinance: A Discussion with Selectman Ben Thompson and the Lebanon Town Attorneys.

LMTS has shared with the voters of Lebanon, several pieces of information on the proposed Building Code Ordinance that will be appearing for your vote on the May 10, 2016 Lebanon Town Ballot.
Tonight we hear from Selectman Ben Thompson, and from the Attorneys for the Town of Lebanon with regards to changes, additions and necessity of voting on this ordinance.
Thank you to Selectman Thompson for sharing with us all.


Ben Thompson ::::So in an effort to be fair to the voters, I share the following email directly from our Town attorney:
Thank you, Ben Thompson.

Ben –

I spoke with Mike and understand the difference between the current and proposed ordinance in regard to the building permit fees. So to respond to Chip’s comments:

Sections B and C of the current ordinance are conflicting – Section B calculates fees for applications for additions and alterations according to the construction cost and Section C calculates costs for additions and new construction according to the square footage. According to Mike, in practice the Town only applies section C. The purpose of the amendment is to eliminate Section B in its entirety, leaving only that section which has been applied by the town historically. So yes, a building permit fee for an 800 sq. ft. addition is $320 under the proposed amendment, but it is the same under section C of the current ordinance.

With regard to the comment about a kitchen renovation, note that the following activities do not need a permit under MUBEC: Painting, papering, tiling, carpeting, cabinets, counter tops and similar finish work. So a basic kitchen remodel would not require a permit.

Finally, with regard to the third party inspector, the current ordinance is silent with regard to third-party inspectors and only mentions the CEO. The proposed ordinance clearly states multiple times that the CEO will inspect construction that falls under the IRC and third party inspectors will be used to inspect projects under the IBC. I did not see any conflicting working in the proposed ordinance.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you

Mary

Mary E. Costigan
Shareholder

207 774-1200 main

BERNSTEIN SHUR
CELEBRATING 1OO YEARS | Portland, ME | Augusta, ME | Manchester, NH
Confidentiality notice: This message is intended only for the person to whom addressed in the text above and may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not that person, any use of this message is prohibited. We request that you notify us by reply to this message, and then delete all copies of this message including any contained in your reply. Thank you.

 

 

Lebanon Maine Truth Seekers Thank you for sharing that e mail, Ben Thompson..........may I copy and paste it with your name on it to the page website and include it in the discussion regarding the Building Code Ordinance???

 

 

 

Ben Thompson Yes please. Also to put the third party inspector question to rest as well.....please share and read,

"14. Who enforces the Maine Uniform Building Codes and Energy Code?

The Code Enforcement Officer (CEO)/Building Official enforces the codes in towns with populations of more than 4,000 persons. Inspections by the CEO are required to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. If towns under 4,000 elect after 9/28/11, to adopt and enforce building and/or energy codes: the CEO/BO would enforce the code. If a town under 4,000 elects to have no code, no enforcement is necessary. However it would be beneficial if builders/contractors/property owners still built to code as financial institutions, insurance agencies and real estate owners may be requiring inspection reports.

15. Who enforces the Maine Uniform Building and Energy Code if there is no local Code Enforcement Officer or if there is one, that person is not trained in the building codes or energy codes?
The town may have a CEO, but their job description may be limited to working with land use issues, shoreland zoning or plumbing regulations. Municipalities have the following options:

A. Building officials/Code enforcement officers: Inspections performed by building officials certified pursuant to 30-A M.R.S. §4451.

B. Inspections by virtue of inter-local agreements: Inspections performed by virtue of inter-local agreements with other municipalities, that share the use of building officials, certified in building standards pursuant to 30-A M.R.S. §4451.

C. Contractual agreements: Inspections performed by virtue of contractual agreements with one or more municipalities, or county or regional authorities, that share the use of building officials certified in building standards pursuant to 10 M.R.S. §9723.

D. Third party inspection by report: Inspections performed and verified by reports from a TPI, certified pursuant to 10 M.R.S. §9723.

FOLLOW THIS LINK
AND SEE FAQ ON THE SIDEBAR.... http://www.maine.gov/dps/bbcs/

 

 

 

Ben Thompson So under the state mandated MUBEC code, the CEO is the default inspector in municipalities over 4,000 residents. At the 2010 census, we were over 6,000. The proposed ordinance asks the citizens' to allow the Code Enforcement Officer to not have to inspect commercial properties, but allow third party inspectors. The citizens have to vote to allow this change.

Lebanon Resident Speaks With Regards to Proposed Building Code Ordinance.

LMTS received an interesting e mail from Lebanon resident Chip Harlow this morning.

In reaching out to Chip, he has agreed to allow me to use his e mail toward better understanding in the very complicated world of Building Code Ordinance discussion.

 

Many of us here in Lebanon do not understand Building Code Ordinances. We arrive at the poles like virgins arriving at the top of a mountain. Whether we are thrown from a cliff and sacrificed all depends on how much we take the time to educate ourselves prior to making that final check mark on the ballot.

 

Chip has spelled out his personal objections to the passing of the proposed Lebanon Building Code Ordinance, which will be presented on the May 10, 2016 Lebanon Town Ballot.

 

***Please note that this e mail was shared with permission of it's creator, the information expressed are the comments and beliefs of the resident submitting it for your review. They are the statement of the individual and not of LMTS, regardless of whether we agree or do not......ALL page friends are welcome to submit information, objections, or comments via the Facebook comments section, or via e mail for publication and consideration. No comments or e mails will be shared without the author's name attached for validity and accountability of statement.***

 

Thank You. ~~Deborah Dorey Wilson, Lebanon Maine Truth Seekers.

 

Below, please find the statement by Mr. Harlow, addressing Lebanon residents........

 

 

 

So, comparing the current CEO ordinance with the proposed, there is actually a huge difference in permit fees! If you look at current ordinance, including the addendum approved on June 8, 2010, additions and alterations  for single family is $4.00 per thousand of estimated cost. So if cost is $10k, then permit would be $40. For example, let's build a 800sqft garage for say $20k. Current ordinance would charge $80, proposed ordinance would charge $320.  Big difference!!!!!!!  Proposed ordinance is 40 cents a square foot. Upon careful review of the two ordinances, it was noticed that there may actually be a transcribing/typo error. It looks like the attempt was to use the addendum from 2010 for the fees in the proposed ordinance but they combined two lines by accident and left out some wording. 

Current Ordinance

A. Minimum Building fees for single family residential: $40.00 Commercial: $50.00

B. Additions & Alterations: $4.00 per thousand for single family residential & $8.00 per thousand commercial (my note: per thousand is referring to estimated cost)

C. Include additions with new construction & increase square foot cost of construction .40 cents for single family residential & .75 cents commercial.

D. Include fees for starting construction without a permit, to be double the permit fees or $100.00 whichever is greater

E. Assess re-inspection fees $25.00 to be paid prior to the next scheduling of an appointment

Proposed Ordinance

 

A. Exactly the same as above.

B. Additions and alterations: include additions with new construction and increase square foot cost of construction .40 cents per square foot for single family residential & .75 cents per square foot commercial

C. Fees for starting construction without a permit shall be double the permit fee or $100.00, whichever is greater.

D. Re-inspection fees of $25.00 shall be paid prior to the scheduling of an inspection appointment

As you can see, in the new ordinance, lines B and C of current ordinance have been combined into just B of the proposed, and consequently has a totally different meaning and will potentially cost the resident a lot more money.

New construction would be the same. No difference btw current and proposed.

Also, current ordinance only requires permits for alterations that would change the overall height or footprint of the home. So, if I were to remodel my kitchen, no permit is required, but under the proposed ordinance, one would be. I don't necessarily disagree, but this has not been fully explained to the people, and since a permit would now be needed, and extra cost to the resident is incurred. 

These are just my initial thoughts. Also, the current ordinance allows third party inspectors. There is conflicting wording in the proposed ordinance about the use of third party inspectors for residential.

Chip Harlow

Some Lebanon Building Code Information.... The Facts, Ma'am, Only the Facts.

Not ever having to deal with following building codes, LMTS has been trying to dive into this debate and figure it out for myself.
Since I'm figuring things out for myself, I thought I would share my findings on the page and hopefully answer some of the questions out there about the Town of Lebanon Building Code, the MUBEC Building Code, when MUBEC should have been enacted, who should have known and didn't, and maybe stop some of the finger pointing and arguing over which building code should be being enforced within the town of Lebanon.

First let's reference the old Building Code for the Town of Lebanon Maine as provided by Lebanon Town Clerk Mandy Grenier.

This document follows, along with its consecutive amendments...........



BUILDING CODE ORDINANCE
TOWN OF LEBANON, MAINE

Sec. 1. Administration
   The Selectmen, assisted by the Code Enforcement Officer shall be the administrative officers of this ordinance. The CEO shall receive applications for permits allowing the erection, alterations, or change of use of buildings, as provided in this ordinance; shall keep complete records of all applications and the action taken on the applications, promptly survey and inspect ail buildings, alterations or use proposed, and may issue permits for erection, alterations or change of use of ail buildings, if in their opinion the proposal complies with the law of the State, this ordinance and bylaws.

Sec. 2. Permit Required
   No building construction shall be started; no alterations of existing buildings that will increase floor or height measurements, and no building shall be put to any different use than on the day of enactment of this ordinance, until a permit thereof has been issued under the terms of this ordinance. Any building that is moved from one location to another shall comply or be altered to comply with this ordinance within one (1) year after relocation.

