Bangor council weighs nonprofit hub update, budget process, immigration ordinances

[0:44] Susan Hawes: Good evening, welcome to the city council workshop. It's Monday, February 29th, 2026. It is 5 15. Around the table we have Councillor Fish, Councillor Carson, Council Game, Council Flume, Council Rec, Council Leonard, Councillor Mallar, and we also have on Zoom Council Walker, and I'm Council Hawes, chair. So this is a workshop, so we won't be doing public comment in this session. We'll take public comment in the meeting tonight. This session is a work session. Our first item is, it's an ARPA project update with the United Way. You want me to give an introduction? Yeah, sure, and we need to get another chair too. Okay, now I'll give an introduction. [1:38] Carolyn Fish: So the United Way has recently kicked off in earnest a major project that they impart funds to come to complete, and they requested to come in and give you some details about that project. Speaking is Matt Donahue at United Way, and also in the audience is Shira Patterson, the current CEO and President of the United Way. [2:14] Matt Donahue: Thanks for having us. For those of you who have not met Matt Donahue, not only do I work at United Way, I'm also a Bangor resident and involved in different organizations including Bangor Little League. So tonight I have some slides, there's more slides than I have time to cover, so I know that those can be provided to you so you can look through them, but with that in mind, just to give you a little bit of background, our service area on the next slide, I'm not sure who's controlling slides, but on the next slide that our service area is six county, so not only do we serve here Penobscot County, but we also serve Hancock, Piscataquis, Somerset, Waldo, and Washington. So really the middle swath of the state, everything underneath the rustic and above central Maine is our area, but our office has always been in Bangor. As we've grown our most recent county Somerset, we serve that entire area, but our hub and our base has always been here in Bangor, and when we were looking at this project for the community Maine's Nonprofit Hub, Bangor is where we wanted and eventually found a space to house that. So on the next slide, you can see we have four particular areas that we focus on. We focus on basic needs, early childhood, substance use disorder, and nonprofit capacity building. So when we think about how we operate our mission, how we operate funding to other nonprofits, how we build capacity for nonprofits, it's really tied to these four areas. So on the next slide you can see sort of a snapshot. This is not a comprehensive list, but a snapshot of how we execute our work. So when you think about United Way from a historical model, most people think about the right side where we fundraise, we get dollars and donations from community members, from companies, from individuals. Tools through workplace giving, and then we allocate that out to vetted organizations throughout the community that do work under those whole areas. We still do that, we do that, still do that in a in a very meaningful way. Hundreds of thousands of dollars every year go out in grants through our strategic investment grants. We also have one-time grants that we provide, including a fuel assistance fund, which is really timely at this time of year, top of mind, but the funding is not the only way United. Way works anymore. The model has changed nationwide and locally. It has also changed to where we also have our own work, our own programs that supplement the funding. So when we think about 211 Maine, we think about our bundle project, which is early childhood initiative, and the hub, so what we're going to talk about tonight, those are all sort of the other side of the house. So beyond our funding, what are we doing to support the community in ways that we can be more direct? So on the next slide you can see just a refresher. We were very honored and thankful for the city council at the time that entrusted us with an arpa award of four hundred thousand dollars to put towards the acquisition and renovation of a property to become a hub for non-profits here in bangor. At the time we had strategies, we had vision, and we had an idea, we didn't have the physical location. Identified that took a little bit of time, but with our team we were able to get to that spot, and you'll see some pictures of that in a little bit. But the reason we started that, on the next slide you can see a couple of, there are many more than this, but this is a few of the challenges non-profits face, and this was something that was existing before the pandemic, but as the pandemic and its effects afterwards have lingered, these have only been exacerbated. So we think about some of the capacity challenges that nonprofits have, not just funding, which obviously is a large one that always comes up in conversations with any nonprofit, but also about board training and about how they function and how they can create pipelines of leadership development. We certainly see turnover and burnout at a higher rate in the nonprofit sector, and even more so in the last couple of years. And then there's really some infrastructure barriers that we think about and some needs that the nonprofit sector really identified and on the next slide you can see we know also that nonprofits have nonprofits have an important economic impact in addition to the great important work that it does to serve our community members and especially those who need us most so with that as the backdrop we've formed an advisory committee and if you go to the next slide it has the full list of advisory committee members from different sectors we have Municipal representation we have non-profit and for-profit representation they're really brought a diverse background not just a programming but also of things like infrastructure building acquisition renovation and we worked really hand in hand with this group to really guide how we moved forward and we landed on if you go to the next slide the 700 Mount Hope app so this is within Evergreen Woods here in Bangor this became the base of the property that we have now turned into the nonprofit hub. And that space is a really tremendous space. It was formerly owned by Tyler Technologies when they built in Orono. This became available. It sat for quite a while. We got a good price for the property and the acquisition, which allowed us to stretch our dollars further with the renovations. On the next slide, you can see a little bit of the timeline. We have a closing date of June 27th. After that we immediately got to work on renovations every square foot of that building has been touched in some way or another and that took place in the course of about three and a half months which is a it was a tremendous you know turnaround time to be able to get us in there quickly which was all based off of our partnerships and relationships in the community we moved in the middle of October we really focused on getting ourselves self-settled as we thought about the next steps of opening the doors to other nonprofits and really exposing that as we moved into 2026. We do have multiple spaces available for nonprofits to have for office space, in addition to some meeting space and the training and other programming that we're going to be doing. We have not marketed that yet, but we already have four of the offices that are rented. That was just through word of mouth. We will be doing advertising around that professional office space, which includes internet and our shared meeting spaces that come along with that, which has been really well received already. We are in this month going to be hosting our first training sessions. There's another slide on that. And then as we think about the future, those programmatic angles are really in phase three and four. So in addition to the physical space, we want to be built capacity through training, through board development and pipelines for other nonprofits to have talent gaps filled both on the board and committee side. And then certainly we have other pieces of training and incubator helping nonprofits, you know, really think through a business model if they're looking to expand or evolve, having a really comprehensive approach to that as opposed to it being a little bit more piecemeal, which, you know, is something that we're certainly hearing both from nonprofits but also the for-profit companies that we work closely with as they interact with non-profit leaders. So that's sort of like when we think about the rest of 2026 and into 2027, we have some really strategic benchmarks and timelines that were put in place to think about how we execute this with still a pretty restrained our own budget and our own staffing is not robust in a, you