Portland Council passes immigration ordinance, extends City Manager contract

[3:32] Mark Dion: I'd like to call the City Council meeting to order. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Clerk will take the roll. Councillor Fournier? Absent. Councillor Grant? Here. Councillor Sykes? Here. Councillor Ali? Here. Councillor Pelletier? Here. Councillor Michniewicz? Here. Councillor Bullett? Here. Councillor Phillips? Here. Mayor Dayan. Here. [4:06] Mark Dion: Chair will now entertain public comments on unagended items. [4:19] Public commenter: William Higgins, Jr., Lieutenant Commander, USN, Reserves. 654 Riverside Street, better known as the Homeless Services Center. I've been resident there for several months, and there's several issues I will report to the Mayor and the Chief of Police and the District Attorney to in a future reference. Conference, but I will not publicly disclose them tonight. I'll give you the chance to meet them. I don't want to blow up what's been going on, but they're very difficult things that I've been made aware of by other residents. I want to help the city operate the shelter better as far as saving funds to finance this. This has got a rough budget year, and I'd love to help the city save money and operations, probably might be able to get some funding in from job training things like that. Why are we throwing away trash using paper goods, throwing away, you know, all this paper products and plastic products, different things we can save funds for the city? I thank the gods that you folks that we built this. I personally wanted multiple shelters in multiple locations, but I'm glad that it's there. Unfortunately, I am homeless, but that'll change rapidly. Thank you. [5:48] Mark Dion: Anyone else wishing to provide public comment on an unagended item? [5:58] Public commenter: My name is Patience Mbofo Mujikewa. I live in Portland and I'm proud to be part of the City of Portland Natural Helpers Fellowship Class of 2026. My name is not an accident. I was named patients by my auntie who came to settle a family dispute the day I was born. From my first breath, my calling was clear to be a bridge between people. I carry with me the African philosophy of Ubuntu. I am because we are in a world that celebrates individual success. I believe we truly thrive if everyone else is thriving. I learned this growing up in Zimbabwe and as a teacher, but my deepest lesson came at the age of 38 when I had to come to the U.S. when I broke cultural norms and left my family and boarded a plane to come and do my second master's degree. My father climbed on top of a mountain to watch my plane take off. He believed in a brighter future for his daughter. I went from being a teacher to a student. People pointed out my accent. My confidence shook. I felt reduced to nothing. But I've learned something powerful in this season. Humility is superpower. And it is from that point of humility that I bring my proposal. The issue I want the city of Portland to address is the intergenerational cultural gap within the immigrant families in Portland. Immigrant parents are working existing hours to survive, raising their children the only way they know. And meanwhile, the children are being reshaped by the American schools, American peers, American culture. These two worlds are drifting apart and the parents and their children no longer hear each other. We see a youth alienation and disconnection. This cannot be solved by food banks or it cannot be solved by housing alone. My vision is to partner with organizations like Maine Association for New Americans and Portland Empowered to create school-based family cultural navigators, people who serve as a bridge between cultures and families. If we heal the bridge between the parent and the child, we'll give the next generation a foundation of belonging. A child who belongs does not drift. They contribute. My father climbed a mountain to watch my plane disappear into the sky. I'm standing here today because of that hope. I want every immigrant child in Portland to know that someone climbed a mountain for them too. [9:08] Mark Dion: Anyone else wishing to provide public comment on an unagended item? [9:15] Public commenter: Hi there. My name is Cameron LeBlanc. I grew up in Portland, southwest of here, running around the woods with my sister and neighbors. I was lucky to have my grandfather show me the water in the mountains. I had a main guide license before my driver's license. And my parents were proud, but didn't love that I lived in a tent. They taught me to work hard and play hard, so the next summer I had a car. Another year later, at UMF, my beautiful wife Jeannie saw what others didn't really take the time to. A young Mainer that loved sharing experiences and my state with others. I don't make a living outside anymore, and I've spent the last 13 years in manufacturing here in Maine. In 2020, thousands of jobs disappeared because tourists couldn't come here. We could make things. At Abbott and Scarborough, a team of scientists developed the first rapidly scalable test for COVID-19 while I was shoring up the supply chain. Most of my co-workers weren't from here either. We hired thousands of people, were producing over 90 million COVID tests each month, and 17 primary languages were spoken in our facility. The diversity of skills and perspectives enabled us to succeed in that effort. Over half a billion dollars was put into our local economy. What we did wouldn't have happened without out-of-staters and people born in other countries. Some of us use the term new Mainers, but so many of them have been our neighbors for a long time. We'd worked together for years before COVID and are part of the 15% of Mainers that make things here, contributing over 6 billion a year to our GDP. I left Abbott for a smaller company based here in Portland just a mile from my house. Many of my co-workers including my mentor weren't born here and several languages are spoken in our lunchroom. We work together to make products that aren't consumed here bringing in tens of millions from outside of the state. Maina is a proud manufacturing history and if we want to succeed it does need to be a priority. We can't do it with the oldest population in the country. We won't succeed without a group of diverse minds. Retaining young Mainers and welcoming new ones is something we've been getting better at, but we still need to improve. Portland's seeking to recertify as a welcoming city. We need your support to ensure that we continue attracting and retaining talented individuals and families. As a community, we do need to keep improving our support of people new to the area, because if we stand still, we'll be passed by. Thank you for your time. [11:45] Mark Dion: Anyone else wishing to provide public comment on an unagended item? [11:53] Public commenter: Good evening, counselors, people of Portland. Thank you for having me. My name is Peter Marco, husband, married down the hall, father of a wonderful 26-month-old and homeowner at 47 Hanover Street since October of 2021, so not leaving. I'm also the treasurer of the BNA and president of the BOC, that's Bayside Neighborhood Association, and Bayside Opportunity Center. Today, I'm offering my perspective on the current state of Bayside and how my observations lead me to conclude that a community center is essential to the health, safety, and prosperity of the people of Bayside. In the time that I have lived here, I have witnessed countless acts, sex, prostitution, drug trafficking, and one murder by firearm closer to my house and my sleeping child than the clerk's office down the hall. I only say this to demonstrate that Bayside is one that has borne the brunt of the hardships that befall a city and has left many residents with a constant feeling of fear when they're in Bayside. However, this fear pales in comparison to the constant fear that some of my neighbors feel day in and day out of being ripped from their families and homes due to some incomplete or arbitrary immigration status. It is from the motivation to displace this fear in my neighborhood that I call for a community center in Bayside to, in part, backfill some of the services provided by the closed Immigrant Welcome Center, but primarily serve as a safe space for the benefit of all. I've had the honor of being a member of the Natural Helpers cohort and have met such a unique, diverse, and beautiful group of individuals who possess the rare attribute of giving back to their communities as if it is life or death. My giving back thus far can be quantified in a dog parade and ice cream socials. They were really fun, but fun is not what the people need. Right now as we speak there's an ESOL class for middle school students in the community room at Pearl Place put on by the Bayside Opportunity Center. There is an urgent need for more English classes, workforce FORCE AND SKILLS TRAINING AND ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY AND WI-FI IN THIS CITY FOR ALL. BAYSIDE IS ANSWERING THE CALL. WILL YOU JOIN US? YOU'VE ALL SEEN THE REPLY TO MY E-MAIL THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD DOES NOT HAVE TIME TO CONSIDER OUR PROPOSAL FOR THE 28 PORTLAND STREET PROPERTY. WILL YOU ACCEPT THAT? IS IT ACCEPTABLE TO LET 17,000 SQUARE