Sec. 3. Permit Application Procedure; Fees
   No application for a permit required by this ordinance shall receive action by the Code Enforcement Officer unless made in writing. All applications for a permit to build, construct, or alter any building, shall be accompanied by a sketch or plan of the proposed
building or alteration.
A building permit shall become void upon completion of work for which the permit was issued or two (2) years from date of issue. Work incomplete upon the expiration of the permit shall he considered a violation of the Building Code, and shall be subject to the provisions of Section 8, Enforcement (unless covered by a renewal permit). Extension of each permit or each renewal permit shall not be valid for a period of more than one (I) year.
A building permit shall become void unless operations are commenced within six (6) months from the date of approval. An extension permit may be granted.
NO permit shall be transferable from any applicant to any other person or corporation.

....Effective March 20, 1989 —The new rates for construction permits are as follows:
20C per square foot of Dwelling or commercial floor space. IOC per Square foot of utility floor space.
A. All other construction requiring permits, including chimneys at a rate of $2.00 per Thousand of Estimated cost with a minimum fee of $20.00"
B. Additions & Altergtions: $4.00 per thousgn4 @rSingle familv residential & S8.OO per thousand
commercial.
C. Include additions with new construction & increase square foot cost of,constructien .40 cents for sinqle family. residential & .75 cents commercial.
D. include fees for startinq construction without a permit, to be double the permit fees or SIOO.pq
whichever is greater.
E. Assess re-inspection fees $25.00 to be paid prior to the next scheduling of an appointment.

Sec. 4. Consideration of Application
Upon receiving such application the Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) shall promptly take such action as may be indicated in the way of investigation or public hearings, to acquaint himself with the merits of the application. If the CEO finds the proposed building, alteration, or use of building, to conform with the law and this ordinance, the CEO may at once issue the permit in writing. If the CEO finds the proposal in any conflict with the law or this ordinance he shall fix whatever restrictions or conditions on the proposed construction or use, as may be in the best judgment, right and proper, or for reasonable cause refuse the permit.
If no action is taken by the CEO within thirty (30) days from the date of the applications the permit shall be considered refused. Any oversight or neglect of duty on the part of the CEO, Code Enforcement Officer, shall not legalize the construction, alteration, or change of use of any building which is regulated by this ordinance.

Sec. 5. Building Standards
No building or structure shall be erected, altered, rebuilt, or relocated unless in compliance with the following:
a,Garages. No public garage having any service or repair enterprise shall be erected or enlarged unless the new construction be of noncombustible material.
b. Trailer Additions. All additions must comply with this building ordinance. Any mobile home or trailer cannot be used as an addition to a dwelling house or mobile home that is used as a dwelling.
c. Roofs. No roof of any building shall be covered or recovered in whole or in part save with noncombustible or fire resistant roofing materials.
d. Chimney Construction. No chimney shall be built, erected, or altered below the roof unless containing a tile lining and with an iron clean-out door at or near its base, and shall extend at least two (2) feet above the roof. No chimney shall be built erected, or altered below the roof having wood or other combustible materials within two (2) inches of the chimney. All chimneys must be constructed of masonry from the ground up on a solid masonry base.
e, Foundation, All structures shall be set on solid foundations of cement, brick, stone, or other acceptable masonry, except that in special cases where the buildings are to be used for accessory or seasonal use, the CEO may waiver the requirements of this section and permit the use of wood, metal or masonry piers, provided that the crawl spaces on seasonal dwellings are enclosed by latticework.
f. Minimum Building Area, Every dwelling unit to be used by a single family shall have a minimum ground floor area equivalent to twenty by twenty-five feet (20' x 25') in dimensions.
g. Outside Walls. Outside walls shall be constructed of material commonly used for outside construction, and materials customarily painted shall be painted. Tarred or roofing paper shall be permitted only as a temporary covering. Permanent siding shall be applied before expiration of the permit.
h. Sewerage. All newly constructed dwellings, commercial, public or industrial buildings, and all mobile homes and trailers used
as dwellings, shall be connected to or provided with a septic tank type sewerage disposal system.
i. Change of use. The use of any building may be changed provided it complies with all the regulations of this ordinance, and does not detract from local property, or cause a nuisance or menace.
j. Exceptions. The construction of small accessory buildings not used for dwelling purposes, together with minor alterations, repairs and general upkeep of existing buildings; shall be exempt from the provisions of this ordinance, provided in the opinion
of the Selectmen, this construction, minor alterations, repairs, and upkeep, does not cause an unsightly appearance or nuisance.
k. Bearing or Exterior walls shall be at least two (2) by four (4) inch studs sixteen (16) inches on center. Outside corner post shall be the equivalent of not less than three (3) pieces of two (2) by four (4) inch studs, braced by not less than one (I) piece of one (I) by four (4) inch continuous diagonal brace from shoe to plate let into studs. Bracing may be omitted when plywood sheets four (4) by eight (8) feet panels are used.
Non Bearing partitions. Studs in nonbearing partitions shall not be spaced more than twenty-four (24) inches on center. This applies to interior walls only.
Framing Over Openings - All openings in exterior and interior walls, windows, doors and fireplaces shall have headers made up
of:
30 inch opening or less.
30 to 48 inch.
48 inches to eight feet.
8 feet to 12 feet.
12 feet to 16 feet,
At least two (2), two (2) by four (4) inches nailed together.
At least two (2), two (2) by six (6) inch nailed together.
At least two (2), two (2) by eight (8) inch nailed together.
At least two (2), two (2) by ten (10) inch nailed together.
At least two (2), two (2) by twelve (12) inch nailed together.
Floor Joist shall be spaced not more than sixteen (16) inches oncenter and shall be at least two (2) by eight (8) inch stock.
Roof Rafters shall be spaced not more than sixteen (16) inches on center and shall be at least two (2) by six (6) inch stock.
Exception: Roof trusses prefabricated may be two (2) by four (4) inch properly nailed with gussets sixteen (16) on Center.
Mobile homes and trailers shall be exempt from the foundations provisions of this ordinance. Mobile homes and
Trailers may be exempted from the minimum ground floor area regulation, if in the opinion of the CEO. the area is adequate for the number of residents involved.
The area of enclosed porches on lake-shore seasoned dwellings shall be considered as part of the ground floor area.

** AMENDMENT TO BUILDING CODE ORDINANCE
ARTICLE 5, SECTION F
MINIMUM BUILDING AREA
Every Dwelling unit to be used by a single family shall have a minimum living area of 720 square feet. ( The temporary accommodation of an additional family member e.g. mother-in-law in a studio apartment, so-called), shall not be considered a separate dwelling unit.
** Amendment adopted by Town Meeting vote on March 14, 1987.

*** AMENDMENT TO BUILDING CODE ORDINANCE
ARTICLE 5, SECTION F
MINIMUM BUILDING AREA
Definition of in-law/studio apartment: A small apartment consisting of one main living space, a small kitchen and a bath.
An in-law/studio apartment is created by converting part of an existing single-family dwelling into a separate dwelling unit with only one bedroom, which is accessory to the single-family use. The accessory apartment shall conform to all of the following standards:
A. The accessory apartment shall not have a separate, identifiable front entrance.
B. The accessory apartment shall not alter the single-family character of the structure. The principal unit in the structure shall be occupied by the owner, and the owner shall file a declaration with the CEO indicating that the in-law shall not be used as a rental unit. Continiued occupancy of the accessory apartment upon sale or transfer of the property shall be conditioned upon the new owner agreeing to the owner occupancy requirement.
*** Amendment adopted by Town Meeting vote on June 9, 2009.

AMENDMENT TO BUILDING CODE ORDINANCE
SECTION 3
PERMIT APPLICATION PROCEDURE (FEES)

Minimum Building Fees for single family residential: $40.00 Commercial: $50.00
Additions and alterations: $4.00 per thousand for single family residential and $8.00 per thousand commercial.
Include additions with new construction and increase square foot cost of construction .40 cents for single family residential and .75 cents commercial.
Include fees for starting construction without a permit, to be double the permit fees or $100.00, whichever is greater.
Assess re-inspection fees of $25.00 to be paid prior to the next scheduling of an appointment.
**** Amendment adopted by Town Meeting vote on June 8, 2010.



Okay, so we can clearly see that the original Lebanon Building Code was enacted in the late 1980's with the last amendment added on June 8, 2010..........

So now the Maine State Law that references the use of MUBEC as universal building code for Maine towns.........

 

Intro/Brief: 

After the legislative establishment of the Maine Uniform Building and Energy Code (MUBEC) in April 2008 by LD 2257 (enacted as P.L. 699), the Bureau of Building Codes and Standards (within the Department of Public Safety) has issued regulations setting the 2009 IECC and ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as the mandatory energy standards for residential, commercial, and public buildings statewide.

The MUBEC is effective June 1, 2010. There will a six-month transition period during which towns may still enforce their previous codes. Among the new rules:

• Towns with a population of 2,000 that had a building code on August 1, 2008 will be required to begin enforcing the code December 1, 2010.
• Towns with a population of 2,000 that did not have a building code on August 1, 2008 will be required to begin enforcing the code December 1, 2012.
• Towns with a population under 2,000 are not required to enforce the code.
• The MUBEC replaces all local municipal building codes. Cities and towns may not amend any MUBEC provisions, even to make it more stringent.
• Enforcement is the responsibility of local jurisdictions. Municipalities without a CEO certified by the State Planning Office may authorize a Third-party Inspector to conduct compliance inspections and prepare a report to be given to the municipal CEO as an application for the Certificate of Occupancy.

As we can clearly see, included in the "intro" section, MUBEC was effective on June 1, 2010, and the Maine State Law calls for it to have been in place in towns with over 2,000 residents (The Town of Lebanon) on or before December 1, 2010 as the town had an active Building Code in place since at least the 1980s.

