Speakers labeled via automated voice-based diarization + AI name-matching against the city's official roster. Automated transcription can still mis-hear a name during fast speech (e.g. a rapid roll-call vote) -- clear near-misses are auto-corrected, but this is not manually verified line-by-line. Treat names as a strong best guess, not an official record.
[0:05] Joseph Leonard: For your life, okay, thank you. Good evening everyone. Welcome to another regularly scheduled meeting of the business economic development committee. I am the chair of this committee, counselor Leonard Other Counts. Before I start off, 1 of our council members, counselor Carson, is not available today. So I'm going to ask counselor Back, if you wouldn't mind jumping in to cover his committee chair position. Thank you. Okay, so around the table for committee members, we have counselors Fish, Beck, Balloon, there you are, and if counselor Maller is on, you will also be part of the committee as well. We also have around the table counselors Walker, counselor Dean, we also have playing officer on your Colette, and we also have a business and community and economic director and Creek to join us as well. Before we get started, I do want to let this committee know that I do want to change up the way that we do committee structures and conversations just to have a much more feasible conversation. So the way that I want to try to have this committee function is if there are any questions, please direct them toward me, and then if there is a question asked of another staff member or another counselor, I will then be a conduit for that question, and I want to do that just to make sure that we can tame our energies as much as possible while also respecting each other. Does that make sense? Okay. So with that said, please don't worry if it screws up this time. It's the first time we'll be doing this. I think we'll get better as we get along with this. Anyway, so our first item is going to be Historic Preservation Code amendments. Anya, would you like to take it away? Sure thing.
[2:09] Unidentified speaker (Historic Preservation Commission staff): So we came to you in February to review some initial changes, initial proposed changes to the Historic Preservation Ordinance based on feedback we had received previously and a workshop that was had with the HPC and the public in October, and based on further workshops with the Commission as well as feedback from our legal staff and the main Historic Preservation Commission, we made a few changes to those, and those were to add some more information for applications when people submit those to us. Also adding a definition of a character defining future for historic structure. It is hard to define what a character fighting future is just because it varies from structure and district to district. There are, you know, guidelines online for how to determine those from the National Park Service, but we did just, you know, do the best we could with that definition, and our plan is to have workshops with the commission over the summer to look at the different districts and sites and determine what are the specific character defining features for those districts and structures, so that when we do the second round of changes we can really flush those out in the ordinance. But this first round of ordinance changes is really just to kind of deal with some of the more problematic things that have come up over time and get those out of the way. Additional changes were to keep commercial communication devices like cell phone towers and things like that as needing a certificate of appropriateness because the commission determined that to have a larger impact than a home communication device, which would just be minor revision, and then for replacement materials, based on feedback from the main preservation commission, we did add that replacement of materials should be guided by the National Preservation Brief on that, and then also adding some flexibility to the demolition provisions because it came to our attention that no matter what, you know, no matter the circumstance, the commission is required to delay a demolition, which didn't really make sense, so we're just proposing to make that optional instead, and then also we provided some specific examples of the type of evidence that can be presented for hardship and providing additional stipulations on that, and that was a request from the Historic Preservation Commission. And we did use examples from other communities like Portland have done for that. And so I did just want to touch on the materials piece of it. I know that's been a sticking point. So we did take the wording from the Secretary of Interior guidelines for that piece of it. But then we added on that, should be done. Replacing materials should be done when technically and economically feasible to add that flexibility. And even the Secretary says, in all cases, you should determine technical and economic feasibility. We just wanted to be extra clear in that case. And the Maine Historic Preservation Commission did say that we really should stick as much as possible to those Secretary of Interior guidelines with these standards in order to maintain our certified local government status. And I also, I feel that the new wording does provide more flexibility over the original because the old did talk about new features should match the olden composition, which basically means it must match in the same exact material. And so that combined with the technical economic feasibility, I felt really added flexibility to that standard.
[5:52] Unidentified speaker (Public commenter): So I'm happy to take any questions.
[5:53] Joseph Leonard: Questions or comments? Yes.
[5:58] Michael Beck: Counselor, yeah, the question I have is just looking for like how would it apply to an example. Now obviously we're all, we're well aware of the slave resistful, you know, situation that came up recently, being that the material looks like slate but isn't quite slate. Does this give the flexibility to be able to make the determination, yes, go ahead and use the asphalt sort of the slate?
[6:25] Joseph Leonard: Officer Collette, is that a question transparent for you?
[6:29] Unidentified speaker (Historic Preservation Commission staff): Yeah, I mean, I'm not the Commission, so I can't, you know, say that, but I do feel like with this, you know, we're taking out some of the wording like, again, composition and adding in adjectives like color instead. And I do feel like, and then adding in that economically and technically feasible piece he does give the commission kind of a way to say, you know, in certain cases, it's not feasible to use slate instead, and maybe we can't use asphalt. So I do feel like it gives them more flexibility.
[7:03] Joseph Leonard: Did that fully answer your question? Absolutely. Any other questions or comments at this time? If there are none, I have nothing further to add. Unless staff, if you have anything else that you'd like to add. If none, I'm not seeing Councilor maller on so i would be looking for a motion on this item you all i don't know if you're taking public comments but there might be someone oh i 'm sorry okay do we have anyone who would like to speak on this item i will allow you to do public comments or absolutely let me just make sure no it doesn't oh thank you thank you courtney hey my
[7:51] Rick Violet (Public commenter): name is rick violet i'm a general contractor here in bangor and i also happen to be a part owner of a building that's in the broadway historic district and i also worked with steve farron who was the one who had the issue with the roof. I commend the Historic Preservation Commission for making an attempt to make the ordinance clearer. The historic property owners that I've met with and who I've worked with over the last year don't feel that 's being accomplished by these ordinance changes. Changes. First of all, there had been a requirement that the materials replacing previous materials had to match in composition. Now it says they have to match in opposition. It doesn't choose me, doesn't say composition, it says it's the right page, says they have to match materials when technically and economically feasible. There isn't any definition of what technically and economically feasible means, which means that if, based on that standard, the Commission decides you need to replace a slate roof with a slate roof, then the applicant gets bumped into trying to prove hardship rather than knowing in advance whether something is technically feasible. That's one issue that we have. The main problem that we keep running into, and whether it's slate roofs or windows, is that we can't tell when we read the ordinance when somebody is going to be required to replace slate with slate or a wooden window with a wooden window. We presented both to the Commission and to the Council sometime, I think, last fall some proposed amendments that our group of property owners has worked on, basically saying if it matches in looks, if you from the street it looks the same after the change as before the proposed change, then the materials should be acceptable. What we're up against every time we raise that issue and say, look at the times that you have allowed slate to be replaced with asphalt, slate to be replaced with metal, slate to be replaced with some other product. Why doesn't that set a standard for what is allowed? Well, we don't have precedent. The fact that we decided something this way on five other occasions doesn't mean we have to on this next occasion. That doesn't make sense when we try to read an ordinance and try to figure out what somebody is required to do when they come before the commission for approval. I asked recently when we were before the Commission regarding windows, we were told, well, you better be prepared in case they want the wood windows replaced with wood windows, even though on many occasions they have approved final windows that look the same from the street as the wooden windows. And my question to the commission was, how do we know what, how are we supposed to know when final replacement windows, and I don't use that in a pejorative sense, that I'm not talking a standard replacement window that you would pick up at Lowe's or Home Depot, I'm talking about a window that would look in all respects like the window being replaced twice, and I was told, well, it has to do with whether it's a character defining feature. Look in the ordinance, read the ordinance, and tell me how I can tell whether something on my property is a character defining feature. I can't. I've looked through National Park Service Brief 17. I still can't tell unless I'm looking at pictures. That's that's what that's what they use to determine character defining features. We were told that, well, we've incorporated something new in that once you've submitted an application we meet with the consultant Mike Pullen to find out what his recommendations are going to be and what's going to be required. First of all, there's nothing in the ordinance that allows Mike to decide what is and what is not a character defining feature. Secondly, I don't think owners of historic properties ought to be required to go to the expense of doing an application, providing all of the information that is required of the ordinance, and have to wait until a week or two before a meeting with the commission to meet with Mike Pullen to be able to know whether Mike decides that these windows are important enough they've got to be wood, the rest of them can be, can be vinyl. I don't think that these proposed amendments are doing that. We have proposed to the council and to the commission, and I don't know whether you, I think there's been an election since we presented this stuff to the council, some of you were probably on the council and received what we presented at a meeting several months ago. I have a couple of copies, I don't have enough for everybody here. I also have a couple of memos that outline our concerns. Those are two different memos, by the way. Again, we weren't, I wasn't sure how many were going to be here. And I know Andrew and Ann already have copies. It's our position as owners of historic properties, that more work needs to be done on the ordinance. And that the stakeholders and I understand the city's a stakeholder but so are those of us who are trying to maintain our properties need to be invited, need to be involved and need to be listened to thank
[15:51] Joseph Leonard: you thank you very much sir I very much appreciate your clarifying word because a I do, I do have a question about a term we kept using which was a character is that an appropriate question to ask you regarding how we can make it clear to people about what is a
[16:18] Unidentified speaker (Historic Preservation Commission staff): character trait yeah and that's what I was getting at earlier I know that it's difficult to determine what a character design in the future is and that's why I had proposed to go to the commission and do workshops this summer to talk about what those are for each district and site because it's going to be a lot of work because it is because it's hard to determine and Mike Olin we relied on him our advisory consultant officially relied on him to provide that because he's an expert in architecture and of Bangor's historic districts and sites and so the commission relies on him to really give that guidance and that is why I had started at proposing to do pre-application meetings with people and Mike Pullen before commission meetings when they do propose more major projects so that we can get Mike's expertise beforehand and kind of work through any issues with them go over character defining features and things like that I do think it's been beneficial for people and actually Steve Theron's window project was approved and I think the guidance from Mike Pullen at that pre-application meeting did help but yes it's just going to be a long process to really better define what those features are and I you know I probably won't even be able to work on the second round of ordnance updates till this fall but I just you know I was trying to really get through some of the easier changes with this and then do the second round later so there's that I do understand
[17:49] Joseph Leonard: understand the logic behind that because I know there's only so much that we can do in a short period of time and I will be interested to hear how everything goes on during the summer regarding the future change that we that you guys will be working out and did
[18:07] Unidentified speaker (Historic Preservation Commission staff): You have something you want to say. National Park Service does define character defining features as, you know, things like overall shape and massing, materials, craftsmanship, like for example, like a post on a porch on a Greek Revival has limited meaning, but on a bungalow it has, you know, a lot more meaning because it's part of that craftsmanship and that style of home. So I think this district by district analysis is going to be very helpful because there are dominant features in each district that are in some cases very different from each other.