FEET OF PUBLICLY OWNED PROPERTY TO BE USED FOR STORAGE? is this a welcoming city anyone [14:40] Mark Dion: Else wishing to provide public comment on unagended item good. [14:51] Public commenter: Afternoon Mr Mayor members of the council my name is Tom Blackburn I'm a resident of Bayside I've lived on Hanover Street for pull your mic closer I've lived on Hanover Street for about 27 years and I've been a member of the BNA for that period of time I was first introduced to the new Maynard community when the B&A, Bayside Neighborhood Association, held a World Market and Fair at the former Portland Public Market. And it was a resounding success with thousands of people that have showed up just in a few hours sampling the foods, the crafts, the performances, and the journey stories, which were my favorite. It was so successful that we did it three more times, this time at Portland High School. The Bayside Neighborhood Association has sought to have a community center for 27 years, and we have tried four of the times and failed, and now we have an opportunity at 28 Portland Street. It's an ideal location. It is close to Portland High School, Baxter School, Boys and Girls Club, and it's centrally located within the Bayside community. It's also located on Portland Street which, as we all know, needs as much help as possible. With the unfortunate closing of the Immigrant Welcome Center, the new American community lost a safe haven and they also lost an opportunity for education and other types of activities in the gathering place that they used. Other neighborhoods in Portland have community centers. The West End has the Rikey School. Riverton has the Riverton School at the Talbert School. The Munjoy Hill has the East End Community Center. And Dearing has the Stevens Square Community Center. All of these are associated with the existing schools, we feel that we are entitled and should have our own community center. Portland fashions itself as a welcoming community, and it is for the most part, at least in the period that I've lived here. However, it's lacking one thing, and that is an opportunity to provide our new Mainers with a community center so that they can grow and contribute to the benefit of all in Portland. Thank you for your time. [17:27] Mark Dion: Anyone else wishing to provide public comment on an unagended item? [17:36] Public commenter: Stephen Sharp from Bracket Street in Portland. I am speaking to you, Mr. Mayor, specifically. I'm concerned that the chair of our finance committee has been absent from several meetings, including finance committee meetings, and this is not acceptable from a counselor, and we would like to have you look into the matter and determine if she has violated the protocols of the council as to attendance at meetings and whether she should be considered absent without leave. That is all I have on this point. [18:20] Mark Dion: Anyone else wishing to provide public comment on an unagended item? Seeing none, public comment period is closed. Any announcements from counsel? Counselor Phillips. [18:35] Benjamin Grant: I just want to give a shout out to Mary Davis and her team regarding the Bayside neighborhood property down here. I had a chance, I know Councillor Grant as well, and I'm not sure who else showed up last week. Mary and her team, and I think Dina and the city manager can let me know who else is on that team, really doing some really great community outreach. And I was really impressed because at my office, my day job, at the Equality Community Center, I went downstairs for something, and Nancy Martin was there engaging with members at the Equality Community Center during the Wayside free lunch time. And so it was really great. I know Councilor Michniewicz had some concerns at the beginning of this about the community engagement. I know that other Councilors have also had concerns about that, but I've been able to actually see the community engagement. And it's just been really, it's been great, so I'm not sure if it's, I know Mary Davis was the one kind of coordinating it, I think Dina had some hands in it, I'm not sure who else, but whoever did, I'm sorry for not mentioning your name, but I did want to make sure we acknowledge the work that they were doing in order to get as much public comment as we can. Thank you. [19:54] Mark Dion: Thank you, Councillor. Any other announcements from the floor? [19:57] Benjamin Grant: Thank you, Mayor. I just want the public to know that after several meetings between councillors and people who are either developers or advocates for housing, you, Mayor, Councillor Grant, have a proposal that is coming to the Housing Committee at our next meeting on May 19th, I believe. Leave. That is just so that the public knows and those who want to attend can join us at that meeting. Thank you. [20:30] Mark Dion: Thank you, Councilor Early. Any other comments or announcements? Councilor Grant. [20:36] Speaker K (unidentified): Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to commend everyone to pause as you leave City Hall tonight and observe the amazingly talented students whose art appears in our hallways. There are projects from all levels of our school, so each elementary school, middle and high school, it's funny you go through the day and never know when you're going to be struck by some new moment of inspiration, but now that I've heard about this father in Africa who climbed a mountain to see his child leave on a plane, I'm more and more inspired to be a good father, and I couldn't then help but point out there are a couple Grant family items on the art show, so [21:16] Mark Dion: if you know where to look, you got a lot in there, council grant. All right, then any other comments or announcements from the council? Seeing none, chair would entertain a motion to approve the minutes of April 27th, 2026 city council meeting. So moved by council Sykes, seconded by Councillor Ali. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please vote by hand. It's unanimous. Chair, we'll now move on to proclamations. By title only, Madam Clerk, Proclamation 29-2526. Proclamation 29-2526, recognizing May 5th, 2026 as Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Relatives Day, sponsored by Mark Dion Mayer. Chair yields to Councillor Sykes. [22:20] Kate Sykes: Whereas the City of Portland stands in solidarity with our main tribal, regional, state, and national governments to recognize this epidemic and support a National Day of Awareness for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Relatives. And whereas four out of five Native American and Alaskan women have experienced violence in their lifetimes. And whereas as of 2024, there were a reported 10,248 missing Indigenous persons reports, 5,614 of which were women, with the majority of those missing women being under the age of 18. And whereas in 2024, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identified homicide as the third leading cause of death for Native American women and girls between the ages of 10 and 24, and the fifth leading cause of death for 25 to 34-year-olds. And whereas, while Native American or Alaskan Native populations represent a very small percentage of the population of the city of Portland and the state of Maine, Indigenous women and girls are murdered or go missing at disproportionately high rates. And whereas, the disappearances and murders of Native American women and girls directly correlate to the issues of domestic violence, sexual assault, or human trafficking and deserve continued attention resources and urgency to be addressed in order to protect our future generations. Now therefore be it resolved that Mark Dion, mayor of the city of Portland, Maine, and members of the Portland City Council do hereby declare May 5th, 2026 as Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women's and Relative Day. signed and sealed this fourth day of May 20, 2025, Mark Dion, Mayor. [24:02] Mark Dion: Clerk will now read Proclamation 30-2526, title only. Proclamation 30-2526, recognizing May 8, 2026, as Provider Appreciation Day, sponsored by Regina Phillips, City Councilor. Chair yields to Councilor Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. [24:21] Benjamin Grant: Proclamation recognizing May 8, 2026, as the Provider Appreciation Day. Whereas Provider Appreciation Day is celebrated annual to recognize the dedicated child care providers, teachers, and educators who care for our children. And whereas child care providers are vital to the fabric of our community, serving as essential partners to working families and playing a critical role in the economic stability of the City of Portland. And whereas early childhood education lays the crucial foundation for cognitive, social, and emotional development, setting the stage for children to become resilient lifelong learners, and whereas Portland's child care providers create safe, inclusive, and enriching environments to celebrate the diverse backgrounds and unique potential of every child in their care, and whereas these committed professionals work tirelessly to keep our children safe, nurture their natural curiosity, and provide the foundational early learning experience that prepare our younger citizens for a lifetime of growth and success, and whereas the