With all the hoopla about $800 Building Permits, let's go back to the original Lebanon Building Ordinance. The cost of $4.00 per square foot was enacted in an amendment (Referenced above as Section 3) on June 8, 2010. So in reality, all New Construction Building Permits should have been being charged this way for the last 6 years.

So now the question becomes whether or not current Code Enforcement Officer, Mike Beaulieu is correct in penning the proposed new Building Ordinance, calling for the town voters to move to fall into compliance (legally, as in, actually in writing), and follow MUBEC Building Code, like we should have been since December of 2010, or we continue on with nothing in writing to document that change, but also nothing in writing to show that we have legally moved to fall into enforcement of Maine State Law.

This decision is completely up to the Voters of the Town of Lebanon.

If we choose to do nothing, the old Building Code remains on the town books and is not overturned and we comply to Maine State Law silently, as mandated.
If we vote to enact, the fees will remain the same as they have been since 2010, and the Town of Lebanon has a legal Ordinance on the books showing our compliance with MUBEC, and merging with the same fee schedule voted in back in 2010. 

As we make this decision, it is important that as many people as possible look at and review the proposed NEW Lebanon Building Code, in the same place as the old one. So below, please read and review the proposed Lebanon Building Code.



Maine Uniform Building and Energy Code Administrative Ordinance -
Town of Lebanon, Maine

I. Title.
This ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the "Maine Uniform Building and Energy Code Administrative Ordinance" of the Town of Lebanon, Maine.

2. Purpose and Authority
The purpose of this Ordinance is to establish administrative and enforcement provisions in relation to the Maine Uniform Building and Energy Code (MUBEC). The Town has authority to enact building code provisions relating to local enforcement, per MRSA Title 10 9724(5).

3. Code Administration
In accordance with MRSA 25 2373, the MUBEC must be enforced in the Town of Lebanon beginning July 1, 2012. The Town is required to enforce the MUBEC through inspections that comply with the code. A copy of MUBEC is and shall remain on file with the Town Clerk and is available for public use, inspection and examination. Enforcement of the MUBEC will occur through inspections by the Code Enforcement Officer for structures covered under the International Residential Code and through third-party inspectors for structures covered under the International Building Code. The MUBEC shall be administered within the Town of Lebanon by the Code Enforcement Officer.

4. Duties of Code Enforcement Officer
The Code Enforcement Officer's duties shall be as outlined in the MUBEC, and shall include but are not limited to:
a. Receive permit applications, examine construction documents and issue permits for the erection and alterations of buildings and structures.
b. For structures covered by the International Residential Code, the Code Enforcement Officer shall inspect premises for which permits are issued, make all required inspections, or accept reports of inspection by approved agencies.
c. For structures covered by the International Building Code, the Code Enforcement
Officer shall receive certified reports from Third - Party Inspectors as outlined below.
d. Enforce compliance with the provisions of the code and issue notices or orders to ensure compliance, including suspending or revoking permits.
e. Render interpretations of the MUBEC and policies and procedures to clarify the application of its provisions.
f. Keep official records, applications received, permits and certificates issued, .fees collected, reports of inspections by the Code Enforcement Officer and Third - Party
Inspectors, as well as notices and orders issued.
g. Impose any applicable fees and ensure proper payments have been made before or upon issuance of any permits
h. Refer permits requiring subdivision, shoreland zoning or floodplain review to the Planning Board as required.
i. Investigate complaints and act on violations as outlined herein.
j. Issue Certificates of Occupancy as per 25 MRSA 2357-A and the MUBEC.

5. Building Permits Required
The construction, alteration, repair, removal, demolition, occupancy and maintenance of all buildings and structures shall comply with the MUBEC. Building permits are required as per the
MUBEC and shall become void upon completion of work for which the permit was issued or one
(I) year from date of issue. An extension of the permit may be granted by the Code Enforcement Officer upon written request to the Code Enforcement Officer made prior to the expiration.

6. Building Permit Application
Application for a building permit shall include the following:
a. Identify and describe the work to be covered by the permit for which application is made.
b.Describe the land on which the proposed work is to be done by legal description, street address or similar description that will readily identify and definitely locate the proposed building or work.
c. Indicate the use and occupancy for which the proposed work is intended. Be accompanied by construction documents and other information as required by MUBEC.
d. State the estimated valuation of the proposed work.
e. Be signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized agent.
f. Give such other data and information as required by the building official.
g. For structures covered by the International Building Code — Include certification of a contractual arrangement between a Third-Party Inspector and the building owner A copy of all required State of Maine Fire Marshal's building permits.
h. Be accompanied by the required fee as set forth below.

7. Permit Approval.
The Code Enforcement Officer shall examine applications and shall within seven (7) days either issue the requested permit or provide a written notice of refusal to the applicant stating the reasons therefore. All additional permits required for the proposed projects shall be obtained
prior to issuance of the building permit.

8. Fees.
Upon submission of an application, the applicant shall pay a non-refundable application fee. No building permit shall be issued until all fees due have been paid. All fees required by this
Ordinance are outlined as follows...
A. Minimum Building Fees for single family residential: $40.00 Commercial: $50.00
B. Additions and alterations: Include additions with new construction and increase square foot cost of construction .40 cents per square foot for single family residential and .75 cents per square foot commercial.
C. Fees for starting construction without a permit shall be double the permit fees or $100.00, whichever is greater.
D. Re-inspection fees of $25.00 shall be paid prior to the scheduling of an inspection appointment.

9. Inspections.
In accordance with the MUBEC, for structures covered by the International Residential Code, upon notification the Code Enforcement Officer shall make the required inspections and shall either indicate the portion of the construction that is satisfactory as completed, or shall notify the permit holder wherein the same fails to comply. Any portions that do not comply shall be corrected and such portion shall not be covered or concealed until authorized by the Code Enforcement Officer. Work shall not be done beyond the point indicated in each inspection without first obtaining the approval of the Code Enforcement Officer.

10. Third-Party Inspectors (as defined in MRSA 25 2371).
For structures covered by the International Building Code, certified reports from third-party inspectors, as outlined in 25 MRSA 2373(4), shall be submitted to the Code Enforcement Officer prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy as required in 25 MRSA 2357-A. Such third-party inspections shall be obtained pursuant to independent contractual arrangements between the building owner and a third-party inspector.

11. Permit Modifications.
After issuance, any modifications to a permit shall require a revised permit application and a revised permit prior to beginning work.

12. Certificate of Occupancy.
No Building or structure that is the subject of a building permit or change of use of permit shall be used or occupied until the Code Enforcement Officer issues a Certificate of Occupancy per 25
MRSA 2357-A and in accordance with the MUBEC. For structures covered by the International Building Code, the Code Enforcement Officer shall issue a Certificate of Occupancy based on receipt of a satisfactory inspection report by a certified third-party inspector.

13. Enforcement.
Enforcement and penalties shall be consistent with 30-A MRSA 4452. It shall be unlawful to erect, construct, alter, extend, repair, move, remove, demolish or occupy any building, structure or equipment regulated by the MUBEC without a building permit, or cause the same to be done, in conflict with or in violation of any of the provisions of the MUBEC. If the Code Enforcement
Officer finds that any of the provisions of this Ordinance are being violated, the Code
Enforcement Officer shall serve a notice of violation on the person responsible for the violation. Such notice shall direct the discontinuance of the illegal action or condition and the abatement of the violation. The Code Enforcement Officer shall be responsible for initial efforts to enforce the provisions of this Ordinance as set forth in 30-A MRSA 4452.

14. Penalties.
Any person, firm or corporation owning or having control of any building or premises or part thereof who violates any of the provisions of this Ordinance commits a civil violation and is subject to civil penalties under 30-A MRSA 4452. Each day such violation or failure to comply is permitted to exist, after notification by the Code Enforcement Officer, shall constitute a separate violation. All fines shall be paid to the Town of Lebanon.

15. Appeals.
In accordance with MRSA 25 2356 and MRSA 30-A 4103(5) and the Board of Appeals
Ordinance, an appeal may be taken in writing from any order or decision of the Code Enforcement Officer to the Board of Appeals. Fees for appeals shall be established by the Appeals Board Ordinance.

16. Savings Clause.
If any provision of this Ordinance is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, this finding shall not affect the remainder of this Ordinance. All inconsistent ordinances previously adopted are hereby repealed.


The choice is still up to the Voters of the Town of Lebanon and your voice will be heard in your vote on May 10, 2016 when you mark your ballot at the Lebanon Town Vote.
Thank you for giving a moment of your time in order to read the information and educate yourselves to the changes proposed for your town's Building Code Ordinance.

Lebanon Maine "Meet the Candidates Night" focuses on Road Commissioner and Selectmen Candidates.

Lebanon Maine "Meet the Candidates Night" 5/2/16

Hosted by The Lebanon Voice, Harrison Thorp

 

Thanks to Ms. Jeanette Lemay for video taping the proceedings of the evening

and for making them available to the residents of the Town of Lebanon, Maine.

***It is noted in the midst of negativity that LMTS did not video tape this meeting. It was video taped by a private party, working unpaid and on their own time with their own equipment, who made decisions when to stop and start the video tape to create evenly timed "breaks" for uploading and viewing ease. If a word or a comment or a sneeze was not captured, LMTS is not responsible. LMTS has reviewed this video and found that it is 43 minutes of a 55 minute meeting. The opening statements of the Selectmens Candidates was not captured. However, we are sharing what Ms. Lemay was able to capture as we continue to try and provide information to those who did not attend with the best available record of the proceedings. Thank You for that acknowledgement***

 

Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/my_videos?o=U

 

Part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjm4JROT7cE

 

 

Town of Lebanon, Maine......Public Hearing Video.........April 30, 2016......2 pm to 6:12 pm...