[18:52] Joseph Leonard: Okay, so from what I'm hearing, I think we're still going to want to go forward with these changes as is right now. I see this as like a stepping stone for how we're going to go about a lot of these issues that you guys are seeing into the future. I would like to see this again at some point in VED just to get a further update on this. And if there are any other questions from similar minded citizens, I do want to make sure that there's an open communication between those two entities as well. Does that make sense? Or any questions about that? I
[19:40] Unidentified speaker (Historic Preservation Commission staff): don't have any. I know he has another question.
[19:44] Joseph Leonard: Okay, well I do want to give counselor Fish to your floor. Thank you. I was wondering
[19:50] Carolyn Fish: if we might not be able to see, it's been months, I know we did get the email with the suggested ordinances or some recommendations, and having, probably my error, but it would have been nice if I had thought of that earlier to be able to compare what the stakeholders, I do have these, I don't know that we don't have what was sent in November, just to be able to compare what, you know, what this ordinance may have addressed from original suggestions to what we might still be lacking, you know, so
[20:29] Unidentified speaker (City staff): I'll give you the copies that I have.
[20:32] Unidentified speaker (Historic Preservation Commission staff): Can we send it to the full committee as the chair wants?
[20:35] Joseph Leonard: If that would, I'm sorry, did you have the rest of your question to ask?
[20:42] Carolyn Fish: So my point was perhaps we can elaborate as to if these amendments, where I don't have the luxury of time to be able to, you know, hear directly, either maybe table this decision, do we have a chance to look at these and compare, or maybe you can specifically address some of the concerns presented in November and how they are addressed now and what may not still be addressed that we can continue to work on. Did I make that question? Yes you did, so
[21:19] Joseph Leonard: Before you respond to your question, if you can continue to elaborate, I'd be happy to. In addition to that, would you see an issue tabling this to a future VED date, or is this a time-sensitive?
[21:35] Unidentified speaker (Historic Preservation Commission staff): It's not exactly time-sensitive, there's just, you know, one of the major issues that has come up with the current ordinance is that it requires an affirmative vote by four members to approve the certificate of greatness and we often struggle to get you know four people to come to the meeting and so and that actually had posed an issue for the parents project quite a few times so that was but you know it's not been dealing with that for years so we can
[22:08] Joseph Leonard: deal with it a little longer so we would wholeheartedly excuse me sir i'm really sorry so it is those have been issues multiple times with this committee and so it is my understanding that just based on that alone this is something that i would like to see passed i mean, I am hearing your concerns and your concerns do not get me wrong, but I also want to make sure that this committee is functional and is able to actually respond to things in a orderly and timely fashion as well. I guess one thing I would ask staff is, do you see a way that, did you see the entirety of this ordinance to be recommended to pass in full or could we partially move some things forward in order to help with the committee's just overall
[23:12] Unidentified speaker (Historic Preservation Commission staff): bureaucracy yeah I mean it hasn't started the formal process so we could just revise the ordinance and then send that through if you wanted to just have that be for the number of members that need it their certificate we just make it that change
[23:29] Joseph Leonard: for now so I just want to direct a question back to you council official would that would
[23:36] Carolyn Fish: that settle something because that seems to be mutually agreed from the public and from all the parties that 's been a problem so if we could resolve that issue right away and then table the rest of it until we have a chance to just digest everything and maybe be able to direct
[23:53] Joseph Leonard: more questions in between now and coming back okay so i guess a general question is with that amendment are there any issues with staff or other fellow counselors about that amended change to this are there any further questions or discussions that this committee would like to have on this matter.
[24:19] Michael Beck: Yes, Councilor Beck. I guess the question I'm just trying to determine both from public comment and this is that the amendments that they're making are wrong or they're just not good enough now. It's just not objective enough. I'm also wondering if it makes sense if this is solving some problems and then there's more work to be done, we can come back again and further amend it. I just don't know what we're leaving off the table that being you know rectified in the short term by this that we're not rectifying by not passing it that makes sense and then of course of the idea that we're going to come back with more feedback and everything else for further amendments that's on my question that's my
[25:00] Joseph Leonard: question if that's clarifying for you but before you respond depending on your answer We could also table this to, if need be, a special BED workshop before Council this coming Monday. I'm open to that as well if we want to have a longer conversation about this. But what would be your answer to Councilor Beck's questions, if you remember?
[25:27] Unidentified speaker (Historic Preservation Commission staff): Sorry, I'm not quite understanding the question.
[25:30] Michael Beck: sure the question i'm asking is you know people who are investing in these properties they're looking for some more versus you know taking rolling the dice with the commission on some of this stuff you know and i'm just wondering if you know the changes that are made to this point obviously they're alleviating some of the issues that have come up to this point Does it make sense to pass this as a starting point and then come back and then amend it further as more workshops or add more feedbacks collected to try to fine tune some of that objectivity that they're looking for?
[26:13] Unidentified speaker (Historic Preservation Commission staff): Well, I guess number one, I would say we're planning to do that anyway with round two of the ordinance updates we're planning again to better define character defining features based on district and site and then add guidelines for like new construction and things like that in the historic districts you know i will also say and i don't have the proposed ordinance amendments in front of me i can just kind of just going off the discussion that was had with commission about those, some of the proposed amendments there actually, in some ways, make things more subjective. And then also, adding objectivity, as far as the technical and economic feasibility, I looked extensively into that. And there's really, there's not a good way to define economic technical feasibility that doesn't tie the hands of the Commission and really the applicants, because every situation is different. And so you could define it and then somebody comes along and they have a new situation that's valid, but because we've defined it a certain way they don't meet that guideline anymore. And so in some cases, and that's why I think some subjectivity is necessary, because it allows flexibility for the variety of situations that might come up. So I think we just have to be careful with that. And I don't know if Ann, you have anything. Well, I was just going to point to the committee. There is a list of examples of evidence, you know, when there is an extenuating circumstance that was not in here before, that includes things like an appraisal availability. I mean, we know that the availability of artisans that do a lot of this type of work or view and bar between in Maine, you know, so there's recognition of that in here that wasn't there before. That's in this post language. So I mean, I do think it does address a lot of the issues
[28:20] Joseph Leonard: that have come up recently. If, I may, that was my initial read of this. I do hear that the concerns that Counselor Fish has brought out. I would rather evolve this committee and evolve these problems that we have toward a path of progress more than hinder for the sake of being cautious, in terms of like how we get toward a better place of how to deal with these issues in the future. I, unless this committee sees otherwise, the way I see it, I would want to see this recommended by this committee as is, but if there is enough committee members who want to see this amended, of course you are welcome to propose that amended version as well. But if it were up to me, I would want to see this proceed forward as is. Are there any further comments, questions, or discussions that this committee wants to have at this point? See none. I would entertain any motion at this time. Move
[29:43] Michael Beck: to send the full recommendation answers
[29:46] Joseph Leonard: to the recommendation answers to full council. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Move and seconded. We will do a roll call vote. Counselor Beck, yes. Counselor Fish. Counselor Faloon, yes. Counselor Maller, no. And I will be a yes. That will be three to two. This will move on. Next is going to be the solar feasibility report, and is this going to be
[30:42] Unidentified speaker (Historic Preservation Commission staff): Amelia Mooney is our sustainability intern. She's a recent grad at UMaine, and since she's been working with us, she's been working very hard on the solar feasibility report that's in your packets to look at the potential for solar on all city rooftops. And she also looked at some of our parking lots, really just to see what the capacity was and also what would the potential cost savings be. We did exclude the airport buildings just because there were concerns about FAA requirements and things like that, but we pretty much included every other type of city building. So with that, I'm going to hand it over to Milia to make a presentation.
