Bangor council advances data center moratorium, sidewalk ordinance after heated public comment

[0:36] Susan Hawes: Good evening, welcome to the regular meeting of the Bangor City Council. It is April 13th, 7 p.m., and we are in the council chambers. We start all meetings with the pledge of allegiance, and if I could ask Assistant Fire Chief Pelletier to lead us. [1:04] Michael Beck: The public stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank [1:19] Susan Hawes: you, Chief. Fellow Chair, okay, now it's time for the novel. This is the portion of the meeting set aside for general public comment directly related to city business, for matters that do not appear on this evening's agenda. Public comment requires a person to state your name and whether you are a resident of Bangor. The City Council has adopted a public comment policy that we will adhere to. Statements during public comment should respect the dignity and seriousness of the proceeding, and individuals will be restricted to speaking once. Obscene, truly threatening, or overly repetitive comments will be deemed out of order and will be interrupted and removed. Topics that are considered out of order also include matters that are in litigation, individual employees or employee groups discussing matters for which complaint or grievance procedures are in place. Personal disputes between the speaker and another resident not germane to city business, support for or opposition to any candidate for political office, and personal complaints pertaining to individual city employees. There is a time limit of three minutes per speaker, and the total time allowed for general public comment regarding city business will be limited to more no more than one hour. The public comment period is for City Council members to listen and not to respond or debate with persons if you do not live in Bangor or own property in Bangor, please allow those who do to have the opportunity to speak first. If you'd like to offer comment on any item directly related to city business not appearing on the regular agenda, you may approach the podium. Individuals who have appropriately pre-registered to give public comment via remote means will be given the opportunity to participate remotely. Alternatively, counselors may be reached via email at counselors bangormaine.gov. A link to the adopted public comment policy can be found on the city's website. [3:40] Lisa Goodwin: Excuse me, council chair, we need to do a roll call vote for attendance. [3:46] Susan Hawes: Yes, we do go right for us. Actually, everything has to be roll call tonight. Right? Okay. Council of back. [3:55] Lisa Goodwin: President Council of Carson present. That's the Dean. Present that's the balloon present. That's a little fish here. That's the Leonard alive and well. That's the Maller he [4:15] Susan Hawes: was on the list, but he's not on the list. Now that he. [4:18] Speaker D (unidentified): I was muted. I couldn't get unmuted. I'm here. [4:21] Lisa Goodwin: Here thank you Councillor Walker here, Council Haas here, nine present, zero absent. Okay, do [4:35] Susan Hawes: we have anyone wishing to make comment? Hi, [4:49] Rose Pompey: my name is Rose Pompey and I'm a resident of Bangor and I am a multilingual teacher. That means I have the privilege of teaching English to students who are learning it as a new language. I heard what Mr. Maller said about students like mine, and I am here to say that he is wrong. First of all, he said that the cultural center should be teaching English. It's actually law that schools have to instruct students in English and make education accessible to all students, regardless of what languages they speak. We can't ignore the law just because someone in city council disagrees with it. Secondly, Mr. Maller said it's not a disability. He was actually correct about that. Not yet speaking English is not a disability. That is why I am not a special education teacher and my students learning English do not get instruction from a special education teacher unless they also happen to have a disability. I'm not sure what point he was trying to make in saying that it's not a disability, possibly that we don't have a legal responsibility to provide services. Again, we do have a legal and moral responsibility to teach English and to teach all students who live in our city. Mr. Maller also said they are probably illegals anyway. Number one, many of the students here in Bangor are refugees. That means they are here legally. Bangor chose to welcome refugees and we need to stand by that decision. Number two, people can't be illegal. They can be here without documentation and without legal permission, but they themselves cannot be illegal. Number three, it is illegal for our schools to ask the legal status of our students. It is not our business. Business. We educate all students in our city regardless of what their status may be. My students come with knowledge of other cultures and other languages that adds to the richness of our student body. We are stronger as a school and stronger as a city with these different perspectives. I am lucky to work with amazing students who want to be in school, who want to learn English. And again, I believe we have the moral