City of Portland recognizes that supporting our child care workforce is an investment in the future of our children and our community at large. Now therefore be it proclaimed that the Mayor of the City of Portland and members of the City Council do hereby recognize May 8th, 2026 as Provider Appreciation Day and encourage all citizens to join in expressing their sincere gratitude for the invaluable contributions, compassion and dedication to our local child care providers. Signed and sealed this fourth day of May by Mayor Mark Dye on the City of Portland. [25:49] Mark Dion: Is there a representative here to receive the proclamation from Councillor Phillips? Please approach the rail. I would ask clerk to read Proclamation 3125-26, title only. Proclamation 3125-26, recognizing May 10th to May 16th, 2026, as National Police Week, sponsored by Mark Dion, Mayor. Chair yields to Councillor Bullett. [26:28] Speaker M (unidentified): Proclamation recognizing May 10th to May 16th, 2026, as National Police Week. whereas the President and Congress of the United States have said designated May 15th as Peace Officers Memorial Day and the week in which it falls as National Police Week and whereas we recognize and honor the selfless heroic service provided by the members of the Portland Police Department and whereas we rely on law enforcement officers to keep our neighborhoods safe respond in times of crisis uphold the principle of justice and enforce our laws and whereas every day the men and women of the Portland Police Department face the threat of violence and danger, routinely putting their lives in jeopardy to make our streets safer, our neighborhoods stronger, and our families more secure. And whereas these men and women through their dedicated service have earned our gratitude and respect by safeguarding the lives and property of our community, protecting them against violence, disorder, deception, and intimidation. Now therefore be it proclaimed that Mark Dion, the Mayor of the City of Portland, Maine and members of the City Council do hereby recognize May 10th through May 16th, 2026 as National Police Week in the city of Portland, Maine, and honor police officers, both past and present, who through their faithful devotion to their responsibilities have rendered a dedicated service to their community in preserving the rights and security of all citizens. I call upon the people of Portland to honor our officers this week throughout ceremonies and activities that pay them the respect due their office and service. Signed and sealed this fourth day of May 2026 by the mayor. And I believe the chief is here. Thank [28:12] Mark Dion: you, chief. Chair would now ask the clerk to read Proclamation 322526. Proclamation 322526, recognizing May 11th to May 17th, 2026 as National Salvation Army Week, sponsored by Mark Dion, mayor. Chair would yield [28:31] Speaker N (unidentified): To Council McNovich proclamation recognizing May 11th to May 16th 2026 as National Salvation Army Week. Whereas the Salvation Army has long served as a beacon of hope and a source and a source of essential support for individuals and families in our community who are facing financial physical and emotional crisis. And whereas while the Salvation Army is widely recognized for its generous service during the holiday season the organization works tirelessly 365 days a year to address food insecurity, housing needs, and other life-altering challenges without discrimination. And whereas, in the past year alone, the Portland branch has provided critical support to our neighbors by providing groceries to more than 1,100 residents and offering vital housing assistance, including utilities and furniture, to more than 200 residents. And whereas, the need for these services remains acute, as evidenced by the organization supporting more than 400 individuals who sought assistance for the very first time in the past year. Whereas these committed professionals work tirelessly to help keep our children safe, nurture their natural curiosity, and provide the foundational early learning experiences that prepare our youngest citizens for a lifetime of growth and success. And whereas, through their unwavering commitment to doing the most good, the Salvation Army plays an indispensable role in helping our residents navigate times of homelessness, hunger, addiction, and financial strain, thereby strengthening the fabric of our city. Now therefore be it proclaimed that Mark Dion Mayor City of Portland Maine and members of the City Council do hereby encourage all citizens to join in recognizing the profound impact of this organization and the dedicated individuals who continue to serve our community with compassion and excellence. Sign and seal this fourth day of May 2026. Mayor Mark Dion, City of Portland. [30:18] Mark Dion: We join Councilor Michniewicz at the rail. You can clap. Clerk will now read Proclamation 332526, title only. Proclamation 332526, recognizing May 17th to May 23rd, 2026, as Arbor Week, sponsored by Mark Dion, Mayor. Chair would now yield to Councilor Pelletier. [30:55] Speaker O (unidentified): Whereas in 1872, J. Sterling Morton proposed to the Nebraska Board of Agriculture that a special week be set aside for the planting of trees. And whereas this week, called Arbor Week, was first observed with the planting of more than a million trees in Nebraska. And whereas Arbor Week is now observed annually in the United States and throughout the world, and it has been observed in the state of Maine during the third full week in May since 1978. And whereas trees can reduce the erosion of our precious topsoil by wind and water, cut heating and cooling costs, moderate the temperature, clean the air, produce oxygen, and provide a habitat for wildlife. And whereas trees in the City of Portland increase property values, enhance the economic vitality of business areas, and beautify our community. And whereas trees, wherever they are planted, are a source of joy and spiritual renewal. And now, therefore, be it resolved that Mark Dion, Mayor of the City of Portland, Maine, and members of the Portland City Council, do hereby recognize May 17th to May 23rd, 2026, as Harbor Week within the City of Portland, and urge all residents to support efforts to protect our trees and woodlands. Signed and sealed this fourth day of May 2026. Mark Dian, RCA, Portland. [32:02] Mark Dion: Is there a community leader here to receive from the department? Go ahead, Councilor, for presenting. I should have known. I thought you were here just to watch what we were doing. All right. Clerk will now read Proclamation 342526, title only. Proclamation 342526, recognizing May 17th to May 23rd, 2026, as National Public Works Week, sponsored by Mark Dion, Mayor. Chair, would you yield to Councilor Grant? [32:42] Speaker K (unidentified): Whereas Portland Public Works employees focus on the maintenance, upkeep, and construction of the public infrastructure of the City of Portland. And whereas Portland Public Works employees deliver core services that are of vital importance to the public health, quality of life and the well-being of the people of the City of Portland. And whereas these core services and infrastructure improvements could not be provided without the dedicated efforts of Portland Public Works employees, a workforce Of 180 dedicated people who are assigned to follow to the following divisions: Public Works and Water Resources Administration, streets, there's there's a typo, sidewalks, solid waste, dispatch, Portland Downtown District, island operations, traffic, fleet services, transportation engineering, public works engineering, water resources, sewer and storm water engineering, and water resources, sewer and storm water operations. And whereas it is in the public interest for the citizens of Portland to gain knowledge of and to maintain an ongoing interest and understanding of the importance of public works and public works programs in their respective neighborhoods, and whereas the year 2026 marks the 66th annual National Public Works Week, and now therefore be it resolved that Mark Dion, Mayor of the City of Portland, Maine, and the members of the Portland City Council, do hereby designate the week of May 17 to 23, 2026 as Public Works Week, and do hereby further extend our appreciation to the employees of the Public Works Department for the vital core services they perform for the residents and visitors of Portland and their dedication to our city. Signed and sealed this 4th day of May, 2026. Mark Dion, Mayor. [34:50] Mark Dion: The chair will now take order 180-2526. It was such a good opening. If there is no objection from the floor, the chair would take order 180-2526 out of order and dispose of it at this time. Seeing no objection, the clerk will read title only. Order 180-2526, amendment to Portland City Code, Chapter 2, regarding immigration enforcement, sponsored by Councillor Pius Ali and Regina Phillips. Chair, we'll now turn to the sponsors for any comment to the public prior to taking their comment. [35:39] Benjamin Grant: I will wait until after public comments. I don't know if Councillor Phillips wants to say something. [35:47] Mark Dion: Councillor Phillips, you have the floor. [35:49] Benjamin Grant: Thank you, Mayor. I just want