know, we don't have a lot of capacity to do it all at once. We're really being strategic in how we layer that in so that it's done well. The next two slides again more reference, but it just shows you sort of how we the 9800 square feet that we have, which doesn't look like that from the outside. Everyone who takes a tour is like, wow, this is way bigger than I thought it was. This shows sort of the layout of the two different levels, so our main level and on the next slide our patio level. Each of those sort of has some dedicated chunk space that you can see sort of how that is coming together and how we're utilizing the actual footprint. The next couple of slides so if you look at this is what it looked like when we acquired the property it was really good bones they were using the space up until when they moved out so it was wired they were you know tech company so it was ready for office space but it was very well used let's say it had some fixtures and some wear and tear that needed some updating and so you can kind of see in the next slide the same exact spaces midstream as we were renovating the space and then on the third slide here you'll see sort of the finished product, so to speak, and we're really proud of the space. We were able to do it on a really restricted budget, but we also had the right connections with our industry partners to be able to stretch our dollars further. So it looks really high end, but a lot of the furniture was donated, a lot of the materials we got at cost. So we were able to stretch that a lot further, which was a really great way that we should be doing anyways. We should be working with our partners, whether that be nonprofit or corporate, to extend our donor dollars as far as they can go. So we're really proud of the space and it really elevates when we think about nonprofits profits coming in. We've invested in technology as well, so it makes it easy for people to host board meetings, come in and do trainings, and do different kinds of things that we can host in the different spaces based off of the layout. So, if you think about the strategies on the next two slides, this is what we were envisioning going into this, and because of the property itself we are actually able to move forward with these strategies. So we have a number of different areas that we're focused on, you know, currently and into the future, and we've talked about some of those with the shared space and services, but we also want to think about how do we build capacity, how do we build a talent pipeline for the sector to increase workforce development, to increase pathways for careers, and that's something that we're going to be continuing to look at. On the next slide you can see a few more, and that board leadership one has really been something that we're hearing loud and clear is a huge need, and we're hearing that from both sides. We have for-profit partners who would love their employees to get involved with a board or a committee, and they want to make sure that they're ready to do that and not just be thrown into it. And not know exactly what they're supposed to do, so they want training. And then on the non-profit side, we have, you know, loud and clear that there's talent gaps, that there's needs for volunteers, that we need people to be taking these slots on boards, but they need to be able to manage and utilize those new and new board members well. So that's one of the many, the volunteer center, there's a lot of these that are really in source speak high demand, and we are adding those in as we move into 2026. So when we look at the next slide, you can see what has already happened. We already have peer groups, executive directors that are coming together from the nonprofit sector to meet, to share resource development peer groups, so fundraising professionals. Down the road we also have some volunteer groups, project or program managers that are going to come together in the space, but also hybrids, so the space allows for some of our more remote areas to participate in addition to the people who are right here in bank work. We, as I mentioned, have the four tenants as far as office spaces. We have additional spaces still available for rent. The meeting spaces have already been used for board meetings. There's actually a group in there right now that's a humane grad program on grant writing that's in the space meeting with one of our staff members, so it's really opening up the doors to some cool partnerships and collaborations. Board retreats are taking place. I already have and will continue this spring and then we have a lot of events and trainings, and on the next slide I think shows the next couple of events that are coming up. So we have really kind of a 101 on financial statements for nonprofits that KeyBank is going to be putting on coming up on the 26th. And then we also have a marketing one around Canva, branding and building a brand template in Canva, so that nonprofits can utilize that typically free resource to its fullest extent. So those are just a sampling of some of what we have coming up with a full slate of trainings and opportunities available to, from marketing to fund financial like you see here, to all kinds of different angles of the of the sector. And in addition then, the next slide you can see that this, you know, shows some depth of initial investment and initial supporters to this. So in addition to the arpa funding from the city, we have both individual donors and companies who have been really leading Investors in this project who understand the vision and also are really putting not just their dollars but also their expertise into this project to make it really successful. And it's exactly what United Way, you know, does well. It brings people together from different groups, different backgrounds, for the shared common cause, in this case, of really building the nonprofit sector and building capacity. So that is like probably the fastest rundown of both what United Way is doing and the hub itself. So I will certainly pause and I'm happy to talk through any specifics or questions that people might have today. Questions? [15:59] Susan Hawes: Questions? Comments? Council Fisch? [16:02] Carolyn Fish: In part of your training, do you have, I know a lot of nonprofits, like you've been profit businesses, a lot of times people have a passion, a skill, they want to go out on their own now, they're ready. And even though they may excel in a particular talent or skill and are motivated by their passion, they lack business skills, especially how to set goals and budgets, raise revenue and balance those revenues and project forward. So even if it's a nonprofit, you still need to increase those revenues. So I imagine with nonprofits they have the same problem that profit businesses have and the biggest reason they fail is that they're not good business managers. So in that model I just didn't see that Specifically do you have that incorporated in your model as an incubator partner? [16:53] Matt Donahue: Yeah, so the incubator piece specifically we heard as part of our research and due diligence on the project. First of all, there's a lack of training and educational information. So if you wanted to start a new small business, you have a number of different options out there that you can go to. Each of those does not know how to start a 501c3 or understand the ins and outs. So they refer you to other organizations like my association of nonprofits who does have an online guide, but they don't have any local hands-on support. So that is something that we want to fill a gap for, not that we are looking to then turn out or start up a whole bunch of new nonprofits, but with the concept and idea of, we need to make sure, first of all, that your passion is matched with your business skill and that there isn't already something out there that's existing that's doing and filling that gap that maybe you could put that passion towards. So we want to look at that as a first layer. And then if that checks all those boxes that they are interested in starting something new, they have the passion, that they then put that business plan into place, which not just how to raise funds, but also the requirements of being a board, what you have to do with the IRS, what you have to do to actually maintain and start that and we have had some experience with that there's existing organizations in the community that are doing great work that started in a infancy phase and then worked with us as a fiscal sponsor and are now their own 501c3 but the vast majority don't get to that phase because they realize along the way that it's not the best path forward or they only have certain skills and don't have other people buying in or there's something out there already that they can just jump into and