Bangor council backs drafting license plate reader policy, weighs homeless housing TIF

[0:37] Susan Hawes: We are live. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome to the city council workshop. It is Monday, August 10th, 5:15. We are in council chambers. Around the table we have Council Leonard, Councillor Deane, Councillor Carson, Councillor Walker, Council Saloon, Councillor Beck, City Manager Carollynn Lear, Councillor Fish, and Councillor Mallar, and I'm Suhas. See, I made it around the table and I didn't forget anybody. Better we do have two items on the agenda. One will be the city manager update. We'll start with her, and then we have one of the discussion, and they'll look to go into three executive sessions. [1:17] Carollynn Lear: City Manager, all right, so I wanted to provide an update on the homelessness advisory committee. So they have had two meetings so far, and they have their third meeting tomorrow. That third meeting is going to take the form of a public input session. So they're going to do an hour and a half of receiving public input using the same public comment guidelines that council uses, and then they're going to use the last half hour of their meeting to discuss the comments that they received and sort of discuss where they want to go next. Some of the things that the council has, the committee has done so far, they've created or asked city staff to create an email address to receive emailed public comment. That email address is homelessness.committee at BangorMaine.gov, and we've already started receiving some of that public comment in that form. They've elected a chair, vice chair and secretary. Alton Buzzel from Hollywood Casino is the chair. Jason Goodrich is the vice chair, and then Treat of the library is the secretary, and then the last update on that committee is that Counselor Fish has been selected and agreed to serve as the council liaison for that community. All right, I wanted to mention to the full council that at the last gov ops committee meeting, the gov ops committee voted to refer the day center RFP to the advisory committee on homelessness for review, which I think makes a lot of sense, but I wanted to bring that up to the full council because I think technically all of you should have input on that referral before it's actually made. So is anyone interested in contesting that referral before I formally make it? [3:46] Susan Hawes: Don't see anything. No. Okay, and [3:52] Carollynn Lear: Then the last item, I guess not the last item, I'll skip this one, next last item is you'll see a couple of bond items on first reading this evening. These are for bond issuances for spending that council has already approved, and then you have to then approve us to also go out and purchase the bonds. This is first reading. They'll get referred to finance, and I plan on having a full discussion of those bond items at finance next week, but thought you might all just have smoke coming out of your ears when you see millions being raised via bond. So I wanted to let you know that we'll have an in-depth discussion of those at finance. There will be a required public hearing on those bond items at second reading as well, so we wouldn't take public comment at the first reading stage, and then the last item on my list is an update on fluff cameras. So in the past we've certainly gotten a number of inquiries from members of the public about whether the city uses certain cameras, specifically flock cameras, to report people and license plates and there was a recent uptick in inquiries from the public over the last week and a half or so. I think in response to some nationwide reporting last weekend about the use of flock cameras in other cities, there is a publicly available website that's often reference where you can view a map and they'll have little red dots to show where they believe flock cameras to exist, and if you pull that map up for Bangor you will see little red dots, which is what has pacificated a lot of the public questions to us. So that would be a good idea to sort of repeat aloud what we've said to the public as they've asked us. There's really two categories of those cameras on that website. The first is that there are cameras that are on privately owned property. That is certainly something that private property owners can do, purchase and install cameras on their property. Those cameras show up or show up as being in Bangor, but they're not owned or controlled by the city. The second category of cameras that show up on That map are the city's Myovision traffic detention detection cameras, and as we discussed last week, because you approved an item to purchase more of those cameras, is that those cameras don't receive, they don't take video, nor do they store any images. Those cameras simply detect that a car is approaching for purposes of efficient traffic signal operation. So sort of enclosing the bottom line is the city does not use, own, or operate any block cameras or similar cameras currently. That's [7:18] Michael Beck: Okay, this is something for council. Me personally, I'd like to get ahead of this. If we don't currently use the technology that people are concerned room, although I have concerns myself about it, you know, the technology that actually does the tracking your license plates, you know, where people have been, all of that, I would be in favor of some kind of legislative policy directive saying that the city is not going to purchase that particular technology. I mean, being careful with it because we have the Myovision, I want to make sure we accidentally sweep that in. That serves a separate purpose, but I'd be curious to see if anyone else in the council would be interested in some kind of a legislative policy directive to say, hey, you know, this is not what our city believes, and we're not participating, we're not purchasing, subscribing, getting into this, and then being that it's a legislative policy directive, it would allow future councils to weigh in if they ever decided to change its mind. It could certainly repeal it, but I would like to have it be something substantial to show the public that this is not something that we as a council believe in subscribing to or purchasing. [8:23] Susan Hawes: Well, it would be an educational piece as well because the emails that I've seen [8:29] Speaker D (unidentified): they don't really know what the cameras are. So, you know, I was gonna say I have similar [8:37] Joseph Leonard: concerns as council does, and but my thoughts were we might be able to achieve something similar would