Video from the Lebanon Maine Public Hearing,

The meeting came to order at the Lebanon Elementary School on Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 2 pm.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:12 pm

 

Thanks to Ms. Jeanette Lemay for video taping the proceedings of the evening

and for making them available to the residents of the Town of Lebanon, Maine.

***It is noted in the midst of negativity that LMTS did not video tape this meeting. It was video taped by a private party, working unpaid and on their own time with their own equipment, who made decisions when to stop and start the video tape to create evenly timed "breaks" for uploading and viewing ease. If a word or a comment or a sneeze was not captured, LMTS is not responsible. LMTS has not reviewed this video as I sat in the meeting and then uploaded for over 6 hour making a total of 10 hours spent on providing those who did not attend with the best available record of the proceedings. Thank You for that acknowledgement***

This meeting is presented in 5 parts.

Part 1............

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amIym9KfDyg

Part 2............



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aalVUvt8V_I

Part 3............

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyWZLLpcEfE

Part 4.........

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9qDxkQAbzQ

Part 5.........

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH400oDLjWU

OPINION.... OPINION.. OPINION... Budget Committee Rejections of Several Town Budgets...OPINON...OPINION...OPINION

Please note that the following article is an OPINION piece. The opinion of LMTS editor, Deborah Dorey Wilson. While I must label this as OPINION, readers can rest assured that my opinion is an educated one, made after over a year of sitting in meetings of various boards and committees throughout the town. Please read this as my OPINION and use it to as a research guide to  help form your own opinion and choices. Thank You.