bring that expertise to thank you so it sounds [18:42] Carolyn Fish: like you help assess during that incubated period of time to even make a decision if they shouldn't move forward solo or they should partner with something already exactly yes yeah [18:53] Susan Hawes: any other questions comments well [19:00] Matt Donahue: i appreciate i honestly appreciate the time and if there are questions down the road you know we are as i mentioned at 700 mount hope so you can stop by or you can give us a call and my information obviously is available as well thank [19:14] Susan Hawes: you for coming by we'll get an update absolutely we'll make sure one gets emailed yeah phenomenal thank you very much thank you thank you thank week okay next item is budget discussion and the city manager here is going to [19:38] Carolyn Fish: run with that one sure thanks all right so during last week's committee meetings councilor maller requested that we schedule some time to discuss the budget process and approach. Where we are right now in the process is that the department heads are preparing their budgets. Then in the next, you know, several weeks to a month, I'm going to begin meeting internally with each of them. They will probably not appreciate that it will probably be several times given that it's my first time going through the budget process. process. But I'll meet with each of them, go over their requests. Generally, we'll tackle it as two components, sort of their normal operating costs to continue services at their current level, as well as any new programs or positions that they're hoping to ask for in the budget process. At the end of that arduous process, we will have what is termed a city manager's proposed budget. That proposed budget is going to be based on my professional recommendations and include a responsible analysis of what it will cost to maintain current services and programs as well as recommendations for changes or additional programs. The next step in that process will happen in early to mid-April, which is that you will all get my proposed budget and then we'll have those same series of meetings over again where you will all have the opportunity to ask questions and request changes before sort of a final revised version is presented for a vote. Sort of in thinking through how I hope the process goes those this year, I would know that I'm new, but many of our department heads are new as well. And I think that really creates opportunities for fresh eyes and fresh perspectives on each department and how they operate. And so I hope that there's a level of openness to that feedback and input from both myself and our department heads. And then secondly, I think the idea of a city manager's proposed budget is very important to the process. Presuming that you have confidence in me and the hire that you made eight months ago, I'm assuming that you're hoping that I will put a lot of thought and effort into the budget and come to you with something that is both responsible but also thoughtful. And so I would hesitate to sort of preemptively set targets or forward-looking goals on what you want to see at this stage. My fear would be that doing so would cut off some of that process that the new department heads and I will go through. So with that, I'm happy to answer questions or engage in discussion. [22:49] Susan Hawes: Questions, Council Member? [22:51] Joseph Leonard: I don't know the answer to this. How much dialogue is there between you and school committee during this process, zero or some [22:58] Carolyn Fish: I guess I'll give you what my impression is, that historically there has not been a ton of discussion. That being said, I think both myself and the superintendent have acknowledged that we would like to see a higher level of engagement throughout the process, because I think that is better for all of us, that we don't get to the end of the process and have surprises or, you know, an unreasonable volume of question questions that need to be answered before we can sort of do the [23:30] Joseph Leonard: final vote no that makes sense and just so the rest of the council knows i do plan to attend all these school committee meetings just to see what their budget process is going on right now and i'm going to try to have a sit down with a number of the committee members as well just to us hear their thoughts and opinions on that way we can hopefully avoid some of the more raw conversations that we've had in previous years i think it's i 'd like to see us when that part of the budget process comes up, we actually have our ducks in a row. We already know the discussion that's going to be had, and we already have varying solutions or conditions that we want to proceed forward with when considering the school committee budget. Because I think the last thing that we need right now is, because we have so many new heads and whatnot, I think it'd be important for us to set the precedent moving forward that, and I'd be fine with, and I know you and I talked about this too, I'd be fine with even just having the council chair and the committee chair for the school board having more conversations during the preliminary budget process when the school committee is doing theirs. I think that will really help mitigate a lot of the confusion that comes up during that process. So that's just my two cents I wanted to bring forward. But please, by all means, come to the meetings. [25:04] Carolyn Fish: They're actually a very informative, and that's a good segue as a reminder that this Wednesday you will have a meeting invite for the seven o'clock presentation of the superintendent's budget that I think, I don't know, is that something that has historically an invite that has historically been passed on to counselors that knew it's new in that format? I got that impression as well, that Marie was, superintendent Robinson was hoping that you would all be there to sort of start the process of engaging early. But to the extent you're not able to be there this Wednesday, I'm going to go and I'll certainly bring back anything that I think would be valuable for you all to know. Any other [25:58] Susan Hawes: comments? How many can make the meeting on Wednesday? Right, Angela, can you make the meeting on Wednesday depending on how you're feeling? She's muted. Yep, there she goes. I will keep you guys updated [26:21] Carolyn Fish: okay on how I feel. There could be a zoom invite as well, right, if you can do it on zoom, that's [26:28] Susan Hawes: Fine, we'll make sure you get whatever handouts or anything there are, but that's great, we can all be there. Great, okay, that's it on the budget. That's it on the budget. Okay, well, the next one we have [26:48] Carolyn Fish: a review of the legislative committee edits. Yes, so in the packet for the workshop, the first item you should see there is a revised coordinates change for the standing legislative committee. During last week's committee meetings, I took two changes away. One was to make clear that the committee's activities were contingent upon appropriate full council discussion and approval, which I've addressed by adding a new number four to the ordinance, and then additionally I've added other elected bodies to the appropriate places to reflect the idea that it might not necessarily only be our state delegation that we're engaging with on state legislation, it might be federal or other municipalities. That is also on the full council agenda tonight for first reading. But if you are not okay with those changes or you think I missed something, you're of course welcome to pull it off and not vote on it. But if it looks good, we can move it forward. [28:12] Susan Hawes: That would be nice. Council Fisch. [28:14] Carolyn Fish: I think we had a conversation before Council Carson admitted, I think that's why we added number four to make sure that there was some communication so that whatever was bought to legislature as a suggestion from city council or that they discovered was going on that was of concern to the city that it was keeping the full council engaged for approval, and so I just assume that though it says keep council prize and obtain appropriate full council approval that sort of encompasses everything that you are looking for guidance [28:53] Susan Hawes: that's where it ended up, thank you any other comments on this? Okay, perfect. Later, number four, we have the draft ordinance regarding immigration enforcement what's next do [29:18] Michael Beck: you want to kick it off? So I'll be speaking about chapter 46 at the piece I put through, and I want to talk about what's in front of you and what it is and what it isn't. So the order that I put forward is a fiscal responsibility ordinance insurers of Bangor's limited tax dollars, if you care all the time how limited they