[31:21] Unidentified speaker (Study presenter): Hi everyone, thanks for having me and for your introduction. So as Anya said, the study involved city owned buildings that contain these operations, and the analysis included looking at annual electricity use as well as costs and the potential to have rooftop solar arrays on the buildings that were analyzed and the costs and benefits of doing so. The reason why we did this study is because energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction is important at both local, regional, and state levels. Both the state and the Penobscot Climate Action Legion both have goals in their climate action plans for both increased energy efficiency from renewable resources as well as reducing greenhouse gases, and the city of Bangor as a part of both of these can influence the potential for working towards those goals. Rooftop solar is one way we can work towards improving energy efficiency. And with a lot of municipal buildings in Bangor having underutilized rooftop area, there's potential to implement rooftop solar arrays to offset the electricity needs at those locations. So to get into some specifics, the study involved 22 buildings, all owned by Bangor. And for each of these, we looked at recent utilities bills, and we're able to come up with an estimate of the average annual energy use and average annual energy costs. To estimate the solar potential, we use a online calculator called PD Watts. This was created by the National Laboratory of the Rockies, and what it allows me to do is look at these buildings from an above view, like on Google Maps, and you can trace the rooftop area, and using that information it will tell you how much energy could be potentially generated at that site. So we use that to get a general estimate of energy production at each building, and then other calculations we're based on information from online solar energy resources. So across all 22 locations we found That they were using about 9.4 million kilowatt hours annually is about the equivalent of 562 gas-powered cars on the road for one year. So across these buildings with that energy consumption and under the prior electricity rate, it was costing about $1.5 million a year and having a greenhouse gas emissions of about 2,300 metric tons of carbon dioxide every year. So across these 22 locations, there were six found to be most feasible for rooftop solar, considering their estimated payback period under the prior electric rate. With the recommended installations at these six locations, which I'll mention in just a moment, there's a potential to offset 33% of their combined electricity needs and 26% of their carbon dioxide emissions. So these six locations are fire station number six at 11 Griffin Road, the Abbott Square parking lot, city fleet maintenance, the golf course clubhouse, one of the buildings leased by the community and economic development department at 39 Florida Avenue, as well as one of the water treatment pump stations. I do want to mention that the estimates that led to selecting these locations specifically were made using prior electric bills for which each building was paying a different electric rate. The overall cost for those estimates was higher, and thus the expected savings from implementing solar was also higher. Under a new electric rate though, the city is now going to be paying a fixed electricity rate for the next 18 months. It is going to be lower, so the amount that the city is going to be paying for electricity is going to be lower, but the estimated savings from implementing rooftop solar won't be as much as we estimated before. So just to give a few specifics for those buildings, our prior electricity estimate was around, or the electric cost for those six buildings was around 175,000, but under the fixed electric rate it'll be looking more like sixty thousand dollars. And then in terms of annual savings before it was looking like seventy thousand for implementing solar, but with the new electric rate it'll be looking more like twenty thousand dollars a year. So what does this mean? Under the prior electricity rate, we expected a higher savings, and this would have had a lower payback period for these installations, but since the estimated savings is now going to be lower, that means that the estimated payback period for these installations is going to be a lot greater. So it's not really providing as much of an economic benefit to the city to do rooftop solar at this time, unless the city is able to access outside funding of some form in the future. If a new contract is negotiated and the electric rate is then higher, it might then be beneficial for the city to pursue rooftop solar. And if it's, if that's the case, then those six locations identified by the analysis are the ones that we recommend be prioritized in terms of financing. Other municipalities have received community action grants for rooftop solar installations. Mount Desert is one of these towns. They have rooftop solar installations on their town garage, the wastewater treatment plant, as well as their fire station. And this is helpful to offset a large portion of their electricity needs at these locations. Bangor has also previously received a community action grant, and there's a potential for Bangor to pursue one focused on solar in the future. Recent rounds of the community action grant have been up to 75,000, which would be more than enough to cover the estimated costs of the installations proposed by this analysis. If fully covered by a community action grant, the payback period of the installations would then be zero, and the city would then be seeing immediate cost benefits from those installations. There are other options to financing solar arrays. Some municipalities have gone with direct ownership, and this would require having the upfront, or the amount to pay the upfront cost right away. Other municipalities have also done power purchase agreements. This would involve working with a third party to install and maintain the array, and the city would pay a fixed electric rate over a longer period of time and wouldn't have that high upfront cost. So there's some different financing options to consider for rooftop solar. I did want to feature a few of the six buildings just to give you guys a little bit more detail about those. So one of those was fire station number six. At this location, the proposed installation would be 14 kilowatts and would cover the, would cover 24 of the building's current electricity use for about 55,000 as an upfront cost. And so this would be completely covered by one of the community action grants if the city were to receive one of those, and then the rest of the money could go to another potential installation. Another one of the buildings was the one leased by the community and economic development department at 39 Florida Avenue. A 10 kilowatt installation at this location would completely cover the location's electricity needs for an upfront cost of $38,000. So a little less than the one at the fire department and or at that fire station and would completely cover the needs at that location. So across both these two, there's an estimated savings of $3,300 a year or around $100,000 over the expected lifetimes of both of those systems. So just to wrap up what I've presented to you all, the results weren't what we expected and hoped for because rooftop solar is a pretty exciting thing and definitely has the potential to reduce emissions and have savings if the payback period is within a reasonable range. However, with the estimated savings that we estimated, it's not looking like at this time rooftop solar is going to be something that will be economically beneficial. But the buildings that we did identify definitely have the potential to inform the city's approach to solar implementation if it does become feasible in the future. For now, it may be more beneficial for the city to focus on other methods to improve energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions. If the city is looking to support solar in another way, community solar might be an option to look into. Some of the schools are currently participating in community solar, and so through that sort of opportunity we wouldn't have solar installations directly on municipal buildings, but instead we'd partner with a local community solar farm and we would get the benefits of the energy production there and this would offset our electricity costs. Instead, lastly, projects feasible now might not, they might be feasible in the future if the electric rate is to change under a new contract. So if that electric rate is to go up in the future and solar becomes more beneficial, then we recommend that those six locations, as mentioned, be ones that are prioritized.
[42:19] Joseph Leonard: Thank you, and great job, by the way. I was also shocked to see that we wouldn't be saving nearly as much money as I thought. Of thought. I did. I think not including the airport and I get why we include the airport, it is a big blind spot. But to do what you said at the end, if we were to go forward with this, in some capacity, it just from a security standpoint, I'm always looking for things to help reduce our issues that we may or may not have with our aging grid in this state. And so solar is a way for us to actually make ourselves safer from an energy consumption perspective. So I would be in the future open to looking to community farms and collaborations, maybe the airport would wanna collaborate with us. But anyway, yeah, thank you so much. Staff, did you have anything that you wanted to add off of her report?
[43:20] Unidentified speaker (Historic Preservation Commission staff): I just wanted to reiterate one point she touched on about if we did receive grant funding to pay for an installation, Obviously, we would see the savings right away. And so if Council was amenable, the Community Action Grant, there is another round come up. You know, I don't know if that's something you might want us to pursue. Just a question I want to put out there. And then on top of that, you mentioned resilience. We could, you know, if we received a $75,000 grant, we could, for example, possibly pay for an installation at one of those buildings and add battery storage. And so, which would help them in case of power outages and things like that so sure I
[44:02] Joseph Leonard: mean I can speak for myself, of course, we get the grant I mean that makes a lot of sense to me. If other counselors want to have questions or other comments they want to make of course we'll entertain them that will do counselor first and then counselor fish.
[44:18] Susan Faloon: two questions if i may the community action grants who are those a state grant and then second question so my second question would be if any there are any grants through efficiency main trust or if that is something that they looked into i'm not at this time that
[44:41] Rick Violet (Public commenter): that I'm aware of, unfortunately.
[44:44] Joseph Leonard: Okay, thank you for those questions. Councilor Fish.
[44:47] Carolyn Fish: Thank you very much for this very great detailed report. And yeah, I was surprised of the savings in one way, but many of the properties over the last 10 or 15 years that I've worked with, especially those that are remote rural areas of Maine in our commercial, and they've done a lot of solar over the last 10 or 15 years. We're finding that as the software changes, sometimes the generation of the battery backup doesn't jive with the software and the life expectancy of the solar panel starts to also degrade. And so they finally get to the point where it's getting cost effective because also, as I noticed in here, some of these rates are only fixed for a year and then the rates change. So after a 10 year process, what we have found a lot of times is the maintenance and the upgrades between the software and the generational backup batteries, and then the degrading solar panels. They this report is helpful because if they had been able to have this kind of research. I think they could have made perhaps other decisions so I think it's still early I know solar has been around a long time but I think we have a long ways to go. Before we can really see how we can benefit from it in a cost-effective way but it's good to keep having it as an option on the table and this is where you work thank you and council fish for
[46:15] Joseph Leonard: Those comments any other comments or questions on this item yes counselor any questions on
[46:21] Michael Beck: Page three I'm assuming that the total consumption also includes across the insurance Okay. To my next question, I guess what jumped out at me was the community solar piece. And if the school is able to realize 50,000 savings in the first year, I'd be curious to hear what kind of, you know, terrible savings we would get if we were to look in the community solar piece.
[46:54] Joseph Leonard: Would staff be able to elaborate on that a bit?
[46:57] Michael Beck: On what the savings would be right if the city is getting fifty thousand dollars in the first year in savings what could the city expect if we were to look at some kind of a community solar program
[47:08] Unidentified speaker (Historic Preservation Commission staff): Like they did it would really vary I think we would have to dig into that more yeah I
[47:14] Unidentified speaker (Study presenter): Know that the schools it's all of the schools participating so there's definitely potential to participate in something like that across a wide level but I think we'd have to do more
[47:26] Joseph Leonard: Research to have an estimate of how much we could potentially save if possible I think that would be appropriate especially if we're coming back to the community solar farm topic later on I think that would be a some good data to have alongside it you had another question counselor beck what
[47:42] Michael Beck: Does it follow so outside of staff time of having to set it all up with whoever the vendors are I mean does it take any other investment from us to be able to take advantage of that
[47:53] Unidentified speaker (Historic Preservation Commission staff): Community solar yeah no yeah it's just basically a subscription so yeah okay well
[48:01] Michael Beck: Just for myself, it just seemed like it would be something worth it. We're not going to pursue, you know, have your own physical, I mean, if there's savings involved with that, you know, I would be in favor of us, you know, looking and doing the community solar and, you know, whatever the savings would be, you know, something better than nothing, if it exceeds what staff time would
[48:21] Joseph Leonard: and be involved in trying to get it going thank you for those comments yes counselor fish and
[48:27] Carolyn Fish: just to elaborate on that too, the savings beyond the first year, like what potential is there ongoing? You know, there's savings the first year, but when we take into effect any other with a community solar, I don't know how that would work as far as you wouldn't have the hardware and the software issues as you would individually, but what other impacts financially would there be beyond that first year financial impact that would be good to know? Community solar, it's not
[48:57] Unidentified speaker (Historic Preservation Commission staff): again like it's just a subscription, and so I don't think it would be fixed, so after whether
[49:03] Carolyn Fish: it be fixed for a year or there would be a fixed or what would, what would the rate, the savings
[49:08] Unidentified speaker (Historic Preservation Commission staff): really varies based on, you know, how much solar energy they're getting and how much energy you're using, and so it's, it's very variable. Yeah, okay, did that answer your question? Thank you.
[49:22] Joseph Leonard: Any other thoughts or comments on this item? I did just want to make one more comment
[49:30] Unidentified speaker (Historic Preservation Commission staff): on the power purchase agreements Amelia mentioned. You know, we haven't really explored, you know, what kind of rate we might get if we did do a power purchase agreement. It's possible that if we did a power purchase agreement, basically that works because if you're paying them, you know, your new electric rate, it's possible we could get a lot of rates from that than we would what we're paying for electric, so then we could achieve savings. We just don't know because we haven't done those numbers, but that would be a way for the city to just go ahead and do solar without having that front cost, and then you can eventually buy that system from the company if it makes financial sense at the time. So I just want to put that out there as an option. Yeah, I thank you.