LMTS alerted our readers over two weeks ago to the fact that the Lebanon Budget Committee voted not to recommend budgets from several town departments to the town's voters.
It has been my intention to save this discussion for the Meet the Candidates Night, sponsored by Harrison Thorp of The Lebanon Voice, however, Mr. Thorp has announced that while other candidates will have a voice that evening (date still unannounced), he has chosen to leave out the members of the community seeking election for Budget Committee, so we apparently have some work to do prior to that date, where once again, LMTS will be left without a voice.
A Lebanon voice.
MY voice.
LMTS has an opinion on things as they are in the Lebanon town government. This post will attempt to address my concerns. Many in town government positions will see some of what I have to say as a slam against the members personally, however, I assure you, this is not about any one individual, their personal opinons, or character, but after a full year of sitting in town board and committee meetings, these are my thoughts and it is my right (and I feel my responsibility) to share them with our readers.
The board of three Selectmen are responsible for the day to day operations of the Town of Lebanon. If something should happen to one, the other two should be able to pick up the slack and the town should continue to operate seamlessly. Please keep this statement in mind, as it is important further on in this post.
Since this discussion is on the recent vote of the Budget Committee not to recommend various town budgets, it is the budgetary process that we will cover in this post.
Each year, the Town of Lebanon begins anew in the creation of budgets for all of it's town departments. The budget is the agreed upon dollar amount that each department is granted by the taxpayers to spend, via town election votes,  during the upcoming year.
In other towns across the state, the process begins with the Budget Committee.
As part of their job description, department heads are required to create and present their expenditures to the Budget Committee, who in turn, are charged with working with department heads to examine the numbers, suggest ways to save money, and aid in the examination of possible grants or other means of creative financing in order to aid the department head in moving things forward and into the future for their department and for the town. This requirement is missing in the job descriptions of Lebanon town department heads.
In short, the Budget Committee should act as an aid, a tool, both to the department heads, and to the Board of Selectmen, and finally, to the voters of the town in assuring that the members have examined every line item and understand them, and have done the research and work needed to try and keep those dollar amounts to a minimum. However, the Budget Committee must also weigh the importance of the town's needs and they should have a general working idea of material and application cost for each of the many things needed to secure a growing and thriving town with the ability to serve the residents, which is, the basic ideals behind having a town government.
Once the Budget Committee is satisfied that they have examined dollar amounts for each department, and have examined possible solutions to curtailing larger dollar expenditures, they should then pass the completed numbers on to the Board of Selectmen for examination and perhaps some further ideas and suggestions.
In Lebanon, this process is backward. Our town's department heads go first to the Selectmen. Some department heads show up with a spread sheet and preliminary budget, others come with a file folder full of receipts and estimates and a head full of ideas, and some others come with nothing but their winter jacket. This is not always the "fault" of the department head. While some department heads are wonderful at their job, they may have no idea on budget creation or what is needed to create a working budget. It has been LMTS' thought that perhaps a class or video available for department heads to utilize in the creation of their department budgets, created by some competent budget or financial professionals would be a good idea. One that LMTS has suggested, but has fallen on deaf ears due to LMTS lack of elected status.
Sitting in the Board of Selectmen's meetings during budget preparations, LMTS watched as Selectman Thompson spoke to each department head and marked his budget book. One by one, Thompson addressed line items and dollar amount while the other two Selectmen did not even use a calculator to check the numbers to ensure correct figures. In fact, what happened was that Thompson would figure the numbers and Heath and Nadeau would just record them in their budget books without the benefit of understanding how each number was created, or a double checking of figures.
The next step in Lebanon's budget process is for the department head to appear at a scheduled Budget Committee meeting. The purpose of presenting a budget to the Budget Committee should be for the department head and Budget Committee members to work on shaving a dollar here or there and boosting budgets for needed growth and sustenance for the town. However, since the department heads, generally speaking, don't create their budgets, they can't present them to a 9 member committee with any ideas or passion for the money they are requesting from tax payers. LMTS repeatedly hears from members of the Budget Committee regarding the incompetence of town department heads in "defending" their budget request. LMTS does not fault the department heads on this problem. How can anyone defend a budget that they did not create and many of them do not understand, or why should a department head have to defend anything to a committee that should be a tool to them in figuring out funding alternatives and methods of saving dollars prior to finalizing their presentation to the town voters?
This frustration is not the fault of the Budget Committee either.
Without any actual power within town government to effect a change in budgetary decisions, the Budget Committee has become little more than a self imposed judge, jury, and prosecutor rolled into one. They sit at a table and without benefit of any changes or decisions that have happened over the last year, they judge the numbers presented on paper without an iota of knowledge of average cost or manpower hours to effect the projects needed to further the town.
To Budget Committee's defense, if this Committee had competent Selectmen's meeting minutes to view with regards to changes made in town departments, they may have an easier time of it. If the Budget Committee held any power or any responsibility for research on pricing, average salaries within the State for various positions, or responsibility for researching materials pricing, they may understand more about the line items presented by each department head. LMTS would even go as far as to suggest subcommittees in charge of watching over department's expenditures over the course of the year, in order to understand where the dollars go, how they are spent, and the necessity versus the waste in each department. These subcommittees could then present competently to the larger committee body regarding average costs in other local area departments or the differences in costs of other supply companies that could be utilized at a savings, or with regards to more service for similar dollar values.
The Budget Committee questions and verbal attacks on department heads have created a feeling of fear and even loathing for the process within all of the town's department heads that leaves them unwilling, or perhaps even unable, to come in to a committee meeting and participate in a competent discussion of needs, ideas, growth, or change for their departments. Some department heads have spoken openly with regards to their feelings on the budgetary process within Lebanon, and there have been ongoing discussions regarding law suits to the demeaning statements made during those sessions, which have cost the town dollars in legal fees, Selectmen's wages to review the problems, and hard feelings with several former and current town employees.
Budget numbers in Lebanon are often judged with regards to town operations of the past rather than on the needs of a growing and changing town or project ideas, there are no suggestions on upcoming grant applications that could aid in keeping the numbers down, department heads are chastised, discussions on the size of men's testicles are commonplace, and department heads leave the Budget Committee table feeling as though they have been raped of any voice, respect, or recognition of accomplishments.
It is said that negativity breeds negativity, and LMTS finds a lack of respect and dignity within the town boards and committees for the Budget Committee, and the important role they should be fulfilling for residents, leaves us with no surprise that the Budget Committee reacts, in kind, in a negative manner, passing the negativity along to town employees and residents.
This year, it was discovered that the Budget Committee is actually acting in a questionable manner with regards to State Law, as there have been no bylaws ever presented as to the scope of work, guidelines or parameters under which the Budget Committee is to prepare for budget work, nor was there ever a legal vote to create the committee. In a speedy attempt to correct a need and create legality, Selectman Thompson, presented this problem to the currently seated committee and asked for their help in creating a set of Budget Committee bylaws to present to the voters of the Town of Lebanon on the May 10th ballot. Members Corinna Cole and Sean Bright and Chairman Jeri Basko did come to the meeting prepared to discuss and create a new set of Budget Committee bylaws and Selectman Thompson presented several sets of bylaws from other Maine towns. The discussion regarding bylaws for this committee were speedy and left some members of the committee's concerns and ideas left unfulfilled, and basically, what is being presented to voters, is a cut and paste version of several other town's bylaws The Budget Committee bylaw referendum was hastily created over the time period of 2 or 3 meetings, rather than a plan of action discussed and created by members of the committee after lengthy consideration, research and discussion.
LMTS finds this unacceptable.
The Budget Committee should be charged with hearing the budget needs of town departments as a first step. Members should work to research and identify grants and low interest loans in order to make ideas and plans of department heads work and come to fruition. Budget Committee members should cast aside personal feelings for department heads and as much as they would like department head to come to their meetings prepared, so the Budget Committee members should come prepared, having read the previous year's budget for each department, and armed with suggestions, available solutions to problems and an open mind on hearing department heads ideas for the future.
LMTS is unsure of who created the backwards position of the Budget Committee and Selectmen, but it is faulty at best. It is LMTS idea that the Budget Committee bylaws should be examined by every resident and that they should not be passed as currently written, but truly considered and worked on by a subcommittee of the Budget Committee, department heads and Selectmen, and presented as a complete and well thought out document rather than a hastily thrown together compilation of other towns' work. We also think that it would benefit the town of Lebanon to charge their Budget Committee members with the responsibility of aiding in the creation of competent budgets as a required first step, rather than sitting as a judiciary panel over the character and ideas of the town's department heads with no voice or responsibility. Giving this responsibility to a larger group of town residents ensures that there are several sets of eyes searching for possibilities for growth, grants, low interest loans, and ways to save the taxpayers dollars.
When considering the recent denial of recommendation by the Budget Committee on various town departments, LMTS has had several conversations with interested voters in Lebanon. Most people in town do not understand some of the relationships or dynamics at play in our Budget Committee as they currently sit.
With specific regard to the Fire and EMS budget, voters need to understand those who are voting against recommendation and their possible objections to the department's budget.
Blaine "Skip" Wood is the former Fire Department Chief. While Skip is to be applauded and respected for his years of service to the Town of Lebanon, one has to wonder why he would vote against the Fire Department budget request. Wood is an old school Fire Chief. He groomed and trained many of his department members to one day take his place in the leadership of the Lebanon Fire Department. Woods' number 2 man was the former Chief's choice to replace him upon his retirement. The Board of Selectmen chose differently and appointed Chief Daniel Meehan. No one can blame Wood for being disappointed in the Board's choices differing from his own, however, what seems "right" in the thoughts of a Fire Department, may not have been right in the thoughts of creating a combined Fire and EMS department for the town. No matter what the reasons behind the Board of Selectmen's choices at the time, LMTS is sure that the choices were made with thought and planning, and we remind voters that this should not come into play when considering budget choices for the current Fire and EMS department or their future needs in providing essential services to the town.
Nancy Neubert is the wife of the former second in command under Chief Wood. It has never been a secret that she supported Wood as Chief, and that her respect for him is still maintained, which is as it should be. This is no surprise to most Lebanon voters who have been paying attention over the past years, and Mrs. Neubert has served on the town's Budget Committee for years, to her defense, and has supported the Fire Department Budget and the Department's former requests for new equipment and new apparatus. Once again, we have to state that this respect and personal relationship with the former Chief should not carry over into Mrs. Neubert's discussions and decisions as a seated member of a Budget Committee and that this is not a personal attack of Mrs. Neubert, but an opportunity to open our eyes regarding possibilities for actions.
Laura Bragg is the former Lebanon Town Clerk. But what most people don't know is that Mrs. Bragg's brother is the husband of the former Chief's daughter. It was a large disappointment to many in town when Mrs. Bragg chose to leave her position as Lebanon Town Clerk and there were so many who spoke on her behalf and made accusations against the Board of Selectmen regarding her personal choice for departure. At the time of Mrs. Bragg's leaving the Town Office, LMTS also considered that it might have been a mistake to not fight harder for her to remain in her position. However, it should be considered that there is a relationship there, and that this relationship needs to be considered when establishing reasons behind denial of a current department budget.
Also entangled in the mention of relationships is the always outspoken Chris Gilpatrick Sr. It comes as no surprise to Lebanon voters that Gilpatrick has a relationship with the State Representative for Lebanon, that is common knowledge. That is not the relationship that has a possibility of playing itself out in the discussion of the Budget Committee's refusal of the Fire and EMS budget. The relationship to examine here is that Mrs. Neubert is very active on the town's Republican Committee, a Committee  that supports the State Representative with whom Gilpatrick has a personal relationship. While LMTS is sure that the State Representative is not in any way influencing the choice of the voters with regards to the Fire and EMS budget and that she has been hard at work at State level to institute many changes that have been beneficial to Lebanon, the relationship chain can not be ignored when stopping to question the Budget Committee's denial of recommendation.
There were others who denied the Fire and EMS budget as well, as outlined in both The Lebanon Voice's post, and in LMTS post with regards to the vote on recommendations of the Committee. It is important to note that member Corinna Cole (also a cousin of Chris Gilpatrick) abstained due to her daughters' participation in the Junior's program with the Department. It is LMTS opinion that members Bragg, Gilpatrick, Neubert and Wood should have followed Cole's lead and abstained from this vote due to their own relationships with the department (past or present) or with it's former members and administration, or if choosing to vote, these members should have disclosed these relationships to the public. Four members of a nine member Budget Committee only need one more member in order to become a quorum of the Board and a large voting block of representation to the public. I might also add that in speaking with other members of the Budget Committee, there were several seated members who were not aware of the relationships between the mentioned members of the committee, which denies these members a chance to ponder if the decisions are made through relationship loyalties or true concern over the budgets.
LMTS continues on with the budget discussion of the Road Commissioner and Highway Department. It is no secret that LMTS has been disappointed with some of the decisions with regards to the Highway Department expenditures. However, it also needs to be noted that Budget Committee member Gilpatrick is running for election of Road Commissioner, and that the very committee members mentioned above, were also the driving force behind the negative vote regarding the Highway Department budget. LMTS also sat in on that budget discussion and it was difficult to follow, at best, however, considering that Road Commissioner Torno did not create his own budget requests. In struggling to understand the Highway Department budget request, the Budget Committee received more answers from Selectman Thompson than they did from the Road Commissioner, and this is no disrespect, but more-so a question of Torno not understanding his department's budget. Selectman Thompson wrote the Highway Department budget, much as he has written just about every budget in town, therefore it was suitable that he should answer most of the questions regarding it rather than putting Torno in a position of trying to answer questions on a budget he had little hand in creating.  I'm sure that the current process is as frustrating for the Select Board Chairman as it is for the Road Commissioner and every member of the Budget Committee. Once again, let me remind you that this is not a slam on Selectman Thompson, Road Commissioner Torno or the Budget Committee,  but a statement of the events as observed by LMTS during town department and budget meetings.
Also at issue with the Budget Committee is the budget for the Lebanon Transfer Station. LMTS was not present at the Budget Committee meeting where Transfer Station head  Ronal Patch ( a former Lebanon Selectman) discussed (or didn't discuss) his budgetary needs. However, I did have the opportunity to speak with Mr. Patch regarding this Budget Committee meeting.
In the interest of the same disclosure I require of others, it is noted that LMTS Deborah Dorey Wilson is engaged to be married to Ronal Patch's cousin in the near future, however, LMTS usually refrains from discussion on the Transfer Station for just this reason. Ronal does not know his cousin well, due to family separations through divorce when LMTS fiancé was a very young boy. In the importance of my thoughts on the Transfer Station budget, we felt that the disclosure was important to note.
Historically, the Transfer Station holds a large piece of the town's attention. Entering into the property, things are clean, well organized, and orderly. Patch runs the Transfer Station with the employment of his wife, Lorraine, his brother Robert, and from time to time, his grandson Jordan as well as two other employees, one a neighbor of the Patch family. Upon LMTS first hearing of the relationships of Transfer Station employees, it was a surprise that the residents of Lebanon would have allowed such nepotism to occur, but in many visits to the Transfer Station, it is hard to find anything amiss or faulty with the day to day operations. It is also important to note in this section that it is the Selectmen of the town who have final approval on any and all town employees, and while Patch can recommend employment, he does not have the final decision, and that while the majority of the employees are in their 60s and 70s, there are no reports of injury or insurance claims from that department and turnover of employees, even among those not related, is almost non-existent.
In the year that we have been vigilant in eyeing the Transfer Station, we have seen that the Transfer Station is well run, with consideration to recycling, ideas on saving money when the opportunity arises, and ideas on boosting recycling efforts. When Patch appeared before the Budget Committee, discussion was directed toward the employment of family members and friends rather than the budgetary numbers. The demands for answers on Patch's character or employees are not the concern of the Budget Committee, and therefore, it is understandable that Patch refused comment. When the actual budget is examined, there is little waste, and any increases this year stem from the increases passed on to the town from Waste Management, the company that the town contracts with for the removal of Transfer Station waste. Negotiations with Waste Management or other waste disposal companies are not the responsibility or concern of the Transfer Station Department head. Patch does not sign the contract with this company, and although he has input, the Selectmen make the final decision on which company will be utilized.
Disclosure of relationships reminds town voters that there are two seated Selectmen, Heath and Nadeau, who were former Transfer Station employees, working under Mr. Patch.
In a final observance, LMTS would like to notice the many department heads of Lebanon Town Departments, who boldly attend Selectmen's meetings and Budget Committee meetings and attempt to provide some insight into the budgetary needs of their respective departments, and who leave year after year without their "wish list" and manage for another year to keep things together in order to provide services to the Town of Lebanon, a nod to Selectman Thompson and recognition of his many hours of work over the past year in creating these budgets, overseeing their expenditure, and questioning dollar amounts spent, a nod to the members of the Lebanon Budget Committee who see me as a personal adversary, when in fact, I support their efforts and understand their frustrations and a word of thanks to the people of Lebanon for considering carefully the items placed on your May 10 ballot and voting what you see, rather than what is being implied.

Selectmen and Budget Committee Votes on Referendum Questions for the May 10, 2016 Lebanon Ballot.

Selectmen's Official Referendum Ballot
Town of Lebanon, Maine
May 10, 2016

VOTED: That it be and is hereby ordered that the questions set forth below be placed on the ballot of the Annual Town Meeting of the Town of Lebanon to be held on May 10th, 2016 and that an attested copy of this order be placed on file with the Town Clerk of the Town of Lebanon.