to, first of all, I want to thank Councilor Ali for his leadership on this and bringing this forward. We've had this immigration enforcement ordinance on the books for a while, and I'm glad that he and I can bring something different forward. I also want to thank the, I always want to call you District Attorney. Why do I always want to call you? Corporation Counsel. Geez, I knew it would come to me. [36:15] Speaker P (unidentified): You've called me Attorney General before as well. [36:18] Benjamin Grant: I know, because I don't want to call you Michael for all your hard work on this. You know, this, and of course, obviously I want to thank the folks at the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine, Michael Cabetti, who's done a ton of work on this and his team. I think Councilor Ali and I are bringing this forward and we hope that it will get the support of the folks on the council. Also, I think we all lived through ICE, and this just kind of just firms up some things that we could do differently due to their presence. So, that's all I'll say at this point. Thank you, Counselor. [36:56] Mark Dion: The Chair is also bringing forward an amendment to the amendment of the existing chapter. I'll save argument for when it's time to discuss the amendment in question, but for purposes of information is to incorporate a protection, a legal protection for employees that might be found to have violated the ordinance. So with that said, the chair will now take public comment on both the Ali Phillips amendment as well as the chair's amendment. [37:37] Public commenter: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Lisa Parisio and I'm the policy director at the Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project or ILAP here and today in support of this ordinance as originally drafted. ILAP is a non-profit, non-partisan immigration legal services organization and we have served Maine residents and workers for more than 30 years in this state. We are the only organization of our kind in Maine and we have deep understanding of the high levels of indiscriminate immigration enforcement that are happening as well as the federal administration's tactics. In our work ILAP is responding to immigration arrests in Maine every single day. As context, important to remember that the vast majority of the main residents we have seen taken by ICE and Border Patrol since 2025 are people who are in or are pursuing lawful immigration processes who have never committed a crime. At its core, this ordinance is about ensuring that we are doing everything we can at a local level and that the city resources are not used deliberately or inadvertently to put people into ICE or Border Patrol's hands, where their rights and safety are instantly a grave risk. Individuals in ICE detention are facing horrendous and inhumane conditions, including lack of food, no access to medication, extreme overcrowding, and more. 2025 was the deadliest year in ICE detention in decades, and 2026 is outpacing it. All people in ICE detention are put on a fast track to deportation to countries where their lives may be at risk, and no one is guaranteed an attorney. Families are separated and destabilized, perhaps forever. These are the stakes that we're talking about. This ordinance also responds to the impacts on Portland's overall public health, trust, and safety, as well as the economic consequences caused by so many people withdrawing from public life out of fear and anxiety. This includes people being afraid to have any contact with law enforcement, including sharing information or seeking protection or serving as witnesses in criminal cases, people not sending their children to school, not seeking higher adult education, not reporting to work, seeking new jobs, and much more. These are the stories we here at ILAP every single day. This ordinance also provides really important guidance and support and protection to all city staff. The weight of clear and consistent law is needed to ensure no city worker is left making individual decisions when the consequences are as high as they are. This administration has sought to access private and protected data, including tax information, social security information, family court information, and much more, in order to find people for their mass deportation quotas. Clarity on data collection and disclosure, access to private spaces, and the other provisions in this ordinance are important and needed in this environment. Again, ILAP strongly supports this ordinance as originally drafted without the exceptions for administrative ICE warrants, which are issued by ICE or DHS and are not judicial warrants signed by a judge, and without the exception for ICE intimidation. Unfortunately, in this environment, intimidation and aggressive tactics are what ICE does, ensuring this ordinance protects the people of Portland will mean preparing for that. Thank you so much. [40:40] Mark Dion: Anyone else wishing to provide public comment? [40:47] Public commenter: Mayor Dion, Manager West, Councillors, good evening. My name is Michael Kabetta and I'm policy director for the ACLU of Maine. I want to thank Councillors Ali and Phillips for working with me on this ordinance through the course of many months. The purpose for this ordinance is clear enough to all of you so I won't repeat it. My colleague from ILAP has done a great job. You face two versions of this ordinance. One version brought to you by Councillors Phillips and Ali and an amended version with the mayor's amendments. We respectfully urge you to support the Phillips-Ali version without the mayor's amendments. Rockland adopted a very similar ordinance to this on December 8th of last year. Lewiston adopted a very similar ordinance to this on March 3rd of this year. Waterville and Bangor are considering adopting this very ordinance. We respectfully oppose Mayor Dion's exceptions amendment and as I understand it the intention is a very good one to protect city staff from the consequences of violating this ordinance as a result of intimidation or coercion or other aggressive and unlawful actions by ICE. Unfortunately as we all know intimidation, harassment, and coercion is some of what ICE and Border Patrol do best. To have an exception to this ordinance that says that the ordinance doesn't apply if you face intimidation by federal officials we fear would be read by these federal officials as an invitation to intimidate and to coerce and to harass city staff. The other part of the mayor's exception would allow access to city facilities as long as the federal agents have an administrative warrant. We oppose this as well for some of the same reasons that my colleague from ILAB articulated. Administrative warrants are generated by ICE with no judicial oversight. There is already a judicial warrant exception in the ordinance and we think that is sufficient. Finally, Section 2-275 of this draft ordinance says the exclusive remedy for violation of this division shall be through the City's disciplinary procedures for officers and employees. We feel that should give City staff sufficient protection and sufficient confidence that they won't be unfairly disciplined if they were to violate the ordinance. Duress is a well-recognized exception to all kinds of liability including disciplinary liability within a city's human resources process. Thank you all for listening and I respectfully urge you to pass Councillors Ali and Phillips's amendment and reject the mayor's amendment and I don't know if you do questions but I'm available for questions if you have any. [43:47] Mark Dion: Other public comment Steven. [43:58] Public commenter: Sharp for Bracket Street, I was just looking at the backup material and it all seems a little convoluted, not the actual desire to create an ordinance, but the fact that there is a amendment that does one thing and another amendment that seems to take away part of what the amendment does. And so quite frankly, I think this needs to go to a committee to review and create a document that is cohesive and for the public to understand. Quite frankly, it is not ready for you to review and approve and would encourage that to happen. Thanks. [44:40] Mark Dion: Is there anyone else wishing to provide public comment on this item? Seeing none, public comment is closed. Opposed? Chair would seek a motion for passage and a second on the Ali Amendment. So moved. Moved by Councilor Phillips, seconded by Councilor Ali. Chair would now seek, excuse me, did I hear something? Please tell me I didn't. All right, I didn't. [45:17] Speaker P (unidentified): Mayor, may I? May I interrupt real quick? Before getting the motion on the Ali Phillips Amendment, we need a motion on the main the main motion on them so there's the original proposal was brought forward by the original proposal for the ordinance was brought forward by councillors Ali and Phillips there's an amendment and they've also offered an amendment to the ordinance that's included in the in the backup so they will you first need a motion on the on the order no that's [45:52] Mark Dion: all right that's that's not concluded here all right we would draw the motion that was entered motion on the original amendment second okay counselor ali and counselor phillips have