resolve, if that's something that this council were amenable to, but I'm not against the idea of also having some type of legislation installed within the city's laws, but I do want to make sure that we are going to institute something specifically targeting this piece of technology, that we make sure that it doesn't interfere with any other concept said that might indirectly be affected by it. So that's my only comment. Other than that, I 'm for either resolve or any [9:23] Susan Hawes: other comments, questions. [9:29] Michael Beck: I don't want to have staff invest time in writing up something that counsel is not interested in, anything like that. But I would like to make a motion to ask staff to draft a legislative policy directive in a way that doesn't interfere with current operations, because we're satisfied that we're not using technology now, but it's forward looking towards the specific technologies and not flock by name, but the technology behind it, license plate readers, any kind of location tracking data, etc, that's the I would like staff to put something together for us to look at. [10:10] Susan Hawes: Second. Did you say second? Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Yeah, I have a question. [10:17] Wayne Mallar: On cameras, don't we already have a use cameras to identify license plates in the [10:24] Carolyn Fish: traffic department to issue tickets? I don't believe so. Again, well, I mean, I think importantly [10:31] Carollynn Lear: one of the things that this exercise of you know comes with support of if there's a desire to not interfere with current operations that will necessitate an exercise where each department articulates the places where they do use cameras and for example within our buildings we have cameras as most buildings would have security cameras things like that certainly our police where body cameras so we'll go through each department identify exactly where there could be overlap with the policy statement and draft something that eliminates that overlap. Yeah. [11:17] Michael Beck: Because in regards to security cameras, body cams, like that requires a human being to look at that, you know, so it's not some kind of AI automated tracking location. So I personally don't have any problem with that kind of technology, you know, no different than a VHS recorder recording, you know, a feed from something, you know, humans will have to look at, just the automated stuff that's, you know, getting kind of intrusive these days. [11:41] Joseph Leonard: And to your point, it's also been inactive as well. There's been a lot of false arrests that have been made solely using these F-bomb cameras as well, which is my primary concern, is that we don't want to accidentally subscribe to technology that might penalize an innocent person, so that's actually probably the biggest issue I have with these cameras, so that's just food for thought for anyone who wasn't aware of some of those issues in other states. [12:11] Susan Hawes: So it's been moved and seconded, is there any other discussion that staff will attempt to draft something, get back to this thing, no objections, we'll send it forward. [12:31] Carollynn Lear: That is all I have for updates. Okay. [12:34] Susan Hawes: We do need, well, we've got three executive sessions, so if we could get the motion to [12:41] Carollynn Lear: to enter those. I'll just jump in first. We do have an item on the agenda in the event that there's anything else that you would like to discuss about the tax increment financing district. That one isn't an executive session, so we should take that first if there's anything you would like to discuss. I know you had a pretty robust conversation during committee meetings, asked for additional information, which was emailed to you. But if you have questions or want additional discussion, perfect, do [13:16] Wayne Mallar: you have additional questions? Well, no, I asked a question but hasn't been answered yet. At least I haven't seen it. Maybe it's been answered. I asked what the cost of the city would be for the 30 years until the TIFF was gone, as far as general assistance, medical, all the other things that these people are going to get [13:37] Carolyn Fish: it for free. Yeah, and I've not heard anything. I apologize. I don't recall that question being asked. [13:44] Wayne Mallar: It was asked of Warren, but of, oh, of David Warren. Yep, there were 10 questions asked of him. [13:52] Susan Hawes: I suspect he's still tracking down the answers. Other [14:00] Carolyn Fish: questions? That's a fish I see it is on state council tonight and I also had some concerns or questions, I don't know if it's best to discuss them now or later, but I'm not in favor of this for the same reasons I've expressed before. You know, I've done the math on just based on our mill rate today and the minimal appreciated value for the tax assessed value that we could see over the 30 years and conservatively speaking just on this phase one of 30 and I know there's been a little bit of speculation of potentially phase two so just focusing on this potential phase one 75 of this tax going back for 30 individual patients unhoused of which 30 would be bangles for 10. So over 30 years when I did the math in the appreciated value just with bricks and mortar it comes out to conservatively about six million dollars going back to just the bricks and mortar value once it's an operating facility and we have equipment and furniture and an infrastructure business component the value of the business component that value would easily be an operating business of that facility size of 20 000 could be potentially valued at about 20 million but even conservatively doing my figures over 20 to 30 years, we would be giving up about $20 to $30 million, including phase two. So you've got to kind of do some math and some iterations. But conservatively, 20 and potentially as much as $40 million in 30 years. And I'm not comfortable with that type of a tax rebate to a company, you know. We're getting 25 percent and that's a lot of money for the taxpayers to give up for our future or 10. And the success rate, liberal concept success rate for these individuals is 20 percent. You know, that's very liberal. I think it's 12 to 15 because of the complexity of the issues that these patients have. So we've got two patients a year possibly from the Bangor greater area and that comes out to 500 to about a million dollars per patient, not to not to mention 30 to 40 million dollars of benefit that we taxpayers in the benefit of the city at large are giving