REFERENDUM 1: Shall an ordinance entitled "Board of Appeals Ordinance for the Town of Lebanon, Maine" be enacted?

Selectmen Recommend: Yes 3  No 0  Abstain 0

REFERENDUM 2: Shall an ordinance entitled "Maine Uniform Building and Energy Code Administrative Ordinance for the Town of Lebanon, Maine" be enacted?

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 3  No 0  Abstain 0

REFERENDUM 3: Shall an ordinance entitled "Town of Lebanon Planning Board Establishment Ordinance" be enacted?

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 3  No 0  Abstain 0

REFERENDUM 4: Shall an ordinance entitled "Town of Lebanon Budget Committee Establishment Ordinance" be enacted?

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 3  No 0  Abstain 0

REFERENDUM 5: Shall an ordinance entitled "Town of Lebanon Recall Ordinance" be enacted?

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 3  No 0  Abstain 0

REFERENDUM 6: Shall the Town of Lebanon, Maine authorize the election of two (2) additional Selectmen positions on the 2016 Town Meeting Ballot with one (1) position expiring after a two year term in 2019, and the other position expiring after a three (3) year term in 2020 with both elected positions to continue as three (3) year terms with alternating schedules thereafter as existing elected Selectmen's positions, thus effectively creating a five (5) member Selectmen's Board, until revoked by Town Vote?

Selectmen Recommend: Yes 0  No 0  Abstain 3

REFERENDUM 7: Shall the Town of Lebanon vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $1,500.00 to be used as a subsidy for the annual Lebanon Festival?

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 2 (Nadeau, Heath)  No 0  Abstain 1 (Thompson)
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 6 ( Basko, Bragg, Bright, Churchard, Cole, Harris-Howard)
No 3 (Gilpatrick, Neubert, Wood)  Abstain 0

REFERENDUM 8: Shall the Town of Lebanon vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $1,680.00 for the fire hydrants in South Lebanon per contract?

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 3  No 0  Abstain 0
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 9  No 0  Abstain 0

REFERENDUM 9: Shall the Town of Lebanon vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $451,353.00 for the operation, upkeep and purchase of equipment and supplies for the Emergency Services Department?

The Emergency Services Department includes the Lebanon Fire and EMS Department, The Lebanon Fire and EMS Stations and the Lebanon Emergency Management Agency.

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 3  No 0  Abstain 0
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 0 
No 7 ( Bragg, Bright, Churchard, Gilpatrick, Harris-Howard, Neubert, Wood, )   
Abstain 2 (Basko, Cole)

REFERENDUM 10: Shall the Town of Lebanon vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $50,000.00 to place in the Capital Reserve Fund for the purpose of purchasing equipment for the Emergency Services Department?

The Emergency Services Department includes the Lebanon Fire and EMS Department, The Lebanon Fire and EMS Stations and the Lebanon Emergency Management Agency.

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 3  No 0  Abstain 0
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 6 ( Basko, Bragg, Bright, Churchard, Harris-Howard, Neubert, )
No 2 (Gilpatrick, Wood) 
Abstain 1  (Cole)

REFERENDUM 11: Shall the Town of Lebanon vote to raise and appropriate an annual payment not to exceed $99,869.00 for five (5) years for a new Fire Truck to replace a 1989 FMC Pumper, Engine 1, and to authorize the Selectmen to enter into a lease purchase agreement with a total cost not to exceed $499,345.00 over the term of the lease with a $1 buyout at the end of the lease?


Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 2  No 1 (Nadeau)  Abstain 0
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 6 ( Basko, Bragg, Bright, Cole, Churchard, Harris-Howard )
No 2 (Gilpatrick, Neubert, Wood) 
Abstain 0

REFERENDUM 12: Shall the Town of Lebanon vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $57,038.00 to cover the cost of Emergency Dispatching for the Emergency Services Department and for radio tower rental?

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 3  No 0  Abstain 0
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 9  No 0   Abstain 0

REFERENDUM 13: Shall the Town of Lebanon vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $793,768.00 for operation of the Highway Department??

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 2 (Heath, Nadeau)  No 1 (Thompson)  Abstain 0
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 4 (Bragg, Churchard, Cole, Neubert)
No 5 ( Basko, Bright, Gilpatrick,  Harris-Howard, Wood)
Abstain 0

REFERENDUM 14: Shall the Town of Lebanon vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $370,788.00 for operation of the Lebanon Transfer Station??

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 3   No 0   Abstain 0
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 0  No 9  Abstain 0


REFERENDUM 15: Shall the Town of Lebanon vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $150,000.00 to place in a Capital Reserve Fund for the purpose of paving Town owned public roads??

The spending of any funds from this account requires the approval of the Board of Selectmen. Capital Reserve Funds allow unused funds to roll from one fiscal year to the next, and may only legally be used for the purpose for which they have been voted.

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 3  No 0  Abstain 0
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 0  No 8  Abstain 1

REFERENDUM 16: Shall the Town of Lebanon vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $10,000.00 to place in a Capital Reserve Fund for necessary bridge repairs and replacement of town owned bridges?

 The spending of any funds from this account requires the approval of the Board of Selectmen. Capital Reserve Funds allow unused funds to roll from one fiscal year to the next, and may only legally be used for the purpose for which they have been voted.

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 3  No 0  Abstain 0
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 9  No 0  Abstain 0

REFERENDUM 17: Shall the Town of Lebanon vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $22,199.00 to fund the No Spray Contract with Central Maine Power??

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 3  No 0  Abstain 0
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 9   No 0  Abstain 0

REFERENDUM 18: Shall the Town of Lebanon vote to pay the Selectmen $12.00 per hour plus expenses?

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 0  No 0  Abstain 3
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 9  No 0  Abstain 0

REFERENDUM 19: Shall the Town of Lebanon vote to pay the Road Commissioner $32,000.00 salary plus expenses?

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 3  No 0  Abstain 0
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 0  No 9  Abstain 0

REFERENDUM 20: Shall the Town of Lebanon vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $377,565.00 for government expenses for the town office including elections, and the Selectmen's wages and expenses?

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 3  No 0  Abstain 0
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 9  No 0  Abstain 0

REFERENDUM 21: Shall the Town of Lebanon vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $21,730.00 for the operation of the Animal Control Officer and expenses?

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 3  No 0  Abstain 0
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 9  No 0  Abstain 0

REFERENDUM 22: Shall the Town of Lebanon vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $50,872.00 for the combined department budgets of Code Enforcement Officer / Health Officer / 911 Director including expenses?

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 3  No 0  Abstain 0
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 3 (Basko, Churchard, Cole)  No 6 (Bragg, Bright, Gilpatrick, Harris-Howard, Neubert, Wood)    Abstain 0

REFERENDUM 23: Shall the Town of Lebanon vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $10,000.00 to place in a Capital Reserve Fund for the purpose of contributing toward large scale repairs of municipal buildings or grounds totaling $10,000.00 or more?

 The spending of any funds from this account requires the approval of the Board of Selectmen. Capital Reserve Funds allow unused funds to roll from one fiscal year to the next, and may only legally be used for the purpose for which they have been voted.

 Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 3  No 0  Abstain 0
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 8  No 1 (Gilpatrick)  Abstain 0

REFERENDUM 24: Shall the Town of Lebanon vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $48,000.00 for legal fees?

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 3  No 0  Abstain 0
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 8   No 1 (Gilpatrick)  Abstain 0

REFERENDUM 25: Shall the Town of Lebanon vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $50,000.00 for the contingency fund?

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 3  No 0  Abstain 0
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 9  No 0  Abstain 0

REFERENDUM 26: Shall the Town of Lebanon vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $189,253.00 for all insurances for the town?

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 3  No 0  Abstain 0
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 9  No 0    Abstain 0

REFERENDUM 27: Shall the Town of Lebanon vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $24,425.00 for General Assistance for residents in need?

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 3  No 0  Abstain 0
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 9  No 0   Abstain 0

REFERENDUM 28: Shall the Town of Lebanon vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $7,000.00 for the updating of tax maps?

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 3  No 0  Abstain 0
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 9  No 0  Abstain 0

REFERENDUM 29: Shall the Town of Lebanon vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $13,408.00 to support the following relief agencies according to the breakdown below?

York County Community Action                $4,005.00
Caring Unlimited                                         $1,809.00
So. Maine Agency on Aging                       $2,594.00
York County Shelter Programs, Inc.           $1,500.00
Counseling Services, Inc.                            $2,450.00
Kids Free to Grow                                          $250.00
Lebanon Community Learning Center           $300.00
American Red Cross                                       $500.00

Total                                                          $13,408.00

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 3  No 0  Abstain 0
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 9  No 0  Abstain 0

REFERENDUM 30: Shall the Town of Lebanon vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $12,654.00 for the operation of the Planning Board and for dues to the Southern Maine Regional Planning and Development Commission?

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 3  No 0  Abstain 0
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 9   No 0   Abstain 0

REFERENDUM 31: Shall the Town of Lebanon vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $500.00 for the operation of the Conservation Commission?

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 3  No 0  Abstain 0
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 9  No 0  Abstain 0

REFERENDUM 32: Shall the Town of Lebanon vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $450.00 for the operation of the Appeals Board?

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 3  No 0  Abstain 0
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 8  No 0   Abstain 1 (Harris Howard)

REFERENDUM 33: Shall the Town of Lebanon vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $750.00 for the operation of the Budget Committee?

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 3  No 0  Abstain 0
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 9   No 0   Abstain 0

REFERENDUM 34: Shall the Town of Lebanon vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $17,550.00 for the operation of the Martha Sawyer Community Library?