moved that now the chair will take a motion for the ali phillips amendment so moved second The Chair will now take a motion for passage and a second on the Chair's amendment. So moved. [46:30] Speaker P (unidentified): Sorry, Mayor, if I can. You've got a motion on the floor on the Ali Phillips Amendment, so we'll need a discussion and vote on that. Yeah. If that amendment doesn't pass, your amendment won't be necessary. Your amendment is an amendment to their amendment, so that'll have to be voted on first before the motion on your amendment. I apologize to the body. [46:57] Mark Dion: Too many amendments. I'll discuss that during my public discussion. All right then, we go back to the original motion. There was a motion for passage and a second discussion. [47:13] Benjamin Grant: Mayor, is this the original motion or the amendment that we are looking for? [47:17] Speaker S (unidentified): The original one. No, I don't believe so, Mr. Mayor. There's the main motion on the floor, and the amendment that you and Councillor Phillips offered is the amendment that's pending right now. So that's what's for debate. [47:32] Mark Dion: So it's number two to one, and then three later. See? I have the math. Just get the words. Go ahead. [47:41] Benjamin Grant: Thank you, Mayor. I first want to thank ACLU and ILAB for working with us on this. And then Corporation Council for being patient with me and Councillor Fleece with going back and forth and to I will encourage my colleagues to pass on this. I think this amendment is based on a history of our city. In 2003 we enacted the chapter 2 which prohibits our city staff from accessing the immigration status of city residents who will do business or who will come and seek whether it is GA or come to city office to ask for any questions or if our police stop somebody during a regular traffic stop, they will not ask for their immigration status. What this will do, the one that you have in front of you, it is going to support city staff including the Portland Police Department and so that we will increase the community how trust of the police and the city because this new amendment will also there is an amendment that came to the state that is coming from the state there is a law that is coming from the state LD 1971 I believe it will go into to effect 30 days or 90 days after the state legislature have adjourned which was April 15 but This one the LD 1971 solely governs the activities of county state and local law enforcement. The one that you are going to vote on tonight will apply to all city employees because in January we saw what ICE is capable of doing and also we have seen the federal government asking our Secretary of State to provide voting data of the residents of the state of Maine and the city staff hold a lot of resident information from the city clerk's office to the GA office and many other city departments that engage our immigrant residents. We sit with a lot of information on these residents and portions of this amendment will bring our city employees, particularly the Portland Police Department, into compliance with the state law. It will add clarity to all employees job functions so I will encourage you to let us pass this tonight any [50:44] Mark Dion: other comment from the council [50:50] Speaker O (unidentified): I'll be supporting this. I think these are very common sense changes that I think coincide deeply with the public's existing expectation of our police department and generally speaking how they've been operating, generally speaking. And I think it makes sense to put them into ordinance, so I will be supporting this on Monday. Thank [51:15] Mark Dion: you. Thank you, counselor. Any other comments? I'm not gonna call for a vote unless there's no further comments on this amendment. Main, the main motion is pending. This amendment could be incorporated into that main motion if it passes. All right, so all those in favor, please signify by hand. All those opposed, the amendment passes 7-1. All right, now on to the chairs. I need a motion. I'll second it. Thank you for the motion, at least for discussion. Listen. I really thought long and hard about this. I figure by tomorrow morning, the right will say he gets it, the left will say he doesn't get it, and there'll be everything in between. And it has nothing to do with any partisan perspective. I had very positive engagement with Attorney Cabetti. This is a lawyer's battle, or at least on my side of it, 's a skirmish. And I think that's one of the fundamental flaws of this entire proposal, is that it came quickly, there's an approach to amend, it never went to committee. I think some of the things that engaged Attorney Cabetti, Corporation Counsel, and myself should have been done in the spotlight of a committee. We're not always the smartest kids in the room. I think there's a benefit to having non-lawyers engage in a policy discussion and not just leave it to us. Alright, that's the beauty of the legislature. There's a scattering of lawyers, but we're not a majority. So in its whole, I don't dispute with this amendment at all. I think it does provide clarity around police conduct and the community's expectation of that conduct, and that's reaffirmed by what the state passes. But in the end, the state will prevail, and where we're stronger, we're stronger. I have no fundamental disagreement with that. Where I do have a fundamental disagreement is the nature of our employees. We've had an ordinance focused on the police and a policy dictating the conduct of non-police personnel on the question of immigration. As a footnote, I dare say there's no city in the state that has done as much on behalf and protection of new Americans, people with status in question, people that have come here to seek their version of the American dream. No city can hold a candle to what we've done. And I only raise that not as a bragger, but as a fundamental piece of evidence. Our city staff has done nothing to call their decisions or conduct into question. Now, there's an argument that by virtue of having my language removed, that somehow ICE would be intimidated from their operations director and any city agency or staff. If we believe that, we should be in the business of running ordinances all day long to curtail all their other activities. My sense of it, if they want to come, they're coming. Now let's put ourselves in the shoes of a shelter attendant, a rec supervisor, a DPW supervisor at a building somewhere. If federal agents mass in front of my door in their little outfits and carrying weapons, my first reaction is this, game on. And I can only say that because I have the benefit of experience in that field and my legal education and my natural stubbornness when I'm confronted by odds that are not in my favor at the moment. That's why I'm a defense attorney, the government stacks it up on me every single time, but our staff aren't those people. And by making an ordinance, we say we've trusted you to act under the policy, but now we're going to need to have a little bit more just to make sure. So we're going to turn it into an ordinance now. To be fair, the MCL, you said, well, you're all set, there's no private right of action, which means we can't be sued if an employee violates that, and they would not seek any inquiry when we have a personal decision about that. Granted, most of those are confidential anyways, but I understood the intent behind those statements were friendly, not negative. But I have to look at this language through the eyes of the average employee, and I'm just saying if there is a violation, if they made an error of judgment in the moment because they experienced it as coercive, that they felt threatened, and that they were given some lingo mumbo jumbo paper that they misinterpreted wrongly and it led to a poor outcome, that they could admit that occurred because they're honest people. But they would be excused from their conduct by virtue of the language I've incorporated. That's it. I just want to tell them, I trust them enough that as a body, we provide them a way out of that situation. Because granted, if they found out it was an error and it causes an adverse consequence for somebody that was in their care, they're going to feel horrible. All right? But the public may say they violated the policy. In all the time that we've had the ordinance, the police haven't violated it. Yes, recently there were questions about text messages, but reviewed by Corporation Counsel, it did not violate the letter of the spirit of the ordinance in place. Cops are trained to be in high conflict environments. Police officers understand the law. Police officers know how to stand their ground, and because the other person has a badge, that's not enough. And I expect that from our officers. I can't expect that same kind of steal from our city employees. It's not fair. It's just simply not fair as an employer. So my first responsibility is to our employees. My second responsibility, and it's not less, is for people that come to us for protection and safe harbor. I think both could exist and from a legal point I don't understand why they can't so I'll vote and then if this amendment doesn't pass that's fine but I just want you know ahead of time then I can't go with you the rest