[50:16] Joseph Leonard: For actually clarifying that I actually didn't think about buying their software. The my main takeaway from hearing all this is energy grid protection at the end of the day. I mean, we will be seeing a larger usage of energy, and not just in Maine, just all throughout the country. We're just using more and more energy all the time. And creating a flexible energy grid is going to be really important when we start to see ongoing crises. I mean, right now, if I remember off the top of my head, just for transportation itself, 50% of all of our carbon emissions come from our transportation overall. That's a whole other different sector. I get that. But we as a state heavily rely on carbon emissions for our energy, and I think it is important to start to branch out other options. Even if it does seem small, I think it does open us up to potentially really great collaborations or partnerships in the future to not just make things cheaper for us, but also make us safer as a city from an energy perspective. So I just, again, thank you so much for your presentation today, and thank you for presenting this forward.
[51:36] Unidentified speaker (Study presenter): I don't. Oh, yes, please. Counselor. Yes. Sorry, just one more question.
[51:41] Susan Faloon: The 11, the fixed rate of 11 cents a kilowatt hour. That's for the supply.
[51:48] Unidentified speaker (Historic Preservation Commission staff): That's yeah. For deliveries. Yeah. That's, that's the supply, right?
[51:53] Susan Faloon: And just one follow-up, I think we should consider and perhaps look at this again, because I would be very surprised if supply prices didn't go up given what's going on with gas and oil. That always trickles down to electricity prices because we are very dependent on natural gas for electric generation. So we're probably going to see supply prices go up, and I assume they're not going to be offering a fixed rate at quite that low. I mean, I'm just guessing here, but it might make more sense at a later Date it might be there might be more savings to be so
[52:36] Joseph Leonard: Not seeing anything unless staff has other options. I you're just looking for a council committee guidance on this, right? No, if there's any direction you want us to pursue. So far I think the only direction is a future conversation regarding community solar. I think that would be worthwhile to have. Would any other counselor like to give guidance to staff? Okay, well, thank you so much. I appreciate you. With that said, we will now move on to agenda item number three, the acceptance of open space in a Subdivision
[53:17] Unidentified speaker (Historic Preservation Commission staff): Known as a road edge, this was a recent subdivision that was approved for 22 residential lots off Pushaw Road, and they're proposing to create a public road and 15 acres of open space. We did recommend to the applicant, and they were amenable to deeding that open space to the city, just because there have frequently been problems with open space when it's either divided up amount of property owners, which they were initially proposing, or when it's owned by an HOA, that taxes are often not paid, and then we end up having to take the property anyway, but then it becomes more complicated. And so we thought it might be simpler to just have the city just go ahead and accept the open space. So that was our recommendation, but the council does need to accept that first before they can get their final subdivision approval.
[54:07] Unidentified speaker (Public commenter): So that's why we're bringing it here.
[54:09] Joseph Leonard: Okay, thank you so much. Any councillors want to open up with a question or a comment? Oh
[54:17] Michael Beck: yes, Councillor Beck. Sure, the question I just had is when we take in an open space like that, what are the stipulations that come with it as far as, you know, don't do anything with it, do we have to mow areas, grass to mow, or anything we have to do to maintain it, what's all involved with taking
[54:33] Joseph Leonard: it? That was actually one of my questions I was going to ask.
[54:36] Unidentified speaker (Historic Preservation Commission staff): No, we don't have to, and a lot of the open space that we see in subdivisions is often wetlands, so you know, unmanaged open space essentially, and a lot of what this open
[54:47] Joseph Leonard: and spaces as well and so okay did I answer your question counselor Beck sure just a follow-up so
[54:54] Michael Beck: it sounds like then you know you would be needed to the city but the idea of this land is it would just be there just space there that just it's just space and no more to it that's that's what I
[55:08] Joseph Leonard: was reading unless there's clarification on okay I guess I don't have any further questions on this unless any other council member has any further questions or if a staff member has a clarification yes councilman okay I don't I don't know a lot
[55:29] Susan Faloon: about the work that goes into these subdivisions but i know there was a subdivision in another area and there was a newspaper article and there were issues with like some flooding in that area because of how the subdivision was done. And I'm sorry, I don't know any more details than that, but I guess I just wanna make sure that 's not something that could happen here.
[55:52] Unidentified speaker (Historic Preservation Commission staff): No, I'm sorry. No worries. When we look at subdivisions, we have to look at flood risk. They have to submit a flood risk map and everything, and this was not in a flood hazard area at all. And actually, having wetlands can help mitigate flood risk. That's one of their benefits, so
[56:10] Unidentified speaker (Public commenter): They're preserving a lot of wetland here. Okay.
[56:15] Joseph Leonard: Yes, Council back, and just a follow-up question
[56:19] Michael Beck: about liability. If for some reason someone goes back there and sports like they can hurt themselves, is there any liability that could come back in the city because we own it? I don't, I don't, I don't know. I don't think so.
[56:35] Joseph Leonard: Assistant City Manager Courtney O'Donnell approaching. Sorry to interrupt, Director Creek.
[56:39] Unidentified speaker (Historic Preservation Commission staff): Yes, please. Thank you. No more than any other city-owned property, so yeah. All right.
[56:46] Unidentified speaker (City staff): That
[56:49] Joseph Leonard: was clarifying. Any other thoughts, questions, comments, quarrels, quibbles, complaints, points? So we are looking for a recommendation on this. So unless there are any issues or amendments, I would entertain a motion. So moved. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Motion a second. We will have to do a roll call vote. So Councillor Beck? Yes. Councillor Fish? Yes. Councillor Faloon? Yes. Councillor Malik? Yes. And I will be a yes, 5-0. That will move on. Thank you so much. We are now going to move on to agenda item number four, the Downtown Bangor Partnership, the annual report and budget discussion. And if I could invite Director Lundy to the table, please.
[57:49] Rick Violet (Public commenter): Say I love that
[57:50] Joseph Leonard: jacket, by the way. Yeah. If you would, please go ahead and take it away, unless and did you have anything you wanted to introduce? Okay, I know you guys
[58:05] Unidentified speaker (Downtown Development staff): have all been here for a really long time tonight and you have more to discuss, but we've got a really exciting year in downtown. We've seen lots of really positive growth with businesses coming in for the first time. We did kind of a longevity study. Some of the more volatile businesses that are in downtown would be your retail and your restaurants, and determine that we're doing way better than the national averages, which is really exciting, and we have another building under development activating Our buildings in downtown, it's great for economic growth, it's also great for diversifying the tax base in Bangor. I know at this point in time in the year a lot of thought goes into, you know, thinking about austerity measures and is there tax burden or residential payers, but the other side of that coin is growth and development and in bringing new tax dollars in via development. And I think we've done a good job of positioning Bangor to be a new growth scenario, which is pretty exciting, and we've also had some successes with our ambassador program. I think it's been a good year for them. Like launching any program, you know, the first year had its bumps and fits and starts. Now I think we've really had a stride and we have a great team and they're doing good work. And I'd say kind of the biggest challenge that we face with the program is that they're the goal for what success, our KPI success, looks for us, that people don't have to call and complain about things and they're just handled. And I think they do enough of that fixing problems before anybody notices them that sometimes people don't even realize that they're doing anything at all until you start to show them the data about all the different things that have, that have happened. And so that's kind of our plan for the year moving forward is to do a better job communicating about the things that they are doing so that people understand the impact that they're having. But that would entertain any questions from anyone about things that you
[1:00:17] Joseph Leonard: saw on the plan or, yes, and I, before I open up to questions, I do just want to add that there's a topic or a conversation topic that usually goes around that we never see these ambassadors out there. And I do live downtown, I can assure you I talk to them quite often both at night and during the day. And as Miss Lund, Director Lundy pointed out, is if you're not seeing them, that usually means that they're engaged doing something at the end of the day. And I don't want to get into the full history as to why we have a Street Plus, but this has been a program or a service, I should say, that has been requested for many years. And I, and I do want to reiterate that these are services that this city needs and it, and the city needed them regardless of how we were going to approach these service needs in any way, shape, or form. And so that's how we got to this point in history. And so I do want to make sure that we are all understand that it took a long time and a lot of effort to get to this point in order To get what was needed for services in this city, so I just want to make sure that the history of that is covered with that. Any questions or comments from council members? Yes.
[1:01:55] Carolyn Fish: counselor a couple
[1:01:58] Susan Faloon: of comments, and then I don't know if it's really a question, but I was excited to read this. Like, in all the things that are happening, it's exciting to see, and so thank you for all your work, and with the flowers and everything, it just looks great downtown. And thank you also for not requesting an increase to the special assessment. That was very exciting too. I guess my question is, when does the contract with Streets Plus expire? Like, that's three years,
[1:02:32] Unidentified speaker (Downtown Development staff): right? And how far, yeah. So this would be the third year that we're entering. This new fiscal year will be the third year of the contract with them, and I think it will be a great year to kind of evaluate where we're at. I mean, truthfully, when I, when we first launched into this program, my hope was that kind of the support that everybody was talking about would be more in place so that at the end of those three years, we wouldn't be facing some of the challenges that we were facing when we first requested this program. I do think that we are in a position today where they're kind of even more necessary than they were when we were originally requesting them. Like, I just see more activity on the street, in the report, like, I just see a lot of interventions happening. I'm hopeful that over the course of the next year there'll be enough changes that we won't be in the same place where we need those same kinds of services, and you know, that's a thought, a conversation, but it's kind of hard to plan for that when it hasn't happened yet, you know what I mean? Like, how do you plan for like the dissolution of a service while also ratcheting up another service and like you kind of almost have to have the improvements happen and phase something out? My general perspective on it, but yeah, I do, I, you know, I will say that when I, when we went into the first time, when we approached it with our ARPA money, and I was thinking to myself, like, oh, maybe by the end of, you know, the expansion of, or this contract will be in a different place, and I don't think we find ourselves in a different place at all. I think, you know, some of the issues that we're facing have grown. I think that they do a really great job within the bounds of what they're allowed to do. I do think sometimes clarity around the ordinances, which is why we introduced those ordinances last fall. You know, because they will only go as far as like our police department is going to go and enforcing something so far, you know, like the sidewalk, not to like, bring us all back a month, but like, you know, the sidewalk in front of the library is a great example. Like they had a situation where you know during their time you know for six months or so they had been successfully telling people hey you can't sleep here on the sidewalk and it was and they kept people from sleeping on the sidewalk And then the minute that kind of the policy changed around that they were no longer able to be effective in that and I think we saw a lot of public pushback. I think it exhausted people's compassion and desire to help which is kind of what we wanted to avoid happening, you know, because if you can make people feel safe and comfortable they feel in a better position to be helpful to those around them and I really do think that we kind of opened a can of anger I haven't enjoyed watching. I'm going Off on a tangent now. I haven't enjoyed watching the last few council meetings where people are just at the microphone kind of at each other. It's been the opposite of the community building that I think we like to do and I think the more that we can kind of manage destructive behaviors so that people can live their you know regular lives the more supporters that we're going to have for
[1:05:49] Susan Faloon: Helping people together. Just a follow-up comment, we had a conversation when we met with the police chief Hathaway and talking about the constable program which I guess the council had considered and that was before my time and so some of us I think were interested in like perhaps revisiting that but obviously we want to like kind of evaluate this program maybe have that discussion see what changes take place. We've got our committee on homelessness that's now formed our committee on Housing we took a first vote so you know like hopefully we'll see some changes kind of come out of all of those things too so I think we'll need to kind of look at all of those things together. Yeah, I think a possible program is a is a really
[1:06:37] Unidentified speaker (Downtown Development staff): Great thing Portland, downtown Portland is bringing one in this year. They are also continuing to maintain their Ambassador program that runs through Street Plus as well. Because one of the differences with Street Plus and the Ambassador program that I really like is that I often find, you know, with city services, they're kind of siloed. So you have VCAT who's going to go in and like talk to the people and, you know, kind of be that liaison to like case management. You have PD who's there to like enforce the law. You have public works who's there to remove any detritus that's left behind. Whereas, you know, when you're working with an ambassador program, they kind of, unless somebody, unless it's a really complex situation, just handle all that in like a one-stop shop. And so with your constables, for example, like they might kind of enforce behavior barriers, but they're not going to holistically handle all the other elements.