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 2 (Heath, Nadeau)  No (Thompson)  Abstain 0
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 9  No 0  Abstain 0

REFERENDUM 35: Shall the Town of Lebanon vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $3,142.00 for the Lebanon Recreation Department?

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 2 (Heath, Nadeau)  No 1 (Thompson)  Abstain 0
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 9  No 0   Abstain 0

REFERENDUM 36: Shall the Town of Lebanon vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $500.00 for the Memorial Day Ceremony and the decoration of Veteran's graves as mandated by the State of Maine State Law, 30-A 2901?

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 3  No 0  Abstain 0
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 9  No 0  Abstain 0

REFERENDUM 37: Shall the Town of Lebanon vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $32,000.00 for the restoration and maintenance of cemeteries throughout the town as mandated by Maine State Law, 13 MRSA 1101?

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 2 (Thompson, Nadeau)  No 1 (Heath)  Abstain 0
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 7 (Basko, Bragg, Bright, Churchard, Cole, Harris-Howard, Wood)    No 1 (Neubert)   Abstain 1 (Gilpatrick)

REFERENDUM 38: Shall the Town of Lebanon allow the Tax Collector to accept prepayment of taxes prior to the tax commitment date and to charge interest on unpaid taxes at the rate of 7% per annum, and to set the date when taxes are committed for the fiscal year 2016-17 (July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017) and payable as of October 15, 2016 and April 15, 2017?

Interest will be collected after October 15, 2016 and April 15, 2017 respective to billings due dates.

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 3  No 0  Abstain 0
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 9  No 0  Abstain 0

REFERENDUM 39: Shall the Town of Lebanon vote to set an interest rate of 3% per State Law as the rate to be paid back to taxpayers who pay amounts in excess of amounts finally assessed and authorize any such interest paid or abatements granted to be charged against the annual overlay, which is not to exceed 5% of the total assessment as per State Law (MRSA 36, Chapter 105, 506-A)?

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 3  No 0  Abstain 0
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 9  No 0  Abstain 0

REFERENDUM 40: Shall the Town of Lebanon vote to authorize funding at last year's (2015-16) level for the General Government, Emergency Services, Codes Enforcement, Animal Control, Transfer Station and Highway Department whose new appropriation is not approved by this year's referendum vote, until such time that any new funding is authorized before the net tax commitment?

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 3  No 0  Abstain 0
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 0  No 8   Abstain 1 (Bright)

REFERENDUM 41: Shall the Town of Lebanon vote to appropriate all of the monies received from the State for snowmobiling registrations to the Lebanon Trail Riders Club for the maintenance of their system or network of snowmobile trails, on the condition that those trails are open in the snow season to the public for outdoor recreation purposes at no charge, and to conditions as to the municipal officers to enter into an agreement with the Club, under such terms and conditions as the municipal officers may deem advisable for that purpose?

Selectmen Recommend:  Yes 3  No 0  Abstain 0
Budget Committee Recommend  Yes 9  No 0   Abstain 0

Selectmen's Meeting Notes, March 7, 2016

 

The Lebanon Maine Truth Seekers is not an official representative of the Lebanon Maine Board of Selectmen. The notes below are not an official record of the Town of Lebanon or any of their boards or committees, they are only the notes of LMTS resident sitting in on Board meetings. For the official minutes of these meetings, please see the Town of Lebanon Maine Official Town Website.

In light of statements made by individuals at the Lebanon Maine Board of Selectmen's Meeting, it is also important for us to write that we do not represent any one person, board or committee within the Town of Lebanon, Maine and that these are only our notes on the events, happenings and statements during that meeting.

 

The Lebanon Maine Board of Selectmen met on their normal Monday evening schedule on March 7, 2016.

The published agenda, stated that Road Commissioner Tom Torno would be seen at 4 pm, however, as is often the case, Mr. Torno did not attend the meeting.

Because they had the extra time, Chairman of the Board, Ben Thompson, asked the Town Clerk, Mandy Grenier if she were prepared to present the draft copies of the referendum questions that will appear on the May 10th, 2016 Town of Lebanon Ballot.
Ms. Grenier came in prepared with 39 draft referendum questions, and began to read them to the Board members, as she read, the Selectmen voted to recommend each item to the voters, or not to recommend.
Selectman Heath noted that he was not comfortable doing so in a public forum, however, Chairman Thompson stated that their recommendations were public knowledge and the reading and voting of the referendum questions continued.
The final four questions were regarding the voter's choice regarding ordinances outlining the duties and responsibilities of several town Boards and Committees. Both Selectman Heath and Nadeau stated that they were not comfortable recommending (or not recommending) an ordinance that was not yet in final copy, and that they would like to discontinue the recommendation votes until such time as they can see the ordinance in complete form as it will appear before the voters at Public Hearing.
Selectman Thompson agreed with the pair and the Board of three was united in making a motion that they strike all the recommendations from this evening until the ballot and all ordinances were completed so that they know exactly what they are recommending (or not) to Lebanon voters.

Ms. Grenier presented an e mail from Lebanon resident Jeri Basko, which asked the Selectmen to construct and place on the ballot, a Recall Ordinance, allowing for voters to have a way to vote elected officials out of office should they believe the official to be ineffective in their position.
The discussion began with Selectman Thompson stating that he was "all for" putting this ordinance in front of the voters, however both Selectmen Heath and Nadeau stated that they wanted Ms. Basko to present a signed citizens petition for this ordinance to be placed on the ballot.
Selectman Thompson stated that the law provides for two ways for a resident to have a referendum placed on a ballot. The first is to ask the Board of Selectmen to craft a proposal and place it on the ballot, and the second would be to organize a Citizen's Petition.
A Citizen's Petition would require that the petitioner craft the referendum or ordinance proposal, attach it to signature sheets, and obtain the validated signatures of at least 214 registered voters in the Town of Lebanon (10% of the total number of voters (including absentee) who took part in the last gubernatorial election). The petitioner would have to have the final signed petition to the Lebanon Town Clerk no later than 35 days prior to the scheduled election. Since the Lebanon Town Election is scheduled to coincide with the School Budget Vote on May 10th, 2016, 35 days prior would place the petition due into the Town Office on or about April 5, 2016.

Motion was made by Select Board Chairman Ben Thompson that the Recall Ordinance requested by Budget Committee Chairman Jeri Basko to be placed on the May 10th ballot be accepted and placed on that ballot. Neither Selectman Heath or Selectman Nadeau would second that motion. Not passed.

Selectman Heath then made a motion that the Recall Ordinance requested by Budget Committee Chairman Jeri Basko be required to get the required signatures in order to be placed on the May 10th ballot. Motion was seconded by Selectman Nadeau and the vote showed 2 in favor, and Selectman Thompson voting No. The Recall Ordinance will require Citizen's Petition signatures in order to be placed on the May 10th Lebanon ballot.

Town Clerk Grenier then presented a signed Citizen's Petition filed by resident Corinna Cole requesting that the Board place on the May 10th ballot, a decision to change the current town government from a Board of 3 Selectmen to a Board of 5 Selectmen.
The petition, circulated by Ms. Cole and LMTS Deborah Wilson, would ask the voters to authorize the election of 2 additional Selectmen's positions on the 2016 Town Meeting Ballot, with 1 position expiring after a 2 year term in 2018 and the other expiring after a 3 year term in 2019 with both elected positions to continue as 3 year terms with alternating schedules thereafter as existing elected Selectmen positions, thus effectively crating a 5 member Selectman's Board, until revoked by Town Vote.
The Town Clerk certified that she had checked the signatures presented with the petition and found that there were 224 valid and certified signatures, 10 more than the 214 needed to be a valid Citizen's Petition.
Selectman Thompson questioned the dates mentioned in the Citizen's Petition, as due to Maine State Law, the first election of an additional Board Member, would not be able to be held until the May 2017 Town Vote, if the petition were approved by the voters in May 2016.
Ms. Grenier stated that she had contacted Maine Municipal Association to ask the same question. She had their answer (2 options) printed out, however, when ready to read the answer, Selectman Thompson stated that he questioned whether or not legal counsel had to be read publicly. The Board Members each read the MMA options to themselves.
Discussion was held that the signatures represented on the Citizen's Petition seemed to be from many different groups and areas of Lebanon and not from a single group of friends or co workers.
Selectman Nadeau stated that he thought, if the petition was circulated and the people of Lebanon had signed it, they should put it before the people and let them decide.
Selectman Heath questioned that if the voters approved this question, would it be held as a legal vote due to the dates on the question.
Town Clerk Grenier stated that the Board could approve a change in the dates to be written on the ballot, allowing for the dates to be correct on the Town Ballot.
Selectman Thompson asked the Board if they thought they should strip the dates out of the petition all together, or change the dates to reflect correctly, all were in agreement to change the dates.

Selectman Thompson stated that the Board would have to motion for the dates to be changed from those listed on the original petition, and vote in agreement to do that.

Thompson then made the motion that the Board of Selectmen reject the Citizens Petition requesting the creation of a 5 member Select Board presented by Corinna Cole due to incorrect proposed dates, and correct the dates to reflect the election on the 2017 Town Meeting Ballot, with 2 additional terms ending in 2019 and 2020, and place the Citizen's Petition on the 2016 Town Ballot. Selectman Nadeau seconded the motion and all 3 Board Members voted in the affirmative. The question will appear on the May 10, 2016 Town Meeting Ballot.

Town Clerk Many Grenier asked if she should include the question at the top of the ballot where Citizen's Petitions usually were placed, or due to the date change, if she should include it with the other town referendum questions. Selectman Thompson stated that the question should still be presented at the top of the ballot as a Citizen's Petition.