of the way because I want to maintain the trust and the respect of the people that work for us and we call them into hard places every single day. That's it. That's all I have. So unless anyone else wants to comment to the amendment. Councillor McDevitch. Thank you, Mayor. [59:27] Speaker N (unidentified): I think this is a pretty important point. Under the way that this is written without the Mayor's amendment under Section 222A, should an employee grant access, what would be the outcome? What would be the potential disciplinary process? [59:53] Speaker P (unidentified): Question for me? Yeah, I guess so. Which I'll probably kick over to Danielle as well. Can I also add one other bit of information about this amendment, which is it's been described, I think, tonight a little more broadly than it really is. It only applies to situations where staff allow a federal agent access to a non-public portion of a facility. It doesn't apply to the other parts of the ordinance that deal with enforcement of immigration operations. It doesn't limit an employee's obligations in a situation where they're improperly asking for somebody's immigration status. It only applies to a situation where an employee allows an agent access to a non-public portion of a city facility. Facility, and that may be in a situation where they're handed an administrative warrant instead of a judicial warrant. And now you all know that we've provided training to staff on this issue in the past, so with the Mayor's amendment it's consistent with the training that we've provided them. But anyway, I wanted to make sure to bring that to everybody's attention. The in terms of the disciplinary process I'll defer to Danielle but if without this language then the there's language that's already in the existing chapter 2 the existing language in chapter 2 that says that employees would be disciplined in you under the under the city's disciplinary processes and so it would be consistent with other disciplinary measures. [1:01:46] Speaker S (unidentified): Right, and that would be consistent with contracts and our non-union personnel policy. So it would be for a supervisor or, you know, level employee like a department head or whomever is in the next level up to provide the discipline. It could be in the form of a variety of things. Things. As the Mayor mentioned, that process is confidential unless it was to ultimately result in a final decision. That final decision would be, I think, under the state law. Michael can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that is public. The majority of that process would be internal and would be handled through that regular disciplinary course of action. [1:02:32] Speaker N (unidentified): Okay. Yeah, I mean, to me, the two different, the two clauses in A, the intimidation and coercion, or if presented with an administrative warrant. And that part, that does seem to me that 's a, I should say, there's a training issue there just to make sure that everybody's on the same page about what that looks like. It's training to contact your supervisor the intimidation and coercion piece I that's the shelter staff are actually the first cohort of people that I thought of when reading this is that you have quite a few folks who are in the same population that might be feeling intimidated and also fearing for their job so yeah I frankly feel that this does make sense I don't I don't know how if we have any information on how common it is that type of intimidation to public buildings works I don't know That it matters, but I think, I think the mayor's, yes, no, I was just, I don't know if there's information or what your understanding of that is? [1:03:51] Mark Dion: Coercion and threat are always fact-specific, right? And it's always subject to the person experiencing it draws a conclusion. And it was a good point brought up, some of the vulnerable employees might even be in the status that might make them vulnerable to ICE activities anyways. And I've seen all manner of warrants. I defy the random citizen if thrown in front of them the different types of warrants that they could figure out one from the other. I will credit the executive. They spent a lot of time in advance of ICE training all our staff, developing protocols, having a system in place. I think those are all valid and go to the need that's been identified by this ordinance. If you want to restrain the police, we're accustomed to that, right? If you want to respect the integrity of our employees to carry out policy, and if they're wrong, we can deal with that. But when you say we're going to put you under an ordinance, we're sending a different kind of message, right? That's my concern. The other parts of this ordinance I have no, I don't have any problem with that, so I'm sorry interrupting and answering. [1:05:13] Speaker O (unidentified): Question, Council Peter, you have the floor. I do want to address the process which this got here briefly. I know this was talked about in January and the mayor did not want to put on the agenda, that's his right. At that point the conversation needs to continue. I do want to ask Corporation Council to make sure that is there's no tradition that is that we rely on here, we rely on the process and the rules that conversation needs to go. Okay, well now this is you can suspend the rules and if Corporation. Council the office does not want to work on that should be communicated, but it is frustrating to hear how this got a little bit stonewalled. Moving on to the substance of this amendment, you know, I get the specter of unintended consequences leveled at me a lot, and I'm thinking of a more unintended consequence than saying, basically, like, we've got your back to staff. If you want to enforce this rule, we've got your back, but if you get threatened, then, like, you know, go with God, right? Like, we are going to have, if ICE decides to go here, we're going to have staff threatened because we have created a loophole where we say, actually, if you threaten staff, you can just do it. I have a hard time charitably describing it because it just, it is throwing staff to the wolves. And it doesn't make any sense to me. I hear it explained I hear the concern but we are saying to staff you can be threatened right you can be threatened and then you can break the rules and I hope ice doesn't hear that because if they hear that then they will threaten you like it 's it is such an obvious outcome that it sort of boggles the imagination I will not be spring this minute anyone [1:07:11] Mark Dion: Anyone else? Councilor Graham. [1:07:14] Speaker K (unidentified): First, I apologize to the chair for his preference for non-lawyerly discussion. This does come pretty close to what I do in my day job in terms of disciplinary issues and employee rights. So let me just opine for a minute. I'll start by saying that I'm not going to support this amendment, though I do appreciate where it's coming from. I think, at the risk of putting words in the mayor's mouth, this amendment seeks to avoid a presumed kind of Hobson's choice between enforcement and discipline. I think, for reasons I'll say in a minute, I don't really think it's that clear-cut a choice, and I'll, and I'll explain why I'm more comfortable with the remedial aspects of our disciplinary system. I do want to state first, I do, I'm very appreciative of the notion of the perverse incentive that is created here, where if we provide a roadmap for ICE to gain access, then they will follow that roadmap. And I think we have to balance, you know, who bears the risks of these decisions. If we do this incorrectly, and people from our community are taken because we sort of over protected employee rights, then I don't think we've really done the public a good service. But I don't think this actually presents that Hobson's choice, because the nature of the disciplinary process and the remedial process, and what I mean by that is, the ordinance doesn't actually compel discipline. It doesn't say if you violate this you shall be disciplined by X, Y, or Z, it just sets out a standard. And when that's the case, it's actually up to the administration, whoever the supervisor or the city manager, to exact some discretion about what discipline is applied. And they can ultimately choose not to apply discipline because it's not compelled in the statute. If the supervisor does feel that there is discipline warranted, for instance, if there's a bad faith actor who tries to rely on this provision to allow ICE to access a building, they issue discipline. There is a remedial aspect available to both bargaining unit employees and non-bargaining unit employees. The bargaining unit employees can invoke their collective bargaining agreement and pursue remedy in the normal grievance process. And that brings me satisfaction, because that ultimately is what one of the major things that labor unions are there to provide for their members. And then I have confidence that our non-bargain unit disciplinary process will sufficiently figure out the facts and provide appropriate discipline or take that away after the fact. So for those reasons, I'm comfortable that our regime actually is set up to take care of employees in an appropriate way. And I would rather us bear the risk of these