are, municipal resources are reserved strictly quickly for local safety priorities, rather than being diverted to unfunded federal civil immigration matters and enforcement mandates. It protects our budget by prohibiting the use of city funds, facilities, and personnel for federal civil immigration enforcement, unless the federal government provides a judicial warrant. It also protects taxpayers from costly civil rights litigation. If we choose to fulfill a federal immigration request without a judge's order, the city of Bangor accepts full liability for any resulting civil rights violations, and this ordinance shields the taxpayer by requiring the due process is there before we act. This is a public safety tool to protect victims and witnesses. The policy is grounded in the reality that when residents fear local government, they are more, they're less likely to report crime but come forward as witnesses. It's designed to preserve trust so that every resident, regardless of status, feels safe calling 911, seeking emergency assistance, and cooperating with our police to solve crimes. There's also a codification of our clear rules of the road for city staff. It provides necessary clarity for our employees regarding their authority and limitations in immigration matters, and reduces legal risk and prevents inconsistent practices across departments. It draws a firm bright line between local public safety responsibilities and federal civil immigration enforcement, and this is a guarantee of cooperation on serious crimes. The ordinance explicitly safeguards the ability of our public safety personnel to cooperate with federal authorities in the investigation of serious crimes, including human trafficking, sex trafficking, drug trafficking, and firearms trafficking. It informs and affirms that city employees will continue to comply with all judicial warrants, subpoenas, and court orders regarding criminal activity. Now what this ordinance isn't, it's not a shield for criminals or dangerous individuals. There's nothing in this ordinance that limits city employee from enforcing state local laws, doesn't prevent the transfer of individuals to federal custody through the valid judicial warrant, doesn't stop our police from working with federal partners to get traffickers, drug dealers, or violent offenders off our streets. This is not a refusal to follow the law. The ordinance explicitly requires compliance with all federal And state laws, including 8 USC 1373 and 1644. It also distinguishes between a judicial warrant, which is signed by a judge based on probable cause, and an administrative warrant, which is simply a civil document signed by a federal employee. And but simply stating that for non-criminal civil matters, we require the due process of a judge's signature before using city resources. It is not a ban on communication between agencies. There's nothing in there to prohibit that. It simply ensures that our police are not deputized to do the federal government's job for them. It's not handcuffing the police department. Rather than restricting our officers, this policy protects them from the liability and resource drain of enforcing civil federal regulations that are outside their jurisdiction, and ensures that our highly trained officers remain focused on their core mission, Bangor's local public safety. This is not an immigration policy either. The city council does not have the authority to set immigration law, and this ordinance does not attempt to do so. I brought this forward and I wanted this in a workshop format so we can have a chance to see if there's appetite for this. And there is, great, let's move forward. If not, then that's the will of the council. That's what I have for my end. [33:27] Carolyn Fish: Does it make sense to introduce them both, or one, or each separately? I defer to the councillors who [33:34] Michael Beck: propose them. I mean, I guess we could go one at a time. That's the Mallory you have to hand up. Yeah. [33:41] Wayne Mallar: Yeah, I'd be curious, the chief is here to see where he stands, what his opinion is. [33:50] Carolyn Fish: So I think just to be clear, so we've had these for a couple of working days, so we haven't done in-depth line by lines. Attorney, city solicitor, subject is also here and has sort of looked over them and has sort of initial thoughts as well, and of course Chief Hathaway will give his thoughts. [34:11] Michael Beck: But have it, don't like, if I could, my thought was, you know, to see if there was even an appetite for it, and then have it go through the process, and that is part of that, I haven't be properly vetted. Let's take some questions and see if [34:26] Susan Hawes: it's going in that direction. Was that your question? [34:30] Wayne Mallar: My question would raise what his opinion is of this. Okay, and should we go forth? Well, I mean, he probably will tell us whether we should or shouldn't, but I just want his opinion. [34:44] Susan Faloon: Basically just wondering if it would make sense for me to talk about mine if we're going to bring the chief up here, because he's probably going to have thoughts on that too, unless we want to just [34:54] Susan Hawes: Keep talking, he's been brought to the table and sent away to the table and sent away before so. [35:02] Chief Hathaway: We've clearly discussed this, in fact we've already indicated that we have no issues with this particular language. There'll be a law in place that we'll follow shortly and that aligns with the language, so there's nothing in this language that will cause us any concern how. [35:20] Susan Deane: Would this supplement the chapter 337 that Janet Mill signed into law? It's essentially the same, there's there's no difference between. Why do we need a state and a municipal or city the [35:35] Susan Hawes: the council to determine? That's what I would, that would be my question. Sure, the governor let [35:40] Michael Beck: it sit on her desk and so it's gonna be delayed before it's actually put in. So this is a bridge to get us there, and so if it the language aligns, I see no harm in passing this to make sure we cover it till then, and then certainly the state will, I would supersede this I would assume. [36:00] Carolyn Fish: And how many months, when is it affected, how many months to squeeze? [36:04] Chief Hathaway: I believe when the legislature adjourns they'll probably mid-summer. [36:10] Carolyn Fish: End of June is when this lovely place, so we'll just, are we writing in here that then this just becomes an unemployed after June because the other one will supersede it anyway? Why are we doing this for three plus months and what monies are we spending that are delegated to federal funds that's coming out of our budget and hurting us? How much money? Sorry, I'm not sure I understood that, there's funds allocated to federal programs that this somehow will prevent us from doing, I don't have my hand right on it but there was there was you know keeping our money here and not going towards you know helping the feds more or less, so how much money are we spending on helping the feds? I think Chief Hathaway would say none, we've never are engaged in, so that's another new point. So again here we are when talking about this for the third time, this came up the beginning of last year when we had an immigration protest and after the new administration came in and concerned to report to us about the community being in fear and we 'd spent a lot of time and we did send out a message that we were welcoming and we protect those people we do, then we came up again, I can't remember the second time, I think it was another resolve, I can't remember, but three, four months ago, we came up again to talk about exactly this. It was a resolve, but it was along these instead of ordinances, it was a resolve. And here we are again. And you know, as far as the legal and judicial action, I just think when I read the language in this, how are we going to, we're going to ask our policemen to not allow, enforce a law not allowing ICE onto a particular public, you know, Bangor-owned property? How would you propose? And I think that no matter how much training you get, you can't tell what incident an officer is going to have in a split second, they've got to make a decision. How are they going to determine what's proper papers? And if someone, a Fed says, we're going to come in anyway, are your, you know, what kind of confrontation is that going to potentially involve your officer in you know I just hate to put our police department in an incident that could you guys on the spot have to make a decision I think doing this raises the flags to the feds that you know we don't want to challenge them we don't want to raise a flag I talked to a number of my immigrant friends today and said just be honest are