At 5 pm, Selectmen's Assistant Sue Collins presented a number of paperwork and discussion items to the Board, including information requested for the Town's insurance policy, a Veteran's tax exemption application, and information on the most recent inspection of the Town Office fire alarm system.
There was discussion on the Town Office fire alarm system and some upgrades that will need to be made before too long.

At 5:03, the Board entered into Executive Session citing Personnel Reasons. Entering into the Executive Session with the Board were Selectmen's Assistant Sue Collins, Town Treasurer Jeanette Lemay, and the Union Representative for the Town Office Personnel, Tracy Place.
The three women exited the meeting at 5:28 pm, and left the building, however, the Board remained in Executive Session, until 5:48 pm.

Selectman Thompson stated that no decisions were made during the Executive Session.

The Board returned to regular session with Selectmen Heath and Nadeau speaking to LMTS Deborah Wilson regarding the proposed Lebanon Clean Up Day scheduled for Saturday, May 7, 2016.
Selectman Nadeau stated that he wanted Wilson to be clear in speaking to people regarding Lebanon Clean Up Day, that this was a day to clean up the roadsides of Lebanon, and not a cellar, attic and junk pick up day, or a "free day" at the Transfer Station.
Wilson agreed that people should not be using the day for a "free pass" for large items to be brought to the Transfer Station, but that ALL items cleaned from local roadsides should be bagged and brought to the side of the road, or in the case of larger items, dragged to the side of the road by 1 pm and would be picked up by Road Commissioner Torno and his Highway Department crew between 1 pm and 3 pm on Lebanon Clean Up Day and brought to the Transfer Station.
Once again, Selectman Nadeau stated that no personal household items would be picked up, only items cleaned from the roadsides of Lebanon were to be picked up by the Highway Department crew.
Wilson again agreed to that stipulation.

At 6 pm, resident Chris Gilpatrick, accompanied by his son, Chris Gilpatrick, Jr. entered to address the Board on a complaint.
Mr. Gilpatrick stated that he had been having some recent problems with Code Enforcement Officer, Mike Beaulieu, with regards to building permits for his new home and garage.
Chris Gilpatrick, Jr. spoke to the Board stating that he was tired of the run around with regards to their permitting, and that he and his father would be hiring a 3rd party building inspector to complete any and all further inspections on their project, adding the reason for this action was that they had no faith in the Town of Lebanon Code Enforcement Officer and they would no longer need his service.
Selectman Thompson stated that he had been with the Code Enforcement Officer when he went to the property and that they could not find the Building Permit, which states in writing, that it is to be displayed at all times in a prominent place on the structure.
Both Gilpatrick men stated that the permits had been in the front window, which Selectman Thompson denied.
Arguments went back and forth, ending with the elder Gilpatrick stating that the Code Enforcement Officer had also lost the file on his property, which held plot maps, building permit copies and drawings.
Thompson denied that the folder had been lost.
Mr. Gilpatrick stated that he had a message on his cell phone from Beaulieu stating that he had misplaced the file and Thompson asked to hear the message. Gilpatrick obliged by playing the message.
The voice mail identified the caller as Code Enforcement Officer Mike Beaulieu. Continuing on,  Beaulieu stated that he had happened to be in the area of the new Gilpatrick garage and had noted a new home being built in an adjoining lot, and wondered if that were the new planned Gilpatrick home. The voice mail stated that Beaulieu had looked at the building and had found no information attached to the structure, stating that he was sure that it was a simple mistake and that he would like to meet with the Gilpatricks, view the maps, stating that he had misplaced the file on the project, and that he would be in the office until 2:15 that afternoon and would like the Gilpatricks to call to make an appointment to come in and speak with him.
The message was professional and friendly, however both Gilpatricks stated that they were angry over the loss of the file, which contained all the inspections done on the garage by former Code Enforcement Officer Brian Paul.
Selectman Thompson offered to look into the situation, stating that the men could not simply hire a 3rd party inspector to replace the Town Code Enforcement Inspection, but both men aggressively maintained that they could do just that.
The argument continued with some harsh language by the Gilpatricks and with both men and Selectmen Thompson raising their voices frequently.
Chris Gilpatrick, Jr. spoke, stating that he thought that there were people on the Board of Selectmen who liked to set the tone for the meetings, asking the Board of three to remember "Who works for who?". He continued on, saying that he didn't come to the Board to be placated, didn't need their arrogance, and did not appreciate being treated like a child.
Selectman Thompson simply replied "Ditto".
The younger Gilpatrick continued stating that he didn't beat his chest or raise his voice, but that he had zero faith in the Town Code Enforcement Officer and that if the file had been viewed, it would have been clear they had the building permits, and that the permits were visible to anyone with half an iota of intelligence.
Gilpatrick Junior stated that he had only come to alert the Selectmen that they were hiring a 3rd party inspector to come and inspect the buildings, and that no representative of the Town of Lebanon would be allowed on their property at any time in the future.
Selectman Thompson questioned Chris Jr. on when he had received his building permit, and was answered that the Permit was received on February 16, 2016. Thompson continued on stating that he had personally viewed the pouring of the slabs on Gilpatrick Jr.'s Facebook page in early December.
The argument again escalated with the elder Gilpatrick stating that there was no permit needed to pour the slab, and Thompson arguing against that statement.
Gilpatrick stated he had discussed the entire process with previous CEO Brian Paul.
Thompson stated that the close relationship between he and Mr. Paul was obvious, to which Gilpatrick stated that he had no close relationship with Mr. Paul, but that he was not going to kiss the ___ (rear end) of Mr. Beaulieu or chase him down for permits and inspections.
Once again, Gilpatrick questioned the misplacement of his project folder, and Thompson stated that the folder was not lost at all.
As the argument continued back and forth, Thompson asked the other two Board members to step in, asking them if Beaulieu had mentioned anything to them about a lost or missing project folder. Both Selectmen stated that Beaulieu had not mentioned that in their presence.
The elder Gilpatrick stated once again that he intended to finish his building with inspections by a 3rd party inspector, and Thompson told him that he could not just supersede the intentions of the voters of the Town of Lebanon who clearly voted to require the CEO to make the inspections.
Gilpatrick stated that he found both Beaulieu and Paul Philbrick, (who stands in for Beaulieu while he is in training sessions), to be incompetent.
At that time, Thompson stated that Mr. Gilpatrick was treading very close to the line of defaming Mr. Beaulieu's character and that he would be well advised to schedule an Executive Session with the Board of Selectmen in order to discuss problems with Mr. Beaulieu's job performance or character.
Mr. Gilpatrick countered, demanding an immediate Executive Session, but Thompson denied that request, stating that Beaulieu was not in the office at that time of night and that a legal Executive Session must include the right of the Town Employee to be present when the complaint was discussed.
The argument continued on in raised voices with Gilpatrick stating that he wanted an immediate Executive Session and Thompson telling him to speak to his State Rep, (Gerrish) with regards to laws on Executive Session. Gilpatrick stated that Rep. Gerrish had informed him of his rights, and from there the conversation got more than negative toward Thompson's thoughts on Gerrish's understanding of the law. Thompson stated that any Executive Session had to include the right of the Employee to attend and that only that Employee could waive the right to have that discussion in Executive Session. Once again, both Gilpatricks entered into another raised voice argument with Thompson.
Thompson finally stated that he was going to tell Chris Gilpatrick, Jr. to leave, and the younger man challenged Thompson's authority to do that, stating that the Select Board was a Board of three and that Thompson could not, acting alone, force him to leave the meeting.
Thompson looked to the other Board members with Nadeau questioning "Wait, where exactly are we at right now?", and then Selectman Heath answering that Thompson was the Chairman of the Board and if he wanted Gilpatrick Jr, removed from the building, that Heath would back him up.
Voices quieted at that point, however the elder Gilpatrick stated that he was angry that CEO Beaulieu made $20 an hour for sitting on his ___ (rear end) and couldn't even be responsible for finding a project file.
Gilpatrick, Jr. stated that there was a clearly a discrepancy in Beaulieu's abilities and that the family wanted no part of him, choosing instead to continue on with the hiring of a 3rd party inspector to complete the project, and if the town had problems with that, then they should do what they needed to do.
Selectman Thompson requested that the Gilpatricks provide their argument and intentions to the Board in writing, and Gilpatrick Sr. stated that he would have the contract from the 3rd party inspector within the week.
Once again the argument took the form of a shouting match, with Gilpatrick Jr. quieting his father by telling him that he was being "goaded" and to quiet down.
Gilpatrick Sr. did stop the argument and requested a copy of everything in his project folder to present to the 3rd party inspector, and Thompson agreed to provide that information as a verbal Right to Know request.
The Gilpatrick men left the building at 6:21 pm with Gilpatrick Sr. stating that Beaulieu could stay off his property in the future, as he would have no reason to be there.

Selectman Thompson motioned to grant Gilpatrick's verbal Right to Know request by providing him copies of all that was in his project folder, without charging him for the copies. The motion was quickly seconded by Selectman Nadeau and all three voted in favor.

The Board discussed their need to work on their revised Personnel Policy, however they all agreed it had been a difficult evening and that they would work on finishing the Policy at their March 14th meeting.

At 6;25 pm, Selectman Nadeau asked to adjourn the meeting, however, Selectman Heath stated that he still had to sign payroll, and Selectman Thompson stated that he also had to stay due to several events during the meeting requiring him to write letters. With two Selectmen staying in the office the meeting could not be officially adjourned, but Selectman Nadeau stated that he was leaving for the evening and the other two members stated they would not have a problem with that.

LMTS left all three Selectmen in the Board Meeting room at 6:30 pm.