[1:07:31] Joseph Leonard: And if I can actually piggyback off of that, and thank you for that question, thank you for that explanation, Director Lundy. The thing I wanna make sure when talking about this is not so much the nomenclatures of the entities that provide the services, but the services themselves, regardless of how these services are provided, it's gonna be really important to understand that as a city, we can't just take away this service and then expect things to continue to be continued as is right now. These are services that were in dire need five years ago. And I think Director Lundy said it very succinctly that they're needed more than ever now and so if we were to entertain a console program which I would absolutely would consider and entertain whether we maintain street plus or whether we phase in a console program my main concern is making sure we still as a city have those services that people have relied on for the last few years now. So regardless of the approach that we go, my mindset is the services have to stay. But that's just me for this conversation. Were there any other questions or comments? Councilor Beck then, Councilor Finch.
[1:09:03] Michael Beck: The question I had is, there's an article in the paper about Place for AI recently. Is that in this budget and how much does that service cost?
[1:09:12] Unidentified speaker (Downtown Development staff): So we paid for Placer AI out of the current budget that we're in. Everybody paid in at that. We paid in at a thousand dollars because we're the smallest fish in the whole mix. The contract was never launched although the plan is still to launch that. I mean, the article, I have some thoughts on the article. It was like, I read that and I was like, tell me you don't understand Placer AI without telling me you don't understand Placer AI. Because I do think that I understand people's real concerns with this true tracking stuff that is emerging. You know, I know people are concerned about flocked and like somebody taking their image and following them around. I think in the, I've had two people reach out to me to talk to me about laser AI and that kind of the impression that they got was that there was some sort of device being installed that was going to track their behavior when in reality it's kind of like, oh no, you're carrying the tracker in your pocket and basically it's tracking the toilet paper that you buy at Hannaford and the people who use place or AI they aren't so much generating the data so much as they're like looking at information about that you've already given to somebody else somewhere else. It's not generative and the AI component isn't looking at you as a person on the street. AI, the AI is just kind of sorting the data that you've given to Facebook, to Gmail, to Hannaford, to Walmart, to Amazon.
[1:10:44] Unidentified speaker (Study presenter): Yeah, so there's a lot of,
[1:10:46] Unidentified speaker (Downtown Development staff): there's a fundamental misunderstanding about it, which was very frustrating from that article.
[1:10:51] Joseph Leonard: Did that answer your question? And do you have a follow-up? No. Okay. Okay, Councilor Fish.
[1:10:57] Carolyn Fish: I think over the last almost three years, 10 and a half years, that the Ambassador Program has really emerged and sort of settled in and have a relationship. They understand what's going on downtown and even the changes. And I think it's hard to quantify what you've prevented and what your presence is doing and preventing things. It's easy when an incident happens and there's a report and you can put a number on it. And with their presence down there with what they're preventing. thing and I know that there are a lot of the mischiefs at night and they're out there a lot at night so there's a misconception that you know they're not there and they're not doing anything so these detailed reports I know last year we got one and I think there was a software glitch or something that happened but the last couple of reports we've received have really been good putting capture in a lot more activity. And, I agree whether the future would be to can you continue with street bus or not on something like street bus or maybe with them and collaborating and continuing to improve on our safety downtown is imperative. So thank you for this. Questions
[1:12:23] Joseph Leonard: or comments from council members or director
[1:12:30] Unidentified speaker (Downtown Development staff): I would just say that I know that a lot of the time it's been talking about the ambassador program and that makes sense because it's the biggest part of our budget but I don't want it to get I don't want the organization as a whole to get lost in that because there is a lot of stuff that we do and we are always out there you know I put down those volunteer hours and that's just to date we're in kind of our biggest volunteer part of the season and with people you know volunteering their time outdoors to in the gardens and things like that so I do think that the organization as a whole is really focused on that mission of building community of enhancing share of public spaces and creating a sense of collaboration all for the purpose of creating economic growth and I feel like we've been doing a really great job with that and i don't want that to get lost at the whole ambassador conversation so i do understand
[1:13:28] Joseph Leonard: why we have to focus on it so much because it is huge thank you for that any other final thoughts or questions we are looking for a staff recommendation on this unless there
[1:13:42] Unidentified speaker (Historic Preservation Commission staff): is an amendment proposal i'm sorry no i was just gonna add the reason was under the statute you'll be asked to at your next meeting have a public hearing on this as required and then accept or otherwise edit the proposed budget so okay thank you for that clarification
[1:14:08] Joseph Leonard: so did I misread that do you need action on this tonight then as a support it'd be good to forward a recommendation to full council okay sounds good so if there is a recommendation to move forward or an amended version before it i would entertain such a motion made a recommendation to move this to full council we have a motion do we have a second moved and seconded we will need to do a roll call vote councillor beck yes councillor fish yes councillor falloon yes councillor maller yes and that will be a yes five zero this will move on that's the question is
[1:14:46] Unidentified speaker (Downtown Development staff): Is there anything else that you want included in the materials or the upcoming meeting, or is this all, we have everything you need?
[1:14:54] Joseph Leonard: So I am, I believe I have everything that I need, but are there other counselors that have any other material requests that they would want?
[1:15:05] Michael Beck: Yes, counselor back. I would just say, just make sure that we've got the spreadsheet you'd given us before showing what Street Plus does by category. Okay. Be helpful so we can see it qualified, you know, they're busy, you know, yeah, really illustrated.
[1:15:19] Joseph Leonard: That I think that would be a good point that would also cater to counselor Fish's comments earlier about showing the data that never really gets discussed. Yeah, I think I see the.
[1:15:32] Unidentified speaker (Downtown Development staff): Best reactions to the heat maps and the point maps that show the specific activities, you know. Sometimes people feel like, oh, I've never seen them around my building, you know. Here's, here's the heat map for last month and you can see they're all over the place picking up litter and needles and, you know, intervening in this way or that way and it is really helpful because again the goal is that nobody, no, nobody sees the problem, nobody reports the problem, it's just a non-issue so that we can remove. The conversation around. Thank.
[1:16:06] Joseph Leonard: You so much and we will be moving on to our agenda number five, discussion of possible moratorium on certain uses, needle exchange and chemical dependency clinics. I do also want to invite a guest to answer any potential questions that we as a council might have at the table. Mr. Hurley is from a needlepoint sanctuary and he will be at the table to answer any questions that staff or council members have at this point. Mr. Hurley, thank you for joining us at the dais.
[1:16:46] Unidentified speaker (Historic Preservation Commission staff): Yes, please. There was a error in the packet, the draft proposals for a, so for the syringe exchange program had some old outdated content and I just had to attach the wrong version, it was my fault. So I did print out a corrected version. I don't think it impacts the discussion at all but I wanted to make sure that you had a copy of the corrected version and it'll get.
[1:17:12] Joseph Leonard: Updated online as well. Okay, counselor Fish, this is your item so if you want to proceed with it.