you scared are you in fear and all of them said no and they said that there are some they did admit that there are some people in the community that do have fear that have fear one had a green card one is working in the process but has proper paperwork and one is a citizen but can barely speak English and I called them all one I was not able to get back to because they are in their home country and the time difference is different and I was surprised that. And he said, I do have fear. And she said, when I'm a tiny lady, and I don't dare to go out at night, because I have been accosted so much by and she said, No offense, but people that have mental health and substance use, and I just feel they're predict unpredictable, and I'm tiny. And I've had a lot of interaction. And she said, I, she said, when she came into this country, anyway, came in two or three years ago, she said, they're very trained, they expect that I don't know ICE for control white immigration facility they're told that they will be checking they have the right and they will be checking in and they're supposed to interact with them and she has her papers she said that a couple of her friends or family have been in fact stopped and checked on and she said it went very smooth they know they're supposed to keep their papers with them and she said she had no fear and that fact all three have had no fear. I talked to a federal Judge, not Maine, but briefly he looked at it and he said he just saw a lot of issues about drawing attention to ICE, they're not here, they're not bothering us, why do something to kind of get their attention and have them even challenge it? How are we going to be prepared to challenge? I mean, do we have the right to challenge them and stop them from coming onto our property? And what could be potentially the result of that, what would be our liability? Can we be identified if something unforeseen comes up as a result where there's a confrontation? Are we going to be, you know, empowering our citizens that feel so passionate about protection and harm, that if they see us, they're going to feel more empowered because they got the city behind them to interact for what they might feel is protecting an immigrant? Brett, are we innocently getting ourselves in a position where things you never expected are going to happen, and we do things with a big heart, we follow the right reasons, and whether they say no, good deed goes unpunished. But I'm just thinking of potential liabilities. And if it ain't brought up, and if we already have state laws that are already governed, and it's another thing, to me, it says we don't think you're doing your job and you need a lot more training. and it's putting your offices and your department in a position you probably don't want to be in and I'm not for this I am not this does not mean I'm for the behavior of some of the ICE people and I am not for people being not allowed due process and but I do think that there are federal and courts and the judicial process through that I think this is between the state and the government and that Bangor doesn't need to interject itself where we may face consequences that are unexpected and if any broke life except when we have bigger issues a lot of issues 150 miles of pipes that are disintegrating an airport that needs millions of dollars and here we are again you know I'd like to see us come up with revenue making ideas to help bring the city forward with key issues we have. And as far as fear goes, we've got kids that are dying at the hands of children. We don't have ordinances to protect them. We had more kids killed by school buses than we have by icing. So I'd like to us to just focus on the job of managing the city as leaders that are supposed to run like a company, a business. So no, I'm not for this. And it doesn't mean that I'm not for the immigrants. I expect due process. [42:54] Susan Faloon: So the reason for this discussion and the things that I am proposing as well, first of all, I wasn't here when this was voted on last time, and this is different than what was voted on last time, but there are real concerns in our community. Community residents of Bangor, many of whom are here lawfully and some are even U.S. citizens, have spoken openly and some not so openly about the fear and the harm that has been connected to immigration enforcement practices that they are experiencing here in Maine and in the greater Bangor area, not just Lewiston, not just Portland, they in this, and it's not just based on what people are seeing on television, which some people have said too. So I'm about to share some specific examples that I have gotten through several conversations, including with the Maine Multicultural Center. They're going to be a little bit general because these are small communities and I don't want to place anyone at risk because people are seriously in fear, but they happened either in Bangor or within an approximate 10 mile radius. In a nearby town, a woman was called and told to come get her husband's vehicle because he'd been arrested. When she asked why, she wasn't given information. She's she's a U.S. citizen. They have an autistic child. Her husband was deported despite having no criminal charges. In another case, a local business owner was detained by border patrol and deported. He also had no criminal history. He left behind a wife who was eight months pregnant and a five-year-old child. She gave birth and is now raising both children on her own. A young immigrant man from Bangor was pulled off a bus in another Main county. He had a valid work authorization card but was missing some additional documents that are not typically required. After eventually producing those documents, he was released and he returned to the Bangor area. A high school senior was taken into custody at a Bangor area business. His guardian had already been detained and deported. A teacher from his school had to step in to help. Imagine being 19 years old in a foreign country and suddenly you are completely on your own and then you're taken into detention. A nine-year-old local student came home from school and asked papa when are they going to take you. His dad had to explain well they're probably not but we don't know that for sure. A number of families in the Bangor area have kept their children home from school out of fear. I don't have exact numbers, but I'm sure that I can get them for a future meeting if any of this moves forward. Two families transferred their children to private schools closer to home and work so their children would not have to walk long distances alone for fear of being taken. In one family had not gone to the grocery store in two weeks because they were afraid to leave their home so they had to reach out for help to get groceries. Another family only shops at 10 pm when they do shop. They avoid speaking to one another in the store because they're afraid that someone will recognize them as being immigrants. When they do speak they're very careful to only speak English and they avoid shopping in the ethnic aisles of the grocery store. Can you imagine going to the grocery store and having to do these things. In another case a woman's husband was taken into custody injured and hospitalized. She called the hospital they weren't able to give information so she got upset understandably. Because she got upset it was reported that she was terrorizing. She was pulled over in a nearby town in Penobscot County where or five agents arrested her and injured her as well. It turns out her husband was rendered unconscious. This family is still dealing with his injuries and he may not fully recover this there's and they're still dealing with the repercussions from that incident. So this is the level of fear and uncertainty and for the first time ever the main multicultural center is holding a legal clinic with volunteer attorneys to help parents prepare powers of attorney so that they have plans in place for their children in the event the parent is detained or deported. So far, 18 local families have signed up for this. So that alone should tell us how real and how widespread this is. I think if any family is living in fear in our city, then we should as city councilors feel obligated to take some action council [48:03] Susan Hawes: phone you had your please [48:06] Susan Deane: Yeah, you had your hand up. I just, I wanted to mention something that Carolyn had asked. The last resolve, I believe, was after the Colby incident, and that was voted down. We didn't have the ordinance, we didn't have resolved at that time. These instances that you brought up are examples of fears and things that have happened. If we had a resolve or an ordinance prior to any of this taking place, would it have changed anything? Does it, how does that change ICE's