responsibility to ensure they get the very best education the city of Bangor can offer. Mr. Meller is wrong and hate like this has no place on this council. Thank you. Thank you. [7:38] Rory: My name is Rory and I am a Bangor resident. Let me be very clear about why I'm here. What Councillor Meller has positioned is not neutral policy nor is it simply a disagreement over resources. Making statements about limiting the ability of marginalized groups to gain access to the education they need in order to integrate and function within society while holding power over access to resources as a white man is an act of white supremacy. When a white public official uses his power to argue for limiting marginalized and immigrant communities' access to education while making baseless, unsupported, overgeneralized claims that they are probably all illegals anyway, he is participating in a long and deeply documented tradition of white supremacist politics in America. This is the same logic that white politicians have used for generations to deny black children education, segregating schools, restricting immigrants access to public services, and treating marginalized communities as inherently undeserving of full participation in society. It is the same political logic used by fascists and nazis. First scapegoat a vulnerable group, then dehumanize them, then portray them as a threat to the nation, then use that manufactured fear to justify exclusion and denial of human rights. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum explains that Nazi propaganda worked by adopting lies, stereotypes to dehumanize Jews and blame them for Germany's problems, and warned that similar lies are still being repackaged and spread today with violent consequences. White supremacy in American politics has long operated through institutions, policies, control over who is allowed full access to education and resources. Sources. It has repeatedly taken the form of white officials using public power to decide which communities are worthy of support and which are to be excluded. George Wallace, an avowed segregationist, stood in the doors of the University of Alabama and blocked black students from integrating. Pete Wilson backed the Proposition 187 to deny undocumented immigrants access to public education and public services. The Immigration Act of 1924 was designed to preserve American white homogeny. This is the political tradition Counselor Maller's rhetoric belongs to, a white supremacist tradition that scapegoats marginalized communities, casts them as threats, and uses access to education and resources as a tool of exclusion rather than justice. And that is exactly why this rhetoric cannot be brushed off as just words in our current political and social climate. This rhetoric reinforces and legitimizes the same discourses spread by racists, white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and fascists. And I'm sure they're listening. To deny children education, to scapegoat entire communities without evidence and to treat access to public resources as something that can be restricted along racial and xenophobic lines is not governance. That is racial domination dressed up as moral and political concern. So I'm going to name this plainly. When a white male official uses his public power to deny marginalized children education and justify that denial with racist and xenophobic speech, that is white supremacy in action. [10:56] Kirok: I,, I, Kirok, live in Bangor. Kirok promised keep remark brief. Kirok here to support Councillor Mahler. Mahler very smart man. Him right about many thing. Councillors should listen to Mahler. Make him chair. This best way. Make much progress very fast. About teach English. Do kids not know English? Everyone know. Best way ensure academic success teach what already know look through Bangor curriculum not one class on teach baby to poop in diaper why not get baby off to career success teach them full program on how poop and diaper maybe how say goo gaga once complete program test. Curoc bet. Very high percent get a grade. 99% give each one award. Gold star. Then them on right track. Academic success rest of life. Bangor become certified. Highest percent baby certified poop and diaper for whole country. Last proposal. When Curoc Young, everyone all excited. Round wheel is best. Round wheel is best. When Curoc Unfrozen From Ice, find out surprisingly little further research in this area. Hardly any further research on optimal wheel shape. Curoc propose, and sure, Councillor Mahler will agree. Bangor becomes center of innovation on wheel shape research try new thing octagon wheel maybe hexagon wheel maybe even Pentagon wheel maybe but remember reason why circle is such good wheel shape is circle have fewer side circle only have one side two if you count inside and outside but only one on outside. Outside is part that matter. So fewer side, better. So focus research on square wheel, four side, even better. Triangle wheel, three side. Three side, very small number. Lots of room for growth on this. Kirak, close. Let me hear say, umbiga,, umbiga,, make Bangor great again. Again, ombiga,, ombiga,. [13:56] Laura Whitman: Hello, my name is Laura Whitman. I'm a multilingual learner