[1:17:21] Carolyn Fish: You may do so. Yes, this a draft was exactly that, just a draft. I knew that it would initiate a lot of conversation which to do which I also expect some changes and hopefully some additional great ideas to add to it. My thought on this, I actually went to the previous manager over a year and a half ago the number of ordinances I wanted to bring to the table for discussion but my thought was that I really wanted to have other stakeholders get their attention to bring them to the table, other towns. Other stakeholders that work with substance use and needle exchanges to come to the table, to include the city with what they're doing, more transparency. I think my thought was 20 years ago we had seven patients that were using methadone and travel into Water Bill, and now we have thousands. And I would like to see an ordinance that would encourage, for instance, Acadia to come to the table and us to be able to perhaps provide some guidance where we require them to, if they have a patient that they know has been dropped off and that they know they don't have any housing or any other resources, what are they doing now? Because I feel that we have a lot of people that are on our streets that come here for services because we are a service center. But I think if other towns are bringing in or knowing they have patients and individuals that need these services we provide, I just want us as a council to be able to have a little more teeth in requiring accountability, transparency, and collaboration with us as a city, and expanded not to just the stakeholders we have, specifically the syringe services and the methadone clinics, but also as a result of this, I'm hoping that somehow when we're done with this, is talking about this as a council, maybe can elaborate a little more with some guidelines that would bring other municipalities to the table and other stakeholders. So this isn't an idea of a cut in stone, this is an idea to bring this ordinance to the table and have a discussion where I hope especially with an hour new homeless committee, maybe input. But I just feel that we have to start having some ordinances where even some of the non-profits, I identified these, but out of almost 1300 non-profits
[1:19:55] Unidentified speaker (Study presenter): and I've been trying to track them down
[1:19:56] Carolyn Fish: with some resource professionals at the University of Maine. There's a great number of them that we don't even really know what they're doing. And then I know that they're not all for our vulnerable community, but I feel we as community leaders have a responsibility of asking for more statistical information and transparency and more collaboration with us as a community. Is and that's why I came up with at least these two ordinances, there's a number of other ones
[1:20:29] Joseph Leonard: But he's finally got to the table and I'm happy for that. Okay, so the way this is going to work is because, Counselor Fish, you were the one who brought this up, if there are any questions I'm either going to direct them back to you unless they specifically ask for a staff number or to a Mr. Hurst. Okay, so with that, are there any questions? Counselor Flume. Not necessarily
[1:20:53] Susan Faloon: a question, I just wanted to share some information that I did a little research. So like I have also wondered about this and what could happen, and so my first thought was what has happened in other communities when they have placed a moratorium on these things. So one study examined some arrest trends before and after a needle exchange program opened in Baltimore, and researchers compared crime trends in those neighborhoods with and without the program and found no significant increase in violent crime, property crime, or drug-related arrests with the exchange program. In 2023 a federal systemic review from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs bears concluded that a few things, which I think we have probably already heard before, but syringe service programs likely reduce HIV transmission, reduce risky injection behaviors, they help connect people to treatment and overdose education, and they don't appear to increase neighborhood crime rates or unsafe syringe disposal. Overall in West Virginia they had an SSP suspension study in 2019 and it examined the suspension of rural syringe programs after political and community pressure led to restrictive policy changes. They interviewed people who inject drugs after the program was effectively shut down. They found increased syringe sharing, increased reuse of needles, greater fear of arrest, reduced access to HIV prevention and overdose resources, more barriers to enter entering treatment programs. There's another one in Canada when they closed that syringe service program, they saw sharp declines in distribution and collection, reduced contact with vulnerable populations, reports of increased syringe use, reuse, and underground syringe sales, thousands of syringes unaccounted for. There's another Connecticut needle exchange study from 1999, similar results. I'm not going to elaborate on those further, but there's a lot of evidence showing that there's no direct correlation to crime, but there are a lot of health impacts. I think the more important thing that I want to share is that, and to me this would be a deciding factor right here. In 2016, the Metro Treatment Center, the Penobscot County Metro Treatment Center, sought to increase capacity at its Hogan Road clinic in Bangor from 300 to 500. Per city code, it was required to seek a new license and hold a public hearing to do so. Counselors at that time pushed hard against clinic representatives on why they were choosing Bangor rather than expanding to Northern Maine, and even questioned the effectiveness of methadone over Suboxone. In August, 2026, the council voted seven to two against allowing the expansion. The clinic sued Bangor in federal court, arguing that by treating methadone clinics differently from other medical facilities, the city's ordinance discriminated against people seeking to recover from addiction under the Americans with Disabilities Act. A federal judge found the ordinance discriminatory, writing that singling out methadone clinics and devising special rules for them, as opposed to all other types of clinics, was facially discriminatory. So in December of 2016, the Bangor City Council voted unanimously to repeal the ordinance. So there's already a precedent set for this. And I don't, we want to go down that road again.
[1:25:01] Joseph Leonard: That's it. Thank you for those comments. And yes, you may comment on that.
[1:25:10] Carolyn Fish: Yes, this is a moratorium for us to do more research. It's not saying we're going to close the ones that exist, but it is what I'm hoping to achieve is that, for instance, CDC won't give out permits where we're finding that one has popped up without any involvement of the city of Bangor. We already, I know for as a matter of fact, our own Bangor Health and Community Services has put in for to be registered as one. I'm all for that, but I think that there are other communities besides Bangor, just because we're a service center, there are other communities that I think also have facilities and the capability, especially with collaborating with the state, to be able to look elsewhere. Cities with our population do not typically have three methadone clinics, and I'm just saying we have got all we can handle. And when we've seen the increase of our vulnerable on our streets, there's something missing between the collaboration between these services, better collaborating with us and also with the state, I'm Hoping this will get the state's attention and other communities' attention to work with us and have other methadone clinics that are closer to Acoustic County and other rural areas that need them. City of Bangor doesn't need to have them all, and if we do, we need to have better collaboration. I'm not saying close.
[1:26:35] Unidentified speaker (Historic Preservation Commission staff): Mayor Mrakas, City manager earlier, so I want to make sure that we're leveraging the expertise that we have with our director of public health, so it sounds like that's sort of where we're going with this conversation. So I'd like to give up my seat and have Jen come up and help. I think that's a fantastic idea, thank you for that recommendation. We are now being approached by director government, thank you for joining us, and if you want to.
[1:27:04] Joseph Leonard: Go ahead and start it with either, if you have a statement that you want to give or you want to wait for a counselor to ask you a question, please feel free.
[1:27:13] Unidentified speaker (Public commenter): I think maybe I'll just start with a statement that I think important to this level set is that what we know through the research is that syringe services are a very important tool in public health, not just only for HIV and hepatitis C prevention, but also for prevention of other really important health outcomes like endocarditis, which is a really serious heart problem that can happen when people reuse needles. So I think I just want to level set that the research is really clear that syringe services are really important. And just to add to the research, oftentimes what we hear is, and I'm sure Lily hears this too is well we have syringe service providers why is there still HIV and one of the things that's really challenging in public health is how to measure prevention and so what we can compare ourselves to Scott County Indiana I think it may have referred this before Scott County Indiana is about the population size of the city of Bangor they didn't have any SSPs and their numbers of HIV climbed to over 100. And so while we can't say we have prevented X amount of cases, what we can say in comparable environments and communities that SSPs have been a really important tool. That's, I guess, maybe I'll just kind of level set at that.
[1:28:44] Joseph Leonard: Sure, no, that's absolutely fine. Counselor Dean, you have a question or statement?
[1:28:49] Susan Hawes: I'm glad you've joined us at the table
[1:28:51] Unidentified speaker (Historic Preservation Commission staff): because this is probably a question for you.
[1:28:52] Joseph Leonard: Other do I address it to Carolyn? You can address it to either Director Gunderman if it's to her, or if you have something directly to Counselor Fish, you can direct it to her. Well I
[1:29:03] Susan Hawes: guess it's to both. After reading this through, I understand, I think I understand her reasoning. Coming up with a 180-day moratorium would give Bangor a chance to more readily be able to see who's coming in to be alienated and where they're setting up shop without the CDC dictating it for us. So I think that's where you're coming from as far as 180-day moratorium. My concern with the 180-day moratorium would be, say Wabanaki or Needlepoint Sanctuary for some reason was not able to fulfill their duties. Would that then limit us if we needed to find someone else to come in like we've had to do in the past? Does that affect or is this just new people coming in?
[1:29:50] Carolyn Fish: How does that work? You like to respond first, Counselor? And again, this is up for conversation. My intent behind this was that we have the number, so it's the number that we have that would keep, they'd be like grandfathered like any other new audience, they would be grandparents. So we have the number, we have in the service providers we have. It was also, I know that the city, I don't know if you became certified, but I was thinking that our own health department would also be certified for syringe service. I felt that with the needle situation and the public being so concerned
[1:30:24] Unidentified speaker (Historic Preservation Commission staff): of all the needles we have out there,
[1:30:26] Carolyn Fish: we haven't come up with other policies about, is it one or a hundred or how do we help with, or even other ideas behind the scene
[1:30:36] Unidentified speaker (Historic Preservation Commission staff): of the needles that are out there.
[1:30:39] Carolyn Fish: You know, we talked the other day about maybe a redemption, you know, turn them in and get some credit. There's a lot of ideas. So I just wanted to back off. We have some great providers, Bob Mackie, Willie's group, our city, and what we have existing. I just wanted, especially now with our new committee, take a look at where we're at. What else should we be looking at so that we're more effective for not just for the vulnerable people and still trying to keep our diseases under control and have better health resources for need of availability, but also just trying to get out of the situation on the streets for our general public is out of control. So I just thought this is a 180 day moratorium. It doesn't say we want to close them. It's just saying before anyone new comes up, doesn't mean we can't come back and re-look at a special situation, but it gives us chance to work with our homeless community and just put a moratorium before they continue to pop up and just maybe add some teeth, more accountability, more transparency, more information for not just counsel
[1:31:54] Joseph Leonard: but for our public director Gunderman I know a counselor Dean directed the question of both you did you need a repeat of the question or are you good
[1:32:02] Unidentified speaker (Public commenter): to respond to her? I think I'm good to respond. I think if this moratorium gets passed, I would have some questions on sort of what are the pieces of information that would want to be collected for further understanding of state's strategies or activities or policy. I will just sort of back up for a second. At this point, Needlepoint Sanctuary and Wabanaki Public Health and Wellness are the two Maine CDC certified SSPs. Those are the only two SSPs that are working in the Bancorp area. So they are certified by Maine CDC. I will also just back up for a second and really please chime in if I'm wrong, but when a new organization wants to become certified and we haven't started that process yet, they go through an application process with the Maine CDC. Part of that process is a public notice that comes to us it comes to the police department the rules have changed a little bit in terms of once a person once an organization is certified and they go through that initial process they have some flexibility with their services they don't have to go through that whole process again one of the challenges to be honest with you that I've had with the main CDC's process is that we aren't brought in to main CDC's conversations about the city's perspective on that organization or the process or what we want. To me, that's been the most challenging part is not having a collaborative conversation with the CDC. So there is that original public notice that can, now that the new rule changes, there doesn't need to be a public notice when that organization wants to maybe do a different service within their operational area. Is that correct, Willie?
[1:33:56] Joseph Leonard: You're totally fine in Missouri, but please, you may speak broadly on this.