up to benefit the company. But it robs our future potential income and you know that's almost direction. It benefits the whole city just as an example. In comparison, I love the idea of wrap around 24-hour services. I know CHCS, it's got a pilot program, we're doing something, we have our homeless community now that we want to partner with. I'm excited about wraparound services. I'm not excited about giving up almost five acres of city land which is valued closer to about 300 000 knowledge and again to benefit, you know, two companies and not benefit the taxpayers when we have limited land available. I'm all for doing this, maybe the state could offer up Dorothea Dips or some other state land or private land. I'm happy to talk about wrap around services for our unhoused, but this particular layout when I do the math feels like taxation without representation to our taxpayers and representation without taxation to the benefit of the people in this project. And you know I feel bad saying that because we have on house and I'm excited about the opportunity, but in this format a special TIFF district for a special 75% tax break over 30 years with, you know, conservative thirty million dollars but they lost to benefit our entire city. I can't get on [18:23] Speaker D (unidentified): board, nothing [18:26] Susan Deane: Did you have any debt? Yes, my question was, I think last meeting I asked and Craig if we had other TIF districts that were also receiving credit enhancement. What she said yes, but we never really addressed whether both were necessary for this to be successful. And I am wondering if we know either through banker housing or city if one is more beneficial than the other, and if so, which one could possibly be implemented without any real direct cause for failure if they didn't come home. And that's a question I would like answered [19:05] Carollynn Lear: prior to the vote. So let's have Anne come up and answer that question. And I think it sounds like maybe there's a desire to have question and answer, but maybe also some debate. So let's have Anne and potentially others come up and answer questions, and then maybe there's debate afterwards. We can sort of excuse them so they're not engaging in the debate state themselves as well. I can give up my seat as well if they're, yeah, I don't know if you want Jen and Begita to, yeah, so Dean can you repeat the question? It was [19:43] Susan Deane: hard to hear any of that. I had asked if we had other tax increment districts that were [19:50] Carollynn Lear: receiving credit. We said that we didn't have some. Yep, do you have some in the downtown town on to the two properties on State Street that high tide capital is done. Those are market rate residential projects. You've also done one for a Milford place for conquest. And you also have one with charm. You also had one with the WAN, which I can't remember what that stands for. for. And that actually ran its course. It's 30 year course. So [20:26] Susan Deane: these were all 30 year as well. Yeah. And the other part of the [20:31] Carollynn Lear: question was, well, I'm sorry, the downtown ones are not because your downtown tip is done in 2036. [20:39] Susan Deane: Would banker housing be success with this project with just a tip or just credit enhancement? Or do you both have to come hand in hand in order to make this work? [20:51] Carollynn Lear: Well, the credit enhancement agreement is funded by the TIF. So if you do a TIF district, you're capturing the added value, the tax on the added value. And in some cases, like in the downtown, you use that for a lot of capital projects in the downtown. This year you added arts and culture investments with that money. Now there are things, there's a lot you can do with that, you know, that TIF district creation. But in this case, the property owner is asking for that TIF value to return to them and the credit enhancement agreement. [21:28] Susan Deane: So the actual TIF district is just regarding this particular project, that particular project. [21:36] Carollynn Lear: And that's pretty common with affordable housing tests, you know, as opposed to an area like you have in the downtown [21:48] Michael Beck: the taxes that we're not taking them to the city that's right back how does that compare with the cost to the city if we this project doesn't happen these individuals these ones that are on our streets right now, using services the most, what do those costs look like in comparison to what we're investing with this test? [22:26] Carollynn Lear: I mean, just in some of the research I've done, maybe Jen has better research than I do. But you know that there's nationally, the national average, for example, of emergency room visits is 50 is reduced by 50%. You know, there's some stats out there like that. You probably have a whole bunch [22:45] Susan Hawes: just yeah a local place in portland where pebble street was the service provider there's some public stats on an average savings of 970 72 dollars per participant during the year following entry into logan place a virtual elimination in the use of emergency shelter beds usage declined from 5,163 to 140 bed nights, a 97% decrease and a 95% cost reduction, a reduction of 35% in the total cost of mental health care used by tenants, despite a dramatic 93% increase in contacts. This, along with a 70% reduction in physical health care services, demonstrates a shift away from high-cost emergency and inpatient services and that's for Logan Place 30 efficiency departments same model in Portland that's [23:50] Carolyn Fish: impressive am I correct that only 30 of these would be Bangor area residents that was a question asked previously and that was the answer i believe we got so if there's 30 that would be 10. [24:07] Speaker J (unidentified): the way that people will be offered this opportunity is through coordinated entry and coordinated entry happens for our whole hub seven my understanding is there isn't a percentage that's been allocated it's more that somebody will present through the coordinated entry system if they meet certain criteria area then they'd be offered this resource people who are in the coordinated entry system are people that have had touch points throughout the city with different organizations including our own city outreach they have an assessment done they're scored and other information is collected my understanding is that a person who would be offered the opportunity of this location would meet HUD's definition of homelessness, which means living outside for a significant amount. Typically, people