teacher. I live in Bangor, and I'm here to respond to counselor Wayne Mailer. I've been a teacher for almost 30 years. I've worked with students in all grade levels. For those of you who may not know, ML, or multilingual, or English language learner, ELL, teachers, we work with students who speak a language other than English at home, and who need help learning academic English at school. I've worked with students from around the world, and these students are like all students. They wonder if they studied for their quiz, how to open their locker, who they're going to play soccer with at resource, and where they put their pencil. Counselor Mailer is misinformed about the laws and regulations surrounding ML teaching. To begin with, the Supreme Court case, Plyler v. Doe, in 1982, stated that schools must provide education in a manner that allows students of non-English speaking backgrounds to access that information. In addition, that same court case determined that schools are prohibited from asking students their immigration status. Counselor Mailer stated that funding multilingual learners education is not necessary as these students are not special needs. If the city council, sorry, if the city council listens to his opinion, then Bangor will not be following the law. I would also bring to the council's attention that ignoring the law has costly consequences. In 2021, the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department settled a lawsuit with Lewiston schools because Lewiston failed to provide appropriate and adequate English language instruction to English language learners, causing those students to have significant academic setbacks. That school system had to implement a series of reforms in order to address the inequity of English learners, including system-wide staff training, hiring of more ML teachers, and appropriate ML curriculum and materials. Again, it is important to follow the law. Law. Some people have suggested that students should learn English outside of school and then attend school when they are ready to participate in the academic setting. ML teaching recognizes that students need to graduate high school in a timely manner, and in order to do that, students must learn content and academic English simultaneously. On a given day an ML student solves math problems, discusses a story, explains a science procedure, and writes about historical events just like any other student but in a new language. The ML teachers work with the students and content teachers to make that content understandable and also so the student can communicate their learning in English. In addition to these legal and educational matters time is up it was untrue unhateful and unkind may I continue or no [17:17] Susan Hawes: That was your time I'm sorry thank you good [17:34] Mitchell Cooper: Evening counselors my name is Mitchell Cooper I'm a homeowner in Bangor during a board of ethics meeting counselor Maller was caught saying quote as far as I'm concerned they get no increase they can't speak English read English or write English. It's not a disability. We don't have to furnish. They're probably all illegals anyway. He was talking about kids, children, just trying to learn. And only about 5% of Bangor students are multilingual learners. That's it. That's who he's talking about. And he holds such contempt for that tiny group of kids, such casual cruelty, that he sounds ready to kill the school budget over it. He didn't walk it back. He doubled down, telling Bangor Daily News he doesn't think our teachers should teach English as a second language, and that the city spends too much time on his words, the homeless and the illegals. He told the paper, quote, I don't believe most of the illegals pay taxes, property taxes anyway. He's wrong. It shouldn't matter here, but undocumented immigrants in Maine pay $15.6 million a year in state and local taxes, including $6 million in property taxes, while being shut out for most of those programs that those taxes fund. This is a pattern. That same night, the Board of Ethics found he violated the city's ethics code. When the ICE cooperation order came before the council, he said, quote, we spend an awful lot of time on illegal immigrants. And he's seemingly so contentious that he can't even see why we're having that conversation, as we'll discuss later. These aren't isolated incidents, and they call into question every vote Councilor Mallar has ever cast on a social issue in this city. He only regrets that the microphone is on, and he's only sorry that you heard it. So what is the standard here? Who sits in that chair and talks about kids like that? Who gets caught, doubles down, and faces zero consequences? We wouldn't tolerate it from a student, a teacher, or any other city employee. Does he need to throw a pin for this body to do something about it? Bangor deserves better. These kids deserve better. Councillor Mallar needs to resign. Thank you. My [20:01] Jody McDonald: name is Jody McDonald. I'm a Bangor resident, and I have, since I moved to UMO, fallen in love with this area, and I have not left since 1997. During that time, I worked for 17 years as a teacher, and some of the brightest moments were welcoming new students from totally