[1:34:03] Unidentified speaker (City staff): So I had a great conversation with Carolyn the other day, and it made me think, and I kind of came up with some thoughts around that. And I want to note that this memorandum is not an anti-syringe service program memorandum, right? So the question of the validity of syringe services, that's not what we're talking about. We know that they're valid. We know that this community needs them right now. We've had a lot of conversations about that, especially in HIV outbreak. I can speak a bit to the certification process, but what I was thinking about was trying to articulate addressing your concern about an outside entity coming in. And I can't speak to the methadone clinics, but I can say with like pretty much like 100% confidence, you're not going to see a new syringe service program emerge in Bangor from out of state or even elsewhere within the state. And the reason being is because there's really no economic incentive to do so. Syringe service programs, the certification process is pretty lengthy, and the access to funding, like for example, our program, one fifth of our funding comes from the state certification, right? Right? So that's 80% of our funding that we have to pursue elsewhere. And syringe services are not a billable service. You can't bill main care. It's not the kind of thing that would draw an outside entity like a larger nonprofit or something like that. It doesn't exist quite for syringe services. It's a very risky time period for syringe services generally. So during the Biden administration, this is really the first time in recent American history, where there was funding available for this kind of thing. Today there is still a federal ban on funding for syringes. So I get pass through funding from the state, from the state, through the federal government. I can spend it on lots of things, I can't actually spend it on syringes. So every dollar that I want to spend on syringes and some other additional injection equipment, I have to find that elsewhere. Elsewhere. And there's even fears amongst harm reduction programs, that there might be some sort of like federal ban on syringe services, right, which would be basically a similar thing that the federal government has done to reproductive care providers, which is like, well, if you offer abortion services, you can't receive any federal dollars, there's a fear that could happen to syringe services. So the logic that would lead an outside program to come into Bangor and start a syringe service program, it's really not there. It exists for programs like, you might think if you had a program that was like a little mini needle point, where we started like a little street outreach group that was doing this kind of thing, that would be the kind of program thinking about coming in and getting certified. And then you have programs like the public health department that see the need every day, right? Because they're working on this HIV outbreak and organizations that are just doing like, frankly, aerobic work with this outbreak. So I want to speak to that, just like address like that concern in the first place. I don't know if the same calculus exists for methadone clinics. I'm not a methadone provider, I can't really speak to that. Let me see if there's anything else to kind of want to note there in terms of like the certification process. It has improved a little bit, so Needlepoint, you know, when we got certified, we didn't communicate a ton with the city of Bangor because the certification process, this didn't require it and also I don't think we knew better, right? We kind of busy trying to do outreach at Camp Hope and do a thousand other things at the time. We're a volunteer group filling out this, you know, my certification was like, it's like an 80-page document, right? The most recent rulemaking, it has an additional thing that does encourage a little bit more collaboration with the city of Bangor, which is that any place that you get certified must be properly zoned and like you must get like a note from the city. I'm not sure if it's like a note from the city, but basically like you have to confirm that like the place that you're going to open it is already zoned. And as a result of Needlepoint certification process, we were able to determine precisely what zoning codes are appropriate uses for syringe service programs, right? So you do have a little bit more of a sense of like, okay, if for some reason a new program did come in, it has to be within these certain things. So I think it's totally appropriate for the City to work with programs like Needlepoint to do everything you want to accomplish with this without doing the actual moratorium. And I think like from my viewpoint, I'd be willing to enter into like a memorandum of understanding with the city of Bangor around some of the processes for like if we were gonna buy a new building or if we wanted to expand outreach to such and such a place. Like we're talking with Jen and with the CDC right now about like what is delivery services located in the city of Bangor because there's some new regulations around how you can do this. Yeah.
[1:39:16] Joseph Leonard: So I do want to speak on this from my own perspective before we move on. When I initially first saw this, I was already very hesitant toward the moratorium just because of the protected individuals that technically they have a federal disability. And so that opens up a lot of serious legal exposure. On just that front alone, I really saw this as a very problematic moratorium, but when I heard Councilor Fish, you were talking about when you're bringing this over to a discussion and then later on wanting to potentially involve the estate more, I really wish Councilor Carson were here tonight because I would be telling him this is probably something we want to put on the legislative committee agenda so if you wanted to revisit this topic and actually try to make it a larger discussion that brings multiple parties together to actually tackle this issue in a much broader sense as opposed to just focusing on banger. I think that would be very appropriate. I would be hesitant right now to move forward with this specific one, just because of the plethora of issues I do see with it right now. But I'm more than happy, I'm sure Councilor Carson would be happy to try to figure out a way to bring this topic up to a larger group to actually see if there is some sort of headway we can do with this. Director Biltman, I saw you had your hand up.
[1:40:57] Unidentified speaker (Public commenter): I also wanted to say one of the other pieces is that you're concerned about that came up with this is the needle waste. I just want to acknowledge that I have sat during public comment and I have heard the concerns and they're absolutely valid. Last year we started the our department start to think about what are the options around people wasting it's complicated in Bangor because we have an ordinance where people can put it in their laundry container and leave it out because it's just a sorting Facility all of this to say is, you know, I have put it on my strategic sort of priority list to bring the partners together, Needlepoint, Wabanaki, our own department, Street Plus, to sit together and say, how are we going to collaborate better on what is the education that we need to do to the public, what is the education we need to do to business partners. So I understand that this your order comes, ordinance comes with that concern in mind, too. And I just want you to know that it is a priority on my list and hoping to do more in that area.
[1:42:02] Joseph Leonard: I don't know if you want to respond to any of that. I'd like to respond to both of you.
[1:42:07] Carolyn Fish: Yes, Council Leonard. It was reading this, and you know I wanted to get it to the table, but there was so much more behind it. I was hoping through conversations we could contribute to it. But a moratorium, I think, was my way of, you know, not just we as a council and as a city, but many of the residents just feel that we are experiencing the fallout. And even though we're a service center, Bangor isn't the only community. There's many communities, and they have vulnerable individuals that need syringe services, and they need outreach in their backyard. So to me, it was our way of saying, hey, we want to be partners. We want to collaborate. But, you know, we've only got so much resources, and we have to bring people to the table. So I had several motives that this would get the attention I was hoping of other communities and say, you know, Bangor's got all they can handle, very happy with the providers we have, Willie and I had hours and hours talk the other day, which I came to learn a lot and greatly appreciate it. it. And we do have great service providers. But I think they're here at the table, they will come, they are willing to collaborate with us and I do want their input. But I do think we have to come up with something if it's not a moratorium, we need to look at this in an ordinance way to have more transparency, more information, and push back to other communities as well as the state to participate. So I'm missing Councillor Carson tonight as well, but I figured this would get tabled for tabling it. And I hope everybody contributes to the conversation that we at least take this and just don't drop it, but we have to start putting some boundaries and limitations. We have to bring other municipalities to the table. And until we can get some type of control on this,, I do think we have to set some limits and some boundaries. So appreciate both of your, input on it.
[1:44:12] Unidentified speaker (Public commenter): Would it be helpful if I gave you the list of the other SSPs throughout the state? So you have a sense of where they're located, particularly the ones that are close to us?
[1:44:22] Carolyn Fish: Perhaps so I think my concerns not so much what they're doing so much as what we're doing, and maybe people participating more stepping up to the plate a little more offering some of the people in their own communities just because we're a service member center doesn't mean we get everybody you know other communities should be taking more responsibility and the state should be taking more responsibility so i thought if we said this is it enough is enough this got all we can handle until we can regroup and figure out other ideas how we can work together so that was the point
[1:44:57] Joseph Leonard: i very much expected this would be tabled okay so we do have this item on the table right now and unless there was any other comments yes counselor sure i guess i'd like
[1:45:13] Michael Beck: to hear from both of our experts about you know what the effect is of handcuffing ourselves during an HIV outbreak, one. And two, is when I was doing my own research this weekend, it also came across the fact that I had no idea that medically assisted treatment was connected to also HIV treatment. Connections are also made there as well. So I guess either I'd like to hear some more information about that, or correct me if I heard wrong. But those are the two first questions that I had about this.
[1:45:46] Joseph Leonard: Are there any answers that staff or Mr. Hurley that you're able to give on that question? Yes, Director Gunnaman and then Mr. Hurley, if you want to answer as well.
[1:46:00] Unidentified speaker (Public commenter): I will say that because we have not started our application, this moratorium will stop us from completing our application.
[1:46:07] Carolyn Fish: And just to elaborate, that was not my tag. So I wanted to bring this to the table and somehow I thought we have to kind
[1:46:14] Unidentified speaker (Public commenter): Of get a way around that, yes. And so what I would say is every touch point is an important touch point for engagement or building relationships. We don't have a crystal ball. It does make to answer a question, it does make me a little nervous that we're going to put a risk like a restriction when we're we have this really important tool that's evidence-based to address HIV, hepatitis C. So I do have some worries and concerns about it becoming a tool that we have at the table, but we just wouldn't have that flexibility.
[1:46:55] Joseph Leonard: Mr. Hurley, do you need the question re-asked to you? No, I don't think so.
[1:47:00] Unidentified speaker (City staff): I mean, so I don't, this specific moratorium is not necessarily like a handcuff on existing programs. But I will say that, you know, the reason a lot of other organizations don't start syringe service programs is because they come with a lot of heat, right? Like, you guys have seen the meetings that we've had here. Like, you become a syringe service provider, people are going to be, you're going to have a lot of support, but you're going to have a lot of people who don't understand, and you have to engage in a lot of, like, constant diplomacy. So there are municipalities that are not supportive of syringe service programs at all. And they probably watch municipalities like Bangor and so they see something like this and they might interpret it in a way that they would use to restrict services and Bangor has the benefit of I think having a lot of professionals who are able to speak to the need of certain services, having a council that gets it, and it being in the middle of experiencing HIV outbreak. And the reality is there are small communities in Maine that are eventually going to be experiencing their own outbreaks that don't have certain service programs. And then that's probably going to win when they're going to start them, right? I think there is a need for statewide conversations about the importance of certain service programs. I think that, you know, whether it's other SSP programs or more importantly, their contacts at the CDC that the council can speak with, that we can connect you with, that could answer concretely what kind of the state's logic is with the way they control the certification process i feel like there was something at the tail end of the question
[1:48:40] Michael Beck: Handcuffs programs and then medically assisted treatment about how do they factor into HIV care
[1:48:47] Unidentified speaker (City staff): Oh I can't I can't speak to the to that maybe cut a little bit more yeah I think that touch
[1:48:53] Unidentified speaker (Public commenter): The one thing I wanted to add is SSP services are more than needle exchange. They include counseling and testing for HIV, hepatitis C, STIs, their referral services, their education. So it's also, remember that SSP is not just the needle part of it, but it's a comprehensive service that we take as a whole package.