who lose housing [25:07] Susan Faloon: often go through rapid rehousing. [25:09] Speaker J (unidentified): This type of model is built more for someone [25:11] Carollynn Lear: who's been living outside for longer. I understand. [25:14] Carolyn Fish: My concern is we're using Bangor land and we're giving out Bangor tax money. How many Bangor homeless in our Bangor vulnerable community are gonna be helped? [25:27] Speaker J (unidentified): That is, again, a hard number to come down to because in the HMIS system, when you track the zip code of last residence, they could have been in that zip code for maybe 10 days, but they had grown up in Bangor. So it's really hard to actually provide a number on what a Bangor residence. [25:48] Carolyn Fish: I believe when I asked in workshop, a figure of 30% was mentioned when I reviewed the workshop. Other day so I was told, you know, no guarantee but 30 was kind of an expected figure I'm [26:07] Carollynn Lear: not aware of where that 30 came from. He came in the workshop the other day when I asked [26:20] Michael Beck: just to clear my own confusion because the this is the same project we talked about in the business economic development because my understanding for that mean there was four street people I think the quote was these are the people on the streets in Bangor right now so I took that to be a hundred percent being more residents if you will because they're in Bangor I guess I'm looking for clarification is that true or is it the we really don't know and we're shooting for this 30 because that changes everything for me unless [26:51] Carolyn Fish: I have coordinated entry [26:55] Carollynn Lear: Would the would the council like to hear directly from Banger Housing Authority Director Mike Myatt? He's here, he could probably answer some of these questions better. I know everyone [27:17] Speaker L (unidentified): Again, Mike My at Bengal Housing, I think what just to echo on what Ms. Gunderman said, these are folks that are already accessing services at some point already in Bangor, so they've been here for some time, whether they came from another place before I don't know that anyone really knows that right now. I don't know where the 30 number came from as well, but the intent of coordinated entry is better than a first comfort waiting list, so typically I know most of the projects that developers when they do affordable housing it's just you apply and the first one that applies goes first and the second so on so forth that's not the case with Yellen Pines the hub the hub will be able to pick who the residents are that will be moving in based on the highest need and those will be people that are already touching other organizations within Bangor today well [28:14] Wayne Mallar: That brings up an interesting point. I asked some time ago about a listing so we would know how many touch points the work for, you know, each person was getting. We've never seen that yet. So I don't know how they're going to arrive at who's had the most touch points around and which person has been here the law. It seems like we have a lot of loose ends and not much fact on what we're going to be doing with this, and I'm not really impressed, yeah. [28:43] Carollynn Lear: The coordinated, I don't really have to, I mean, I don't have that data. [28:47] Speaker L (unidentified): Maybe I think we've talked a lot about how coordinated entry works and the rating system and Purple Street who can be around to answer those questions a little bit later tonight, but it's a, it's a score of 1 to 16, and professionals that work with folks on the street and suffer from homelessness understand how to rate people based on the highest need, other types of services that they might need, mental health, other types of things going on in their life. The highest, the most neediest person would rate a 16. That's who we're going to target, and though that six, that number 16 person is the highest drain on our police, our ers, our county jails, and that's where the true savings is going to be here. Those that data that we heard about from Pebble Street at Logan Place and those numbers were 20 years ago. You also have some, you know, you added 20 years of inflation to that, and the numbers that I think the Bangor taxpayer will really start to see is those police touches and the other types of things that city services are burdened with, those 30 folks that will no longer be a burden. That's the true value here. [29:59] Wayne Mallar: But we, there's no, I don't have a comparison. I've asked for what it will cost us on an annual basis for the people that are living there extra, and I haven't seen that yet. There's no cost [30:14] Speaker L (unidentified): on the operation. We had this conversation at the workshop last time. You may think we did, but I'm [30:20] Wayne Mallar: not happy with it because I want to know what it's going to cost us for medical services, insurance for them and all this, we're going to be picking up some tabs for the people that are in the facility. Are you telling me that you're covering all their expenses? [30:35] Speaker L (unidentified): I don't know who's going to be there. [30:37] Wayne Mallar: I don't care who's going to be there. It doesn't matter who's going to be there. If there are going to be 30 people there that require services, mental health services, are you going to be paying for that or is the city going to be paying for it? That's what I want to know. [30:51] Speaker L (unidentified): So I guess the only thing I can answer is from an operational standpoint, the city will not help pay the expenses operationally of the project in terms of heat, other utilities. That's the only thing that I can answer. RICHARD LADKANI, I understand. [31:03] Wayne Mallar: That's why I've asked the other question, because the heat and the lights could be irrelevant if the costs for medical services, mental health services, and other services become so astronomical that we can't afford them. And I need to know that before I can say, yes, I think this is a great project. It sounds good but I still don't have the facts. The only thing I can say to answer that is we [31:28] Speaker L (unidentified): have a study that was done by the University of New England after the first year Logan Place emptied or opened sorry and all those costs for the community went down. [31:39] Wayne Mallar: But I need to know what they were and you can't tell me no one's telling me that costs went down does that you know I don't understand what were the costs you must have an idea what the costs were