decisions on that end than on the front end by allowing people, in effect, to be taken. So I'm sorry to have a little legal skirmish, but I just want to give my perspective as someone who works in the field of labor rights, why I'm comfortable that what's set up here is fine and preferable without the chair's amendment. [1:10:44] Benjamin Grant: How's Raleigh? Thank you, Mayor. I am not going to give a legal opinion because I'm not a lawyer even though sometimes I try to play one here on TV. What I'm gonna say is coming from mostly from emotions. That is my take on this amendment. I think in your presentation you didn't mention that this is just coming for me. It's not just coming, you know, before the current administration came into power, I had a one-on-one conversation with you on trying to put something in place to protect the immigrants in our community. And you made a good case that we don't want to put targets on their back. And I didn't want to do that, so I backed off. However, in January, we didn't have anything in place, but ice came. The current administration have three more years. If we don't have a very strong protection for our staff and our community, nobody can predict what they can do so to our staff. This is not in place because we don't appreciate the work that you've done over the years. This city have been welcoming and supportive of immigrants. I've worked at the GA office and many different city departments before I ran for office, and I have seen how city staff care deeply about everybody who lives here. And as it's been explained, supporting your amendment and taking that piece of that conversation, Corporation Council will tell you that him and I went back and forth on this. It is the most difficult part of the whole ordinance for me to say that no, I'm not going to put that in for basic reasons, because I don't want it to come across as if I or all of us here tonight don't support our, how do you call, our stuff. We do, but we also want to make sure that I even protected more so that when they make a mistake, I think Corporation Council, they told me that our staff, which I do agree, have several trainings. They may not make that mistake, but if that mistake happens, there's nothing in the ordinance that says that we are going to do this or that. It gives that authority or that action to supervisors, and it comes all the way to the city manager. So I know you're wondering where I'm going with this. Is why I say I'm going to be emotional. Long story short, I am not supporting the amendment on the floor and I hope my colleagues will also not. Thank you. Well this [1:13:42] Mark Dion: is not unusual. I've been in this position before in other forums. I agree with what you said, Counselor Ali, but at the time we were talking about the threats to the city as a whole on the notion of sanctuary city, so I did ask you to hold on some other items because we weren't clear what the administration was telling us in those early executive orders, all right? And I appreciate the council's labor law analysis and talking like lawyers tonight is not out of turn because this has been wholly discussed by lawyers, but I can't help being a defense lawyer. And I think an affirmative defense is important for the employees. It's kind of interesting and I'll close with this. There's this supposition that if we have this as an ordinance then somehow ICE is going to move on. That's silly. In my mind that's an interesting magical thought. My conclusion is they don't have any sense of what they're supposed to do. They just go out and do things impulsively and destructively, and the existence of this particular couple of sentences is not going to change the equation. I'm confident of that. Some suggest otherwise, but it's, if that's the case, if in your heart you understand ICE is going to do what ICE is going to do, then why do we have to have our staff controlled under the guise of an order and an ordinance other than for political purposes? As a pragmatic purpose, it's not going to deter ICE. I know they've received advice from the other side that doing so would create that effect. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not worried about stewards or union grievances or that process. I'm worried tonight about sending a clear message to our staff that we do trust them and we don't have to go legal on it to ensure that trust. Unless there's any other comments, I'll call for vote. It's by hand. All those in support, please signify. All those opposed, 7-1. All right then. We'll now move on to the, Councilor Phillips. [1:16:15] Benjamin Grant: Oh, sorry. We're moving on to the main motion. [1:16:17] Mark Dion: I was going to try to do that. Yeah, sorry. Before I get confused again. There's so many hieroglyphics here, thank God. All right, well, now take a roll call on the main motion as amended. Now, sir, Grant? Yes. That's where Sykes? Yes. That's a rally? Yes. That's where Pelletier? Yes. That's Laura Michniewicz? Yes. That's our bullet? Yes. That's where Phillips? Yes. They are down? No. Work will now read away, man announced? It passes 7-1. I'll reserve public comment until later. Go ahead. I'm so sorry. I [1:17:11] Benjamin Grant: should have made this announcement, and I didn't. I really do apologize. I really want to thank you for taking this out of order. I want to apologize for my colleagues and to the public, but I need to leave. There's a family matter I need to attend to, so thank you for taking this out of order. I really appreciate it. Thanks for all the support on this, and again, I apologize for the public, but I need to leave. Thank you, Councillor Phillips. [1:17:36] Mark Dion: All right then, clerk will now read orders 190-2526 through 195-2526. Order 190-2526, declaring June 6th, 2026, the Shipyard Old Port Half Marathon and 5K Festival, sponsored by Danielle West, City Manager. Order 191-2526, Order 1922526, declaring June 20th, 2026, the Pride Portland Parade and Festival, sponsored by Danielle West, City Manager. Order 1922526, declaring September 5th, 2026, the Water Lantern Festival, sponsored by Danielle West, City Manager. Order 1932526, granting municipal officers approval of Super Club Cocktail Lounge, application for outdoor dining on public property at 441 Congress Street, sponsored by Danielle West, City Manager. Order 194-2526, granting municipal officers approval of Wolf Play Eat, application for indoor entertainment at 49 Northport Drive, sponsored by Danielle West, City Manager. Order 195-2526, approving license agreement for the Farmer's Market in Monument Square between the City of Portland and Downtown Improvement District, Inc., sponsored by Danielle West, City Manager. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Any comments from the City Manager on these items? [1:18:52] Speaker S (unidentified): No specific comment, Mayor, but staff is present if there are any questions. [1:19:00] Mark Dion: Is there any public comment on any of the orders presented on that calendar? Just come to the microphone. [1:19:11] Public commenter: Hi. I'm Kayla Nguyen. I come from, I'm running it back. It's my first time here. I am with Pride Portland. I come today to speak on behalf of Pride and the board. I currently serve as vice chair. I've been with Pride about two years now in Portland for three years. Essentially, I'm here today, again, to just speak of the importance of Pride. Essentially, Pride is not just a party in the park. It is a celebration. It's a moment of joy, of hope, and most importantly, of community. For one day, our community comes together to be fully seen. It's a space where people can show up as themselves. And where young people can see queer adults living, thriving, and building full lives. We do this for the kids, for the adults who don't feel safe coming out until later in life, and for those who still can't come out. Pride is for everyone, and without representation and visibility are diminished. At its core, pride reflects something universal, the desire to feel seen included and valued. We're asking for your support in approving the pride parade and festival on June 20th, 2026. Thank you for your time and consideration. Anyone [1:20:35] Mark Dion: else wishing to provide comment on any of these applications? Seeing none, chair would seek a motion for passage of the consent calendar. Seconded by Councillor Michniewicz. Discussion by the council. Seeing none, all those in favor of the Consent Calendar as presented, signify by hand. It's unanimous. Are there any of the business owners here? Supper Club, not Super. Well, which one? Oh, yes, I've been out there. Anyone else? I want to thank both of you for electing to start your business here in the city. it's important to us and if there's anything we can do as an organization in the future to help you call on us congratulations all right you're free to go or stay for the remainder no one ever takes me up on it all right clerk will now read first read items orders 196 25 26 through 202 25 26 order 196 25 26 approving state local eps funding Allocation for Public Education from Kindergarten to Grade 12 for Portland Public Schools for Fiscal Year 2027, sponsored by Finance Committee, April Fournier, Chair. Order 197-2526, Approving Non-State Funded School