response to these individuals compared to if there was some sort of ordinance in place? And I'm not seeing how it really changes things. For the police? For the police, because they're not involved with this to begin with. [48:52] Chief Hathaway: I've been here a number of years. We've never engaged in immigration enforcement. It wouldn't, if it wouldn't change anything so [48:58] Susan Deane: I'm confused as to why this is going to change any of these instances, other than maybe people's fears will be addressed, but the actual actions are not going to change because you're not, we're not [49:15] Chief Hathaway: currently engaged in this behavior. No council [49:19] Susan Hawes: back and then council Fish. Sure, one of the things is [49:25] Michael Beck: We govern by law, not by history. I mean, today we haven't engaged, we haven't engaged at this point, and that's great, and I appreciate that. So we don't know what next year looks like, a year after, a year after. And likewise with the state law, we have a gubernatorial election coming up, and they can work to have that repealed. So part of this is about what do we believe here in Bangor and how we also believe it should be handled. Would it have chanted with ICE? No, we can't tell ICE what to do. But at one point they will come asking, but you know with an administrative warrant, and just make sure when that day comes we'd like to see the judicial warrant, and then it would change things. I mean those are valid points, I mean right, it wouldn't change anything, but this is also about protecting the city from future lawsuits if that day comes, you know, because if we do an administrative, you know, warrant, as we're seeing all over the country, municipalities are getting sued and they're settling with people and we're talking collectively millions of dollars. And I don't want Bangor to be a part of that. So that's also about protecting our pocketbook. And, you know, the one thing about this is making sure I do not want to handcuff the police. They have a tough job to do. We have the best police force in the country. I've had a case of whoopie pies. And everybody is different. You know, so it's not an issue of trust. And I'm not worried, but things change. And I want to make sure that this is codified so that we're all on the same page going forward. [50:50] Carolyn Fish: I don't think if we put this all together that the next day after we do this that the people that have fear are going to wake up the next day and feel a whole lot better because we have no control over what ICE does and whether we our police officers stand and demand that they see the right people where ICE isn't going to care if they prove they're going to do what they're going to do and I just see that we have a better you know you know the kind of ego attitude Washington DC I just don't want Funding not come our way or pulled back as a result of them using an excuse of what we've done for funding that we need for families that are in need or however else they can look at whatever funding we have and come up with whatever excuse they want to withhold whole funding, then we have to fight for the funding because we've done something and we can say, well, it wasn't us that did it. They did it. But if they hold the purse springs, we're still at, you know, we've battled the fight to get the funding again. And, you know, our Congress people have been pretty good so far when in some of those fights and we've loosened up the funding, but I don't want to take the risk. Our families and the taxes and the tax burden, I think we're to come up with an idea I think we're going to get some of the Penobscot County and we've got the assessment and we've got to figure out how to make money for a host of other bills so there's a lot I have I have a great concern for our police department being in a position that may or may not we haven't yet but we could and I don't see how it's going to make our immigrant families feel a lot better but I'm really glad to hear that Maine multicultural cultural center and other people are there as a resource for the legal help they can get, but I just don't see we should get into that legal field and put our police department in any kind of jeopardy and put us more jeopardy. If we're not losing funds, I'm more worried about funds that could be with help. So I certainly hope that people that are not in due process, I know I've heard a lot, there's a lot of nonprofits and a lot of talented legal out there, and I don't think our police department put up with it either, but I don't want to jump into that can't bombs [53:07] Susan Hawes: I just don't think that's okay. Thank you. It's interesting because during the, you know, [53:16] Daniel Carson: the campaign and the candidate forum, they brought up the question about 287 achievement. I think I said then, but I was opposed to them because they fundamentally changed the nature of local law enforcement. It blurs the line between federal and local. And I'm going to keep on that theme, but point out that I sort of land in different places with the two different questions that are brought up. The federal government put in one piece of legislation 170 billion dollars towards this nationwide effort, and in an effort to meet capacity for their this program that they've rolled out across the country and their enforcement, that led to rapid hiring and of course rapid training and rapid training. I think we've seen enough instances across the country when rapid training occurs, this leads to oftentimes confrontation and escalation. And so I would be very concerned about a federal operation within our jurisdiction with those outcomes, prioritizing escalation and confrontation. I would prefer to see de-escalation and resolution. And so generally I am supportive of a measure like this because of the financial separation. I think $170 billion is a lot of money, and I think when it gets to using local resources, I don't know how that would be easily calculated, but you start putting people on the job, over time happens. I mean, that's like the first thing I can think of, but probably a lot of other pieces. So I'm generally supportive of this kind of thing, answering yes to this specific question, but I have questions about it. And that is to Counselor Fish's point about funding. I would like, and not that it would change necessarily my perspective, but I would be very interested to have a review particularly of grants with the airport, and I would like to have a review of funding with public health, which I think could present some challenges to those two areas. And then I also have the question about enforcement. How is this enforced and who enforces him? [55:41] Michael Beck: Sure, are you talking about the actual whether or not someone's checking to see [55:45] Daniel Carson: if they have a judicial warrant? Yeah, I mean though with the order entirely who [55:49] Michael Beck: who enforces or sure. Well it's it's gonna have to be enforced through the city manager on down. I mean it's just like any other city policy, you know how we enforce them all, you know it's just when they when it comes up, here's the warrant, did you check that it was judicial or not, they're going to have to, it's that's how it's enforced, you know it's nothing that the federal government can do, but it's going to determine. So the way I see it 's like any other city policy of course with the supervisor checking, you know, but again I can't correct the city manager to do it all. We can do is give them actually the policy in order to say comply with this and leave it up to her to decide the best way to do that. But again it's great question, but I see as any other enforcement, it's just how do we count on our talented employees to make sure the supervisors on down. My [56:42] Wayne Mallar: question is the state has or the governor assigned has that been subject to review by the federal government yet? Because I don't believe, you know, it's going to fly as fast through as she thinks it is. My question would be we'd look pretty stupid if we support that and find out two months down the road that the federal government said it's illegal to do this, so we got to come back and remove it. I think we need to wait. Waiting is not going to be that harmful. We're not having a mass riots in the streets over illegal immigrants. We're not having detained people. We don't see ICE around that much doing anything. I think this is something that we need to wait on. I don't see the rush to do it. I will be voting now to go forward. Council Lander? [57:36] Joseph Leonard: I just want to add really quick. You actually can pass legislation that does go against a federal policy. For example, there are states when Roe v. Wade was the law of the land, there were states that actually put