if they if you know they went down and as you said that was 20 years ago what are their costs now it's a you're saying there are no extra costs to Portland for the people that are in the facility now not for the operational which is the only I didn't say operational you don't see I don't care about the operation I want to know about the people that are there are they getting services paid for by the city of Portland if they are not if I want to know I'm going to let me I'd like to [32:18] Speaker L (unidentified): to answer the question if you don't mind. If you've read the report, you'll understand that all those costs went down regardless of who was paying the bill. [32:26] Wayne Mallar: And you'll understand I don't care if they went down. I want to know what they were. I want to know what we're going to be responsible for. And I don't see that you're telling me that. You're saying the costs are going to go down. Well, if I don't know what the costs started with, I don't know what they're going to be when they go down, if they go down. [32:45] Speaker L (unidentified): I don't know what they've started with. I don't know what the police budget is or those types of things. [32:50] Susan Faloon: I can't speak to that. Thank you. I don't know who to direct the question to, but it would seem like if once a client was housed there, that their health care and their mental health care and those sorts of things, it seems like if they didn't already have Main Care or Medicare, that they would get assistance to apply for that once they got in. That would be part of the services. Is that not true? Hi, yes, that is true. So for people's health care, mental [33:27] Speaker J (unidentified): health, they would go through the traditional methods of resources to access a way to pay, whether that's Medicaid or Medicare or private insurance or whatever that would look like. That isn't something that comes from Portland's budget to pay for their medical care. [33:46] Susan Faloon: Thank you. Can I follow up question? And so for other services that may not, and actually maybe they all would be covered by that, but because it seems like substance use disorder and mental health and just regular health care would all kind of be covered under that, so I don't know if there are any other services that would not be covered by health insurance. So it seems like, yeah, those, that would sort of all be taken care of. [34:14] Speaker J (unidentified): And I would even add to that is there are new Main Care policies that are going into place starting January 1st. That's going to require some more paperwork and navigating the system. We are very concerned about a number of people losing their Main Care because of this new system. People who are going to be in Yellen Hines with their support will have people to help them through the system so they don't sort of fall through the cracks and lose their insurance when they still actually qualify. There's no general assistance that will be paying for anyone's housing in that facility. [34:53] Wayne Mallar: Will they be paying, you said no general assistance helping them with payment for their, for their rent? But will it be any other services being paid from general assistance? That's what I'm [35:03] Speaker J (unidentified): trying to find out. Many things that people can get from general assistance including for medications, but whether they're in that location or not, we would be supporting that. If anything, if people found a place to rent, we could actually be paying for their rent in those circumstances. Right, but whenever they qualify for general assistance, whether they're in Yellen Pines or not, they still qualify and we pay for it. But I just [35:28] Wayne Mallar: asked to find out how much that was and I can't seem to get any facts and figures. That's [35:34] Carolyn Fish: Fine, thank you. Absolutely, what role would this city have, even with our public health department and community services? What other, what other facilities or resources or assistance would be needed from City of Bangor in public, our public health community council? [35:57] Speaker D (unidentified): In terms [36:00] Speaker L (unidentified): of, is it okay, but in terms of like someone's rent, their rent is based on their income, so if their income started out, to your point, when they started out they may have less, they have may have more needs, their rent would be zero, so there would be no need to apply to general assistance for those type of things, and the founding legislation in the statute that created Home for Good is sort of getting everyone on to Medicaid as quickly as possible so that the Medicaid budget within cover for all those other services we offer transportation services at Bangor Housing. This, we're actually being asked to do planning to do a sidewalk that would go to the bus service, but that's already a thing that's already in place. I'm trying to think of what other types of things people would ask for from the city. Biggest thing that we see with a lot of our public housing tenants is people need general assistance to help them pay their rent or different things when they get behind, but at Yellen Pines because of the voucher, if their income is zero, they wouldn't have a need to apply for those types of things. I don't have any other specifics in terms of like what like the Bangor city nurses might provide for other types of things. I can't speak to that, I just don't know. [37:18] Carolyn Fish: The Homes for Good and even the Medicare hearing system now, with some rumblings we're hearing with cutbacks, are we, where are we? I mean, are we in a risky position even for the finalization of this project, or even for medical assistance and expansions moving forward, with some of the rumblings going out there about potential [37:47] Speaker L (unidentified): cutbacks? Are you referring to some of the HUD cutbacks for Home for Good? Yeah, because this is not a, this is not a federally funded project, Homes for Good. Yeah, the HUD model is called Housing First, and the HUD secretary has, under the Trump administration, really cut back the Housing First program because it doesn't have the wraparound services. Even the secretary later testified that he had an uncle that benefited very well from a Home for Good type model that did have wraparound services, so it's called home for good in Maine because it's not housing first and we didn't want to have that confusion because here we do have the wraparound services. How are they paid for? They're paid for as part of the real estate