Construction Debt Services for Portland Schools for Fiscal Year 2027, sponsored by Finance Committee, April Fournier, Chair. Chair. Order 198-2526, raising and appropriating additional local funds for Portland schools for fiscal year 2027, sponsored by Finance Committee, April 4, Chair. Order 199-2526, approving total school operation budget for Portland schools for fiscal year 2027, sponsored by Finance Committee, April 4, Chair. Order 225-26, appropriating and raising funds for adult education for fiscal year 2027 as required by the main revised statute title 20-A MRS 8603A1. Order 201-2526 to raise and appropriate local funds for food service in the Portland Public Schools for fiscal year 2027, sponsored by Finance Committee, April Fournier, Chair. Order 202-2526 authorizing the disposition of any additional state subsidy received for Portland schools in fiscal year 2027, sponsored by Finance Committee, April 4th, Your Chair. The Chair would entertain public comment on these orders, one or all. [1:24:00] Public commenter: Not sure why the Councilor didn't want to take my paperwork. There's no rule against it. Before I start, I want to note that without affecting my time, that there are two orders 202 on the agenda. There's the last order on the school budget and the order 202 regarding Brighton Avenue, so there's an error there that needs to be corrected. It's, it's been corrected [1:24:37] Mark Dion: on our record. Okay, second item will be 202 B. Okay, I just noticed a few minutes ago, so [1:24:48] Public commenter: STEPHEN SHARP OF BRACKET STREET IN PORTLAND. I ALWAYS HAVE A DILEMMA AS TO WHETHER TO SPEAK AT THE FIRST SCHOOL BUDGET HEARING OR WAIT UNTIL THE SECOND HEARING. I DECIDED THAT YOU NEED THIS INFORMATION NOW TO PREPARE A REQUEST TO RETURN THE BUDGET TO THE SCHOOL BOARD FOR ADJUSTMENT. LET ME BE CLEAR, THE BUDGET YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU IS NOT A CUT. Don't let anybody tell you that the school board is looking to increase spending by 7.5 million dollars and a tax levy increase of 8.2 million. The percentages are lower than previous years as dollar amounts increase because the totals are ballooning out of control. Just five years ago the school budget was 126 and a half million dollars, not including title funds. A $7.5 million increase on that budget would have been 16%, and that's what the difference between the ballooning out of control of the budget and just five years ago. As I've noted, the total budget is proposed to increase by $7.5 million. The only schools getting less money in next year's budget is Cliff Island School and Talbot School, which is getting just $103,000 less. Let me repeat, most of the 16 Portland schools are getting more money next year than was budgeted for this year. Also, most of the Portland public schools are projected to have less students, and the overall school department is projecting that there will be 203 less students next year. On top of that, the 311, that is on top of the 311 students they lost in the previous year. Over 500 less students in the Portland school system over the last two years. Yet they have increased their budget by $17 million over the last two years. Let that sink in. $17 million over two years for a school department with 500 less students. Does that really make sense? I provided you with the certified enrollment report, which I've had to correct, as the certified numbers on the state website does not jive with the information provided to the school board just a couple weeks ago. Quite frankly I don't think the school department really knows how many students are enrolled in the schools. I've also provided you with a chart showing the per pupil cost of educating our pre-k through 12 students. There are three different breakdowns shown omitting various programs that are not central to the pre-k through 12 program. They should really be separated from the entire school budget. As you can see that the cost per student students has continued to rise and Portland is now spending twenty seven thousand to twenty nine thousand dollars to educate pre-k through 12 grade 12 students. That is not sustainable, we cannot keep doing that. Order 196 has an interesting paragraph in the agenda noting that LD1, if you go back and look at the agenda, that LD1 was passed in 2007 or so to control increase in property taxes. Order 196 and 198 make a mockery of that. As the order 198 calls for taxing an additional $40 million for the cost of educating pre-K to 12 students. Order 199 says it's approving the total school operating budget for the Portland schools at $167 million. But the actual school budget is actually $12 million higher at $179 million. That is because there's $12 million in spending that you don't get to approve. ON THIS ITEM. HI THERE. I'LL BE VERY QUICK. MY NAME'S ARTHUR PHILLIPS, RESIDENT OF PORTLAND AND THE FATHER OF A KID AT REICHI SCHOOL. JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR PUBLIC SERVICE AND JUST TO REITERATE THAT SCHOOLS ARE THE PILLARS OF OUR COMMUNITIES, THEY ARE THE BEST INVESTMENT THAT WE CAN MAKE. I'M REALLY GRATEFUL TO THE SCHOOL BOARD AND PPS STAFF WHO'VE SHEPHERDED THIS BUDGET THROUGH this process. Fully support the strong investments that are made in it and just urge you all to fully support it and just to let you know that folks in our community are paying close attention and really in support of advancing that budget. Thank you. Anyone [1:29:42] Mark Dion: else wishing to provide public comment? Seeing none, public comment period is closed. Now we'll go on to first readings. Order 202.25.26, approving cooperative agreement between the City of Portland and the Maine Department of Transportation regarding improvements to Brighton Avenue, sponsored by Danielle West, City Manager. Order 203.25.26, approving cooperative agreement between the City of Portland and Maine Department of Transportation regarding improvements to Forest Avenue, sponsored by Danielle West, City Manager. Order 204-2526, accepting and appropriating a $200 anonymous donation to the Portland Police Department for victim services, sponsored by Danielle West, City Manager. Order 205-2526, approving the golf cart lease agreement with Country Club Enterprises, LLC, sponsored by Danielle West, City Manager. Chair needs to inquire now, Councilor Grant, is there still your intent to bring an item from the floor? No. All right. The chair would seek a second to suspend the rules to take up a non-agenda item. Second. Second by Councillor Grant. The purpose, let's vote on the suspension of the rules. All those in favor of suspending the rules for this discussion? It's unanimous. Chair would seek a second on a motion to approve a First Amendment to the City Manager's Employment Agreement. Second. Second. Is there any public comment on that? Seeing none, to the one public, the chair would turn this matter over now to Corporation Council for discussion. [1:32:08] Speaker P (unidentified): Members of the Council, this has been emailed to you. Do you all have it? And I do have paper copies if any members of the public would like to see it. Do we have any other takers? Thanks, Mayor. This is a simple amendment, first amendment to the employment agreement with the city manager. The city council is currently in the process of negotiating potential amendments to the manager's contract. The contract expires on May 14th, which is coming up in 10 days. And so in order to avoid any lapse in the contract, this amendment simply extends it by approximately six weeks until the end of June, and it's on the same terms and conditions that the current contract is on. So I'm happy to answer any questions about that. It's fairly straightforward and gives the council additional time until the end of the fiscal year to come up with proposed amendments to the existing agreement. [1:33:42] Mark Dion: Discussion or questions? [1:33:46] Kate Sykes: Just one question. If this extends the contract, does that mean that the next contract would also be extended? It doesn't short her contract, next year's contract, by the amount of time that we're extending it, correct? [1:34:01] Speaker P (unidentified): Well, the amendment... At this point, we can set whatever... There's no set term, So in the amendment the next amendment that comes forward sometime in the next few weeks We could you can agree on whatever time period you want doesn't have to be a particular day It doesn't have to end at the same time of the year But yeah, this is keep status quo for six weeks to allow that additional time. Okay, sure [1:34:25] Mark Dion: Any other comments from the council? [1:34:30] Speaker K (unidentified): I'm comfortable with this. I think it's appropriate under the circumstances so that we don't rush into a quick decisions. This is commonplace in the employment relations to have a status quo extension. So for that reason, I'll support. [1:34:44] Mark Dion: Thank You counselor. There's no other comment. Seeing none, call the roll. Councilor grant. Yes, counselor Sykes. Yes, that's a rally. Hey, that's the pellet ear. Yes, that's the room. I can image. Yes, that's the bullet. Yes, mayor Dion. Yes. Chair would now seek a motion to adjourn so moved by Councillor McNevidge, seconded by Councillor Ali. All those in favor? We're adjourned.