forward like heartbeat bills and whatnot, like you [57:54] Susan Hawes: you couldn't have an abortion when [57:57] Joseph Leonard: A fetus developed a heartbeat, but they were unenforceable because Roe v. Wade was the law of the land. Once that was overturned, then all of these bills actually went into play. So even if the federal government does say that it's not allowed, they can't necessarily micromanage the laws that we have. They're just unenforceable. [58:19] Wayne Mallar: Unenforceable means that why did we do it in the first place? I just think it's a waste of our time to get involved in something that potentially is going to end with the federal government saying can't do anything. [58:32] Susan Deane: Yes, I would be uncomfortable going forward without a legal opinion. I'm sure this is probably premature to ask city solicitor, but if we could look into, is there any truth to future lawsuits if we do not pass this ordinance? Does it set us up for things that we don't want to be looking at in the future, and would this protect our city in a way that would make it [58:57] Chief Hathaway: advisable to pass something like this? De exception, city solicitor, I've had only a few days to look at these proposed ordinances, so I don't have a thorough analysis of them. However, on reviewing them a few times over the last few days, I can tell you that there are a number of issues that would have to be looked into by legal before I would be comfortable suggesting passage of these ordinances. These are different than the resolve that came before. That was a resolve. These are ordinances, these are laws, and we would need to look at a number of items in these things to see if they conflict with, for example, federal law enforcement laws. And if they conflict, there is a possibility of a standoff with the federal government with regard to enforcement. There are a few items in here that kind of jumped out to me on first referral, but at the very least, we would need sufficient time to analyze these ordinances and do research of the federal law before the legal department could even give you an opinion that is thorough. And this LD 1971, which is the state law that was passed without the governor having signed it, and that becomes effective, my estimate would be in July, and we would also have to analyze this. These proposals aren't the same as the state law. The legal department had already started looking into whether the state law was gonna conflict with federal law enforcement laws, but we're just in the early stages of looking into that. But we would also have to look and see how these ordinances would conflict with the state law, because they're not the same. So there's no way that legal could give approval for these ordinances as written to go forward. there are a few things that jumped out at me in reviewing these just for a few days one provision is in the ordinance that was i guess brought forth by counselor falloon there's in that proposed ordinance there is a provision that says that the city shall not hire any individual into a sworn law enforcement position who on or after January 20th, 2025 served as a sworn officer or enforcement agent of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or any successor agency in a role involving civil immigration enforcement. Without going into any further, without having to go further, I can tell right there that provision cannot, should not be passed as written. It is, in my opinion, on its face a violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. It discriminates against a specific group of federal employees, and it appears to be an arbitrary point of discrimination. So somebody who's an ICE agent, who's employed on January 19th, and doesn't resign before January 20th, which is the date that President Trump was inaugurated, I believe, that person can't work here because they didn't resign their position. But a person who did resign could work here. That is, I believe, it also violates provision of our ethics code 33-5.1, which prevents city councilors to discriminate based on political status. That date is a political date, and even though the proposed ordinance says it's, it's not based on political affiliation, I mean, that's, that's the reason for that date being in there, and that, I believe, it violates the U.S. Constitution on our own politics. So that should not be passed as is. There are a couple of other ones that kind of jumped out at me. There is a provision in the ordinance that was set forth by Councilor Beck that says that law enforcement are not allowed to expend time to respond to immigration-related ICE or CPP inquiries. So, and there are a number of provisions that have question marks that would need to be looked into, but that one in particular could be a phone call, receiving a phone call from ICE. As soon as the officer picks up the phone, that officer is expending time to respond to what might be some sort of inquiry from federal law enforcement. And then another provision says that alleged violations of this chapter shall be subject to investigation and discipline. And then a further provision says that the city manager shall maintain a publicly accessible mechanism while reporting alleged violations and shall provide a summer report summary report of all such complaints and their dispositions to the city council annually. That jumps out at me as a problem from an employment law standpoint, where you have complaints about city employees that are by on the face of this the investigation the complaint are going to be publicly accessible. And when you have a complaint against an employee that is not public, there's a executive session mechanism for investigating those type of complaints. And so that provision appears to be a problem in that an allegation against a public employee, the investigation itself is not public unless it results in discipline. And at the point that it results in discipline, then it can be a public thing. But if it doesn't result in discipline, then it's not public and it's an employee's right to have that. So this in short it requires an analysis that's going to take time from the legal department, and there's there are two laws in the legal department, and so that's going to require a significant research into the federal law and the state law. And I just want to make sure that you're okay with the legal department spending that time, which will take us from you know the other things that we're also doing. And I would just state that these ordinances as written I really cannot recommend be passed. There would have to be a lot of work done in order to make the provisions [1:06:52] Susan Hawes: something that the legal department could give the okay. Just follow up to that, if the [1:07:01] Susan Deane: reasoning behind this primarily is to lay the fears of our immigrants, why would we not want to do that and resolve which would have far less legal applications than an ordinance? Right, yes, so perhaps we need to back this up a little bit and think of it more as a resolve instead of ordinance if it is indeed to make people feel safe and pencil fish a couple of things we already [1:07:32] Carolyn Fish: Did a result for specifically making our immigrants try to feel safe? We can reiterate it, but I mean, we spend a lot of time with every word to make sure, because I know there was some opposition from our community that we're again raising one, you know, group over another. And we worked very hard so that, you know, I finally was okay with that, because I did feel that we were addressing our family. We were also making it so that we were covering everybody, a Jewish community who are also feeling, you know, they're under a lot of fear right now, and their fear is real. And the way it was worded, I'm very happy that I felt that we were sending a message to different segments of our community. They were feeling fear for different reasons, so I was happy with that. And I think I know the Massachusetts judge person that I was able to reach out on short notice. He didn't have much time, but all he did was send me back a note on the resolve about not hiring people that had previous immigration whether border control. He wrote a note lawsuit written off over this, is what he wrote on that one. On the other one, I think his penmanship's worse than some doctors' prescriptions I've gotten. I can't quite read it, but it says something about your municipality will not be immune from potential lawsuits and possibly not even the cost, which themselves, because we look very carefully at, I think, my buildings is what they say, and he just pointed out categories legal and jurisdiction action. Federal courts will certainly declare conflicting city ordinances invalid, injunctions, liabilities for damages, impeding federal