transfer tax that was amended in legislation that approved that was approved in 2023. So that portion of real estate transfer taxes of properties that sell all across Maine will first come in the form of capital dollars that will help us build it if we're successful with the TIFF. and then once the project opens that turns toward operational dollars for preble street to do the wraparound services our stuff is paid for by the property by the rents the purple street work is paid for through the real estate transfer tax logan place has been successful for 20 years on this model future legislations may do different things but the way we've got it set up is you know is that 's what would pay for those services going forward for the other four projects in the cohort as well as Those that are willing to do a second round and I'm not sure we're there yet on a second round so. [39:32] Susan Deane: Gene if the TIFF district and the credit enhancement agreement do not pass what would be the success rate of you going forward with this project? Zero. No other funding that you can think of that would propel this at that point I think. [39:48] Speaker L (unidentified): we would get a pretty strong message from the council that the project's not wanted in bangor we pull it and i'm sure main housing would pull their money and give it to a community that wants to do it awesome [40:05] Michael Beck: At this point I would like to hear a recommendation from staff as far as two choices based on the answer I just heard. We have two choices yes or no on this. We say no this project doesn't happen. Does the city come out better financially saying yes or no knowing the cost for these individuals we're already paying right now to service these individuals? I just want to know which way does the city come out better financially yes on this project or no on this project. [40:39] Speaker D (unidentified): So. [40:42] Carollynn Lear: i think i would pause on not to be that person and pause on the question of financial benefit i think where my brain goes first is we are a city in search of solutions and i think this is a solution that is being offered that there is experience with in another main city and the people before us are reporting that it works I think the problem that we're trying to address out on the streets, perhaps supersedes costs, and doing nothing doesn't feel like a good option. [41:28] Michael Beck: Just to follow up on that, because the reason I bring that up, because as much has been made about the savings. And I guess when I hear savings, I hear, I think that accumulates, and like, okay, well, this is an investment we're going to get a return on investment. Is morally, I'm for the project, like I want to see people help. and i would i know it's cheaper to have someone in support of housing than it is jail and if it's not jail they're gonna die and i 'm not for that these are bengal residents these are my neighbors this is our community but i'm looking for any other silver lining that i can get others to a yes as much has been made about who's going to pay for this and what about that and they're going to need this and all that those are valid questions but at the same time you know this is what's in front of us now. And this is 30 individuals off of Bangor streets and onto something better, whether it's this permanently or, you know what, God willing, that they're able to somehow turn it completely around and graduate to something else. But I'm just looking for any silver lining in this, in addition to helping people, of just, now we don't have to pay for fire calls and police calls and all the other touches that the city has to do, you know, if we're just comparing apples to apples, you know, what's better, the given up tax money through the TIF or the ongoing money that we're going to keep on shelling out for call after call for colleges or the de facto health care or the, you know, where the rides to appointments and you name it, so that's what I'm just kind of, I'm grasping for here. Just [43:06] Susan Hawes: one second. Could you have a response to that before I move on with this? [43:11] Carollynn Lear: Yeah, I mean, if I might, I think that there are certainly conversations to be had about the cost of someone living on the street and the services that we're providing them versus the cost that we would incur when that person no longer is going to the ER several times a week for care. I think that is an important conversation to have. Additionally, I think the conversation we haven't had is the impact that homelessness has on things like property values and economic development and the willingness of people to move to our city, work in our city. And those are important costs too, and they're pretty hard to quantify, but I think they're undoubtedly huge costs when a business reports that they don't want to move here because we have a homelessness crisis or that they can't hire employees to come to the city and [44:01] Speaker D (unidentified): Work because of the homelessness crisis. Okay, that was Joe. Was next, didn't Joe ask you do [44:11] Joseph Leonard: you have a question now or is this a comment? Oh, I mean, I feel like we were making some statements going into that, you know, direction, so I'd like to, I recall when I was first on council, we had an issue regarding the amount of or the lack of services that the city was providing, that eventually that solution was true from us, so there were a lot of conversations that this council had that basically kept going back towards not doing anything. I was more so in favor of the idea of us, the council, actually creating an in-house solution because we would control those employees, we would control the program itself, and it would either be at the same cost as StreetPlus, if not cheaper. But both of that and the idea of StreetPlus us were consistently rejected. We played this whack-a-mole game for years,. And eventually, what came out of it is, unfortunately, and I thank Councilor Fish and Councilor Deane for this, you two were a big push to actually making sure that we got that program finally forward. It wasn't my ideal program, but those services were desperately needed by community members, and we consistently, at least I hear it, we, I consistently hear people being very thankful for that program now. Do I think we should probably adopt that program into the city's overall functions? Yes, I do think we should have our own ambassador program personally, but that's neither here or there. The reason why I bring this up, it's because for almost four years