[1:49:17] Joseph Leonard: Okay. So, it's okay if there are other questions that want to be asked or if there's more discussion that wants to be had. Because of the nature of this ordinance, I'm just going to give my personal opinion. I know, Councilor Fish, you said you want to potentially table this. Because of the topic being a moratorium, I don't, I just wouldn't support tabling it only because of the topic as it is. I'm that what I'm not saying though, is to ban this topic from altogether future conversations. If you want to bring this up again, to like a workshop or what we said earlier legislative committee, I you would have my support for that. But if you did want to make a motion to table this personally I 'm just I wouldn't be support in support of that just because the nature of the moratorium status on these SSPs and I do see your hand if you want
[1:50:24] Carolyn Fish: to respond why I asked for 180 day moratorium is because we have an epidemic of the needle situation out on the streets every day and the public is really we don't have a handle on it so this was one avenue and it's and it's it's not handcuffing anyone it's not I do would like to see it amended so we have our go around for our public health facility to get their SSP but you know if we want to reword it that if there's an exception that we could reconsider consider but I think right now the needle situation in our community on the streets on the playgrounds at people's municipalities everywhere is out of control and at least right now we know who our partners are that are working with us in collaboration and Willie even said himself probably nobody else is going to come new to apply for one so I'd rather table this and at least send the message out to our residents that we hear them and we know things are out of control as far as needles out on our streets and with this needs work I don't think that a moratorium would hurt us for 180 days. It's not going to hurt the providers we have. I agree with Counselor Beck. I'd like to have maybe a little more legal advice on this, but I'd like to have it tabled. But as far as the moratorium goes and we have our, you know, homeless committee we put together, I'd like to get their input. But I don't see how asking for a moratorium is going to hurt anything. I think it will help send a message to the majority of our residents who feel they can't go anywhere without needles in their backyard, at the playground, on the streets, their business. So I just would like to have a table. Okay, Council Back, I would, I guess I would like
[1:52:27] Michael Beck: to have the conversation further, but I don't want this over our head, and after hearing from our experts, I like to see this disposed of and let's start the conversation with fresh without the moratorium over our heads. And to that, I don't support this, but the proper method is I'm going to move passage of this and then we would discuss further vote, but that would be
[1:52:51] Joseph Leonard: the way I'm moving passage. Okay, so we do have a motion on the table, so if anyone else does want to have a comment or a question, I would entertain that or a second, if anyone wants to
[1:53:03] Carolyn Fish: second Counselor Back's motion. So just that I'm clear, we passed this but it continues to be
[1:53:09] Michael Beck: of her conversation, right, if it passes but the conversation, I'm happy to have the conversation. I guess I'd like to not see it attached to this ordinance. I'd like to see it be let's talk about needles in general, let's talk about mat in general, and you know figure out what data we're looking for and all those things, because I get it, you know, there's a concept out there that you know two needle providers is too much for community for a few thousand, but those two hospitals, you know, you go for the needs, you create one of the needs there. So you know I'm all for collecting data and everything, but I don't think that didn't come attached with this, and I just, I don't, I just having the moratorium over our heads with this, I don't think gets us to where we want to be. Yes, everyone wants to make sure we're on top of the syringe waste and look at that, because there's, there's a number of places needles come from. I mean, where do you, where does it go next? Do we regulate Walmart? We regulate Walgreens? Do we, you know, intercept mail from Amazon? I mean, what, where does it end? You know, there's a number of places it comes from, so I'm happy to have the conversation. I just don't want to attach this, so by moving it I'm gonna go no, but I don't want a table. I'd rather that conversation start fresh in a workshop, not attached to this. That's
[1:54:27] Carolyn Fish: where my position is. Okay, yes, Counselor Fish. This isn't like Walmart or Amazon, I mean it 's an epidemic out on our streets, and if we don't table this, when's it going to come back? It took me a year and a half to get this far. I went to our previous manager with something like this, and this is the best we could get to get it to the table. This is an emergency situation with a lot of our residents. The needle exchange. I see the health need for it, and I'm happy with the providers that are working with us. We have to do something, and if we just table this or we just take this and don't pass it, when are we going to talk about it again? What are we going to do, and when are we going to do it, months, years? I mean, it's, we have to do something, and we have to do something soon. In a moratorium, you know what it's going to take to get Acadia to come to the table? We actually do have somebody on our homeless, and I'm excited about that, on our homeless committee, but we're in crisis mode, and we need more partners to the table now, so I do want to add
[1:55:39] Joseph Leonard: to that. This is not, if this were to fail tonight, that doesn't mean we can't continue to have a conversation. What this does mean though is that, and I will speak for myself on this, puts the city into a dangerous situation legally and potentially to have a suit go against us as well. I don't think what we potentially gain from a moratorium, I don't see what benefit that actually does to us in the short run, because I think we can still accomplish what it is that you want to achieve without a moratorium over our head. And so what this does at the end of the day is it puts a lot of uncertainty into the status of where this council is going to go if we want to go forward with a moratorium. And I can, I mean, I just know right off the bat right now, based off of what you presented before me, that this would already put into jeopardy federally recognized people who are disabled. That right there is a problem that I absolutely am not going to give up on that hill for. It's that is actually, that 's a pretty serious issue. So I, okay, I will allow Councilor Balloon, and I do wanna remind people, we do have a motion on the table as well i was just going to reiterate that you know there was
[1:57:14] Susan Faloon: a federal court case and this was related to methadone clinics and them being treated differently than other medical facilities. So just reiterating that, like, that ordinance that was against expansion, but you could argue that this is the same thing. It's, it wouldn't allow us to expand methadone clinics in the area. That would still be considered discrimination against people seeking to recover from addiction under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and there was already a case here in Bangor with the Bangor City Council 10 years ago. So I just think, like, I don't disagree that we need to dig into this, but I don't think this
[1:57:59] Joseph Leonard: is gonna be the way to accomplish it either. So okay, I appreciate those thoughts as well.
[1:58:07] Carolyn Fish: So just ask if we've had legal look at this. It's legal to have moratoriums, right? I mean, we're not talking about an expansion, we're talking about a world power. So I legal did review this. I don't know whether he specifically reviewed it through the lens of the Americans with Disabilities Act or not, because I know other towns do have moratoriums and they weren't, they weren't sued. So I assume you can have a moratorium, but it's a question we can't answer
[1:58:34] Joseph Leonard: tonight so to that point counselor officially also i have said this multiple times it's not illegal for municipalities or even states to pass laws that go against federal law states have done that multiple times and that doesn't mean though that those laws are enforceable though so we can pass this if we wanted to but I 'll just reiterate what I said earlier I'm not comfortable doing that from a legal but also ethical perspective yes
[1:59:03] Michael Beck: counselor back two things I mean we're going to be sued I mean the case that counselor flume brought up that was a lot that was passed in 2008. it took a year to get sued but we got sued so that kind of also there was a point of you know we could pass whatever we like but doesn't even really want to be a challenge but in regards to again the needle waste you know the data that i'm looking at isn't suggesting that it is ssps that's necessarily causing all of it i mean with the two ssp providers we have according to the main cdc wabanaki collected 38 000 more needles than they distributed needlepoint has a 99 return rate about 2 000 the Needle is different, so between the two it's a, it's a negative, you know, so there's other sources of this. Not saying we shouldn't be looking into it, I'm just saying like we shouldn't just be blaming one avenue and calling it good. I mean, we need to, you know, we'll re-examine it, but again, this isn't the vehicle, and that's why I made the motion, because I don't want to table it. I feel
[2:00:03] Joseph Leonard: that I don't, I don't want this over kind of council's head, so I am going to, I know you have a question, counselor, but I do want to just pay attention to the motion that's on the floor. Is there a second that we want to put forward on that, or do second, we do have a second. Okay, so with that said, if you want, I can get to your question at the end of the, I just had a quick point, but oh, okay, thank you. All right, we have a motion, we have a second, we will do a roll call vote. Councillor Beck, no. Councillor Fish, yes. Councillor Faloon, no. Councillor Mallar, yes. And I will be a no. There will be two yes, three no.
[2:00:54] Michael Beck: Yes, this is a procedural question. Do we have to do it for one, for each ordinance, or does one
[2:00:59] Joseph Leonard: motion cover them both? That's a great question. I'm going to be looking to the city manager
[2:01:04] Unidentified speaker (Historic Preservation Commission staff): for guidance on that. I mean, I interpreted it to be the one, I'm sorry, since they're listed as one item,
[2:01:12] Carolyn Fish: I think it's fine to have disposed of them both, unless someone desires to have a different
[2:01:16] Joseph Leonard: outcome on one than the other. Unless anyone has an issue with that, I'm fine with that single vote as is, and thank you for the clarification, manager, mayor. Yes, director Gunderman, if there's
[2:01:29] Unidentified speaker (Public commenter): any questions or any points of clarification that the city council would like, you're more than welcome, working with city manager to get them to us, and we can be working with our local organizations looking for data from the CDC, or have any questions, things such as different, thank
[2:01:50] Joseph Leonard: you for that. Yes, count the phone, can I just make one quick point? Of course you can. Thank you.
[2:01:54] Susan Faloon: It occurred to me as we were talking about this, so many people are on injectable weight loss drugs at home, that so many homes have needles in them already. People are getting them other places because they are in so many homes right now.
[2:02:22] Joseph Leonard: Unless there's anything else, thank you so much, director Gunderman, thank you so much, Mr. Hurley, for joining us at the table. All right, with that said, I will entertain a motion going
[2:02:36] Michael Beck: to executive session regarding acquisition of real property or economic development under for one MRSA 4056C. I second. Do we have a motion? We have a second. Roll call vote.
[2:02:49] Joseph Leonard: Councilor Beck? Yes. Councilor Fish? Yes. Councilor McMillan? Yes. Councilor Malheur? Yes. And I'll be a yes. We are in executive session. OK, so we are out of executive session. Thank you so much for your patience. I will entertain a motion.
[2:16:00] Carolyn Fish: I move that we accept staff recommendation and move to full council for the restructuring of the structure of a community
[2:16:08] Joseph Leonard: development loan okay all right we have a motion and we have a second I'll do a roll call vote just in case counselor back I'm sorry counselor Mallory gets on which he has to get hurt so counselor back yes counselor fish yes balloon yes counselor Mallory yes and I will be a yes there'll be five zero to move on that is going to end the regularly scheduled meeting of the business economic development i just want to thank everyone for the new structure of how i want to do these committees i know it probably elongated the conversation, but I think it's going to make the conversations much better overall, so I just want to appreciate you going through the motions for this first one. So unless anyone has anything else they would like to add, it is currently 8 36 p.m. and I will be adjourning this.