investigation. Then he went on and listed two or three financial consequences, law enforcement risk, what we're putting our legal police officers in, and then direct action by higher government, not to mention potential lawsuits from civilians themselves. And he said, I don't have much time to go further into this, but these off-the-cuff are serious considerations and concerns. So I'm sure what you just said sort of relates to some of the things. [1:09:52] Susan Faloon: Well, we sort of jumped into my proposals, so I would like to add some context. text. So first of all, like, these proposals are not meant in any way to question the integrity or the professionalism of Chief Hathaway, or the police department at all. I mean, I like it, those were not the intense intentions, at least as far as I'm concerned, I can only speak for myself. These were informed by similar efforts that are taking place elsewhere. So these weren't just, you know, like, I did a bunch of research. I know that Counselor Beck researched on his piece quite a bit, and so they're, they are modeled after similar efforts elsewhere in the country. They also, as far as the January 20th, 2025 date, that was not intended to be political. It really reflects concerns about alignment in training and tactics. Some federal enforcement training has been shortened, it emphasizes aggressive approaches, and I don't believe those are consistent with the community-based policing that we expect here in Bangor. So that's kind of the reason behind that. That the reason behind, I won't read this whole thing, I assume that everyone here has read it, but the reason behind the face covering section, a prohibition on identity concealing face coverings, except in certain circumstances, and also when conducting routine stops, drops, questioning, enforcement actions, and other official interactions with the public, city personnel should clearly identify themselves as city employees, etc. So initially what I wanted to do with that was make it right, it so that ICE agents in our community couldn't wear those and had to wear identification and those sorts of things, but we cannot tell federal agents what to do. We had a Counselor Beck and I had a conversation with an attorney from the ACLU, and so that's why I changed the wording to say city employees instead, so that if somebody in our community was pulled over and it was by somebody, they were being detained by somebody wearing a full face mask in no identity, unmarked car, that sort of thing, that they would, they would clearly be able to differentiate between like, oh well, they can't do that in Bangor, so we know this is not Bangor PD, we know who this is, so that is the reason behind that. So I'm happy to answer any other questions regarding that, but I just wanted to give a little more context, council back. [1:13:14] Michael Beck: Sure, you, in the interest of time, just to dispose one way or the other of my item, you know, because it's a solicitor's right, it doesn't have a legal review. I think that, you know, the plan is where I look for some of the stuff that, you know, I couldn't find in mind about the actual, you know, enforcement of the employee, but again, maybe I'm not seeing it, but in need of a full review and it hasn't been enough time to review. It's odd, the question that before us is, do we put this into the system so we do. Look into it. So the motion I'm going to make, and this is strictly for the ordinance amending the code of city of Bangor to establish chapter 46 employee authority and immigration matters. Do we move this item forward for first reading and referral to the committees that work and begin this? [1:14:04] Susan Hawes: Motion second. Please remove and seconded. I suggest we do a roll call vote because we have council walking on here. Council Walker, we're going to do a roll call vote. Did you hear the motion? You're you're muted. There you go. Yes, I did. My vote would be yes. Okay. Council Fish, no. Council Carson, yes. Council Dean, no. Council Flume, yes. That's okay, yes. Council Leonard, yes. Council Mellon, no. And I will also be a no. Anybody counting this? Five years, four no. Five yes, four no. So it will be moved along long. I don't expect that this will be soon, because it's going to take some work. And we have to remember the other things that we're trying to put together right now. So we'll just have to wait and see what the calendar does. Yes, [1:15:12] Wayne Mallar: I just like to make a comment. I think we have more pressing things right now for our legal counsel to be doing. [1:15:24] Carolyn Fish: So this I'm clear what we're doing is just having this further reviewed. It's not going to go [1:15:29] Susan Deane: to council, not at this time. My motion was for first reading. Yeah, that's what I thought his [1:15:37] Wayne Mallar: motion was for first reading. How can you have a first reading? We don't have a legal opinion [1:15:42] Michael Beck: right. Well, it's our legislative process also files at first reading. It's referred to committee. [1:15:48] Wayne Mallar: No, because it's going to be months before he gets to it because we have so many other things [1:15:52] Carolyn Fish: spending fire my next question is there any kind of insurance liability that we as counselors or the city can look into for any potential repercussions as a result if this [1:16:07] Chief Hathaway: gets passed by council that 's a impossible question to answer i mean every provision has its has different risks involved more [1:16:23] Carolyn Fish: than others. Yeah, okay. [1:16:29] Susan Deane: I don't want to keep going, but so it goes to it goes to first reading and then we have another discussion where we can tweak it and then it will still go for the next council meeting. Yeah, first reading. I mean, if it goes to first reading then it goes to full council. Yeah, right. But the changes can be made prior to it. Will it would have to [1:16:51] Michael Beck: be amended at that point, but it would go to committee. I mean, my motion was to have it referred to committee. Yeah, where we would receive a review and again that committee may decide not [1:17:01] Susan Deane: to pass then but second reason so chances are this particular ordinance will not be the one that [1:17:09] Michael Beck: or bodies I anticipated you know because there's a review to be done okay we still have our city [1:17:16] Susan Hawes: manager update but we also have an acceptance session they're coming up on 6 30. [1:17:21] Susan Faloon: That's a plan are we moving all of this forward I thought we were just voting on yeah okay so I would like to make a motion on the ordinance that would amend the bank or city code chapter 28 and chapter 33 make a motion that we move this to along with Councillor Backs move this to sorry I don't know the exact wording here like move it to the committee for further consideration yes first reading yes thank you that's a motion [1:18:01] Chief Hathaway: Chair that it sounded like the motion was to move it to committee but first reading is front of the full council right I don't know if you want to correct that yes for first [1:18:12] Susan Faloon: reading yes to the council yeah thank you is [1:18:19] Susan Hawes: there a second and moved and seconded WE'LL THROW A ROLL CALL AGAIN. COUNCIL WALKER? YES. COUNCIL FLUM? YES. COUNCIL DEAN? NO. COUNCIL CARSON? NO. COUNCIL FISH? NO. COUNCIL MALLER? NO. COUNCIL LEONARD? YES. COUNCIL BECK? YES. AND I WILL BE A NO. No. Okay. All right. City Manager update. [1:19:03] Carolyn Fish: To be clear on the process. So we'll go to first reading for the next council, it'll get referred to committee. And then it will come back to council for second reading. If we need more time at the committee, you'll have to postpone it to a date certain, which may very well be a necessary result if we need to have extensive legal so there's that would be the process to keep it moving without having a second vote on it I'm going to defer on any other updates because I think none of my updates are all that critical I would just remind you that next week is a holiday on Monday and so committee [1:19:46] Susan Hawes: committee meetings will be on Wednesday I just wanted to clarify that the first motion [1:19:52] Chief Hathaway: on the one that was five to four in favor and the second motion on the other one four to five right so that one is not going to person all right all right we need [1:20:07] Susan Hawes: a motion to run through the session and then we'll set down the hall Madam chair pursuant [1:20:12] Daniel Carson: to one MRSA section 4056b consultation with city solicitor and you will be that we enter [1:20:18] Susan Hawes: executive session a second I will be seconded roll call this and the first yes council person yes and that would be a yeah we are in executive session