we did nothing, in the problems that were addressed by StreetPlus festered, and that cost money, that cost economic productivity, and that also made more 911 calls going to those specific individuals that now StreetPlus was able to resolve a lot of those 911 calls, and what I see through this program is this directly addresses the most compoundly impacted of those that are on the poverty spectrum. The people that utilize 911 services and emergency health services the most, which when statistically shown across the country, someone who is compoundly homeless for a period of five plus years can rack up a bill sometimes getting up into the seven figures, individually speaking. That right there, getting that person who is five plus years on house, putting a roof over their head, it's literally cheaper than continuing to do what we're doing right now. I know mr. Maya, you brought up that New England study, but there are countless of other studies that are confirmed that singular society that they couldn't brought on. And for me in particular, the winning argument for me is the reduction of nine 911 calls. We have the hardest working police department and fire department in this entire state per capita. I'm not trying to glaze either. They literally are. We have two of the top three busiest firefighter teams in the entire state. Thankfully, we just green greenlit eight new EMS firefighters to get back on board to hopefully reduce that, so they're not as busy. But that's my point at the end of the day. You can't put a price tag on a 911 call that saves someone's life. You can't put a price tag on a 911 call that prevents another police officer from responding to a crime that means life or death. I think we owe it to our community. And by the way, all those 911 calls, they respond to people that are in the vicinity in Bangor. So those are 911 calls that are already happening, regardless if those 911 calls are addressing Bangor residents or non-Bangor residents. I think it's important to understand that we are not going to tell people that don't live in Bangor that they can't call 911 and have our police department or our fire department system. I think that would be a little bit ridiculous. And I think the same case can be made for our economic woes when it comes to the poverty spectrum this year. These things cost us money. They cost the taxpayers money. And in regards to the emergency services, these are preventable issues that can be mitigated by not having them consistently go into the emergency room over and over and over again, because there are some people that don't have preventable illnesses that can't be put off from going into emergency rooms, they're going to be specialist. So I understand the concerns that taxpayers have regarding the price tag, but for me, when I consider all the studies, when I consider all the statistics, when I consider all the other different models of how we address this problem, I go back to why I brought the street plus issue. What is our other option? If the other option is to do nothing, yeah, I'm not in favor of that. I'm not in favor of that. We either do nothing or we actually are part of the solution. We have two options, one is solution based, one is continue to do nothing. Apathy is death, that's all I say. [50:06] Susan Hawes: Let's start with Mike, and then Council Fluke, Council Fish, and we have both. [50:12] Speaker L (unidentified): That's fine. I just wanted to respond to Councilor Beck quickly. I guess if this is called the server lining, I'm not sure, but all of the other home for good projects have credit enhancements or TIFs as well as other public dollars. Auburn, for example, contributed $2 million to their project to make that work. We're not asking for that stuff. We know that 's not going to happen. So wanted to point that out as well. [50:42] Susan Faloon: Councilor Leonard said some of what I was going to say. I just was going to add that our firefighters and our police officers are already burned out. And this would be reduced stress and burnout on them. So I think that would be huge, especially right now where we have, you know, where we're down some officers and I just lost the other thing, so I guess that's it. So vicious, you know, in a perfect world [51:14] Carolyn Fish: I would be excited about this, but I just, we have done a lot. I don't think we've done nothing when I know the last two or three years on council how many hours and times and monies and grants we've applied for and partnerships that we've done, that we have tried very hard. Unfortunately, the efforts we've made don't show a positive effect out on the street. I'm just afraid that for 30 individuals, when we're not plugging the dam of the influx of the homeless, we're talking about 30 people, we're giving up land and potentially 30 or 40 million dollars of the future in packs to combat for 30 individuals that we can't guarantee are going to be ours. And even if they are our individuals that we bring off the street today, we're not making any effort to address the influx of the people that are coming here every day by one-way tickets and communities that are not coming to the table. Hub 7 is not coming to the table. Our partners are not coming to the table, and we have the homeless committee where I'm very happy to see that we do have some participating members that are from some of these partnership companies that I'm talking about, but I just feel that again we're giving away, when the taxpayers come in and they say all that you're doing, the time that you're spending, the resources of the city that belongs to the taxpayers, that we're giving up for less than one percent of our community, and we don't even know how many of them are really from our community, and now we're sitting here to make a Decision out of again compassion and hopefulness, but I don't feel very hopeful when we're not addressing the flood of people coming here every day from God knows where, and no partners have been able to help us address that issue. So we're going to again make a decision to give up valuable company land, city land, millions of dollars, that I understand the project we want to succeed, sounds great, I'd love to have it, but I see the decisions we've made, I see the partners not coming to the table, I see the real issue of drug dealers on our street and the substance abuse and mental health issues we have and the influx of people coming every day and that's not stopping it. I just think that this is going to be a decision in a year or two or three or four or five, but the problem is going to be just as big, if not bigger, and we're going to be less six acres and $40 million worth of tax money. [53:43] Speaker D (unidentified): And that's all I have to say. [53:46] Susan Hawes: Council Carson, and then the rest of the group. [53:50] Daniel Carson: Yeah, I have my own, I think, series of questions, but I've reviewed some of them before. For me, and this is where I'm struggling, the wraparound services is the thing that we need. The nightmare that I've lived the last eight years where I am would have been solved eight years ago if this was the project that existed, you know, where I am. And that's just not what's existed. And I think about for someone to score a 16, how long they've been outside, I mean, these probably represent the most challenging cases that we have and people who are extremely difficult to house people who have lived outside have developed an extremely specific skill set to do that but also I think represent the experience not just their experiences but represent probably the 30 most challenging cases that we hear about every two weeks during public comment needles that are everywhere and Vandalism and you know all the other things that people are coming in for the whole population that's outside not everybody is engaged in those things it's like the most challenging cases that are out there and so I you know I really I want this to be a successful project because I think that really can make a huge impact I'm sensitive to counselor Fish's argument about people continuing to come I think we need to be better as a city of partnering with our you know with our region and coming up With a system, we've presented some good ideas about how to build a system like that, you know, to really, I think, keep track of that, because I, that's a concern that I do have. This, we don't have endless land, we don't have endless money, and it's not, you know, so today it's 30 people, but 30 people will get off the bus here in the next 30 days, and in the 30 days after that, 30 more people, and some of those cases are going to be extremely challenging. And so we are going to house 30k, and I do think that 's the good, the right thing to do. Like, I'm, again, I'm for that, but in a few months we may be back with the increase where we were, and so then what do we do? And so I'm struggling, I struggle with that piece. We have this homeless committee that's just launched, I really want to let them do their work. I think every time we as a council make a decision before they've arrived at a plan, we sort of hurt their ability to make a plan. And so I, you know, I struggle there too. And then the other pieces that I struggle with are when we've talked about them before, they're mostly in the, you know, related to what happens after 30 years, right? I mean, this could just sell to a nonprofit, and then there we are tax-free for, you know, until the cows come home. And so I think, you know, we still have time and space until this would break ground. I think things can be changed. Probably this evening, I would be interested in moving forward on the questions, but I'm not done. Like, I don't have all of my questions answered. And so I think one thing that I may not say here is that when the credit enhancement agreement comes up, I am gonna make a motion to amend that by substitution. So I think some of the concerns that were raised, particularly about what happens after 30 years with city land or the potential of tax loss, can be solved with three words,, which are and place conditions upon. Because right now that credit enhancement agreement doesn't actually have language that would allow us to change the conditions under which we execute it. So at least those things would change or answer some of the concerns that I have. [57:52] Susan Hawes: We do need to sort of wrap this piece up as far as questions is one thing, but we don't want to debate them here we've got these executive sessions that we need to get into and we are at 6 13. so did you have a question i had a comment so and i think you raised a really important point in that we don't have we're proposing a credit enhancement agreement in that agreement can be stipulations, because when we give benefit, we need to be stewards of the benefit that we give. And so even with the selling of the land, we have options there where we can put deeded restrictions on that land, as well as the credit enhancement agreement, right? We're offering 75% of tax reimbursement based on the following stipulations. And now that we have a homeless committee, those people around that table can offer those stipulations. So, while Preble Street is the operator or will be the operator, they have their own objectives, and because we are contributors and we're stakeholders in this and investors, we can have beyond their own objectives so that at any time, this is not a deal and end deal, right? At any time where those particulars are not being met and we don't see success in the vision that we want to see success, we have every right to step back. And I just wanted to make sure that everyone knew that there are options here. Right, it's not like we're in it, we say yes and it's 30 years and that's a done deal. No, there's options. And as mentioned, right, like we are investing and we have every right to be able to manage it in the way that we see fit, in the way that we see it to be successful. [59:43] Susan Faloon: Thank you. Quick comment. A comment or a question? Okay, I keep hearing that like this is an investment in like 30 people, but I think it's more of an investment in our community, and it's solving an issue that we've been trying to solve. So I don't think we should focus on that it's just for these 30 people, because the entire community benefits from it. Okay with that? [1:00:07] Susan Hawes: There's no burning questions that's going to keep people traveling here. We need to move on. [1:00:16] Speaker D (unidentified): We need to do a second assessment. We're chair pursuant to one MRSA section 4056E. [1:00:23] Daniel Carson: Consultation with the solicitor regarding the rights and duties of the council for the KRT appraisal read assessment contract and one of our state section 4056A personnel matter and M pursuant to one MRS, one MRSA section 4056C acquisition of real property or economic. [1:00:44] Speaker D (unidentified): Development and locally in terms of use. Second, it's been moved in the second. [1:00:52] Susan Hawes: Objections to questions, but you need a roll call. Council Letter? Yes. Council Dean? Yes. Council the Parking? Yes. Yes.