different lands, whether they were immigrants, whether they were the sons and daughters of people that were just moving across the planet. It was honestly some of the most beautiful times in my classroom, seeing the other students act exactly as Americans should, embracing their new classmates, helping them as best as they possibly can, and just like what America is supposed to be, made it the melting pot or at least salad bowl of beautiful cultures. We learned different things about each other. We thrived. We were a community. They take nothing from us. The idea that we are still referring to human beings as anything aside from human beings is disgusting. The idea that we are still having these same exact things about just we want to follow the law. We are discussing children and we are all supposed to follow regardless of our religion, regardless of our creed, the golden rule of you treat others how you be treated. Similarly, in addition to educational matters, Councillor Mallar's words are hateful, unkind, and untrue. Immigrant families to Bangor, no matter where they come from, bring a depth and breadth into our school, communities, and neighborhoods. I've worked with families from every continent except Antarctica, and I can tell you that these people are good people who work hard, pay taxes, and contribute to the betterment of our life here. One of my pet peeves is hearing that people who work don't pay taxes. We don't have a choice of that. These are absolutely citizens that are giving to our communities. These are citizens who are bringing children to be part of our communities, to make them richer, to make them thrive, to make them stay. Personally, those of us here have taught English language learner students who have gone to own businesses, work in medicine, various trades, retail, finance, gastronomy, or in pharmaceuticals. The purpose of public schools is to create learning opportunities for students to become well-rounded, educated adults, to discover and develop their strengths, to learn to work cooperatively with others and to become productive members of society. Each student is deserving of a teacher's time, energy and focus, no matter what language they speak at home. And with the last 20 seconds, this is an election year. We are having a hard enough time ensuring that we have the right to vote. A right that is withheld for women, for those of us who are have names that have changed since we were birthed for whatever reflection and I want our City Council to not have ice standing outside our voting centers our polling centers that is among the most un-American yet very America in modern times attitude okay thank you [23:07] Speaker K (unidentified): Good. [23:10] Daniel McCullough: Evening, my name is the data McAuliffe, Bangor residents. I'm usually an extemporaneous except one have to quote statute and ordinance. I'd sent each of you an email earlier today, early and early in the morning. Nothing to read, doesn't matter what language it's in, it's just two photographs. Section 291-38e sidewalks and esplandes to stop stand or park a vehicle on any portion or part of a public sidewalk or respond except for temporary overflow parking at the municipal golf course on the esplanade between webb's gravity existing parking lot and on designated portions of the golf course property located south of Webster Avenue and west of the Bangor Hydro Station. I live in the tree section of Bangor on Somerset and Essex between John Baps High School and Lincoln Public School. The photographs that I sent you, I did not have to walk far from that. The first one was half a block west of me and that's a section that the students going to John Baptist High School would have to walk out in the street because cars are always parked on the sidewalk there. The ironic portion of that is that on the very same plot that house is on, part of their land, there's space for three cars to park off the road, but they 're always parked there on the. The second photograph was two blocks east of me and that is there's three cars and a equipment truck that's always parked there and that is a that is half a block from lincoln public high school. So parents walk in the children home from school or kids walking by themselves have to walk out into the street. I see many residents who are older than me, it's possible I know I see many residents who are older than me, residents who are less mobile than me walking their dogs. They like to walk the dogs over to Chapin Park which is right across from the Lincoln High public school. They have to walk out into the street around these cars and someone who doesn't have a whole lot of neck mobility has to be turning around, is there a car coming, am I going to get killed simply by walking my dog, is that going to happen. So and this is not something that needs to be changed, no wording needs to be changed, this is something that needs to be enforced. This is so i'm not asking for anything other than something public to be enforced in that. And by the way i am the son of immigrants and english is my second language thank you hi [25:31] Katie Ko: My name is Katie Ko. I'm a resident of the city of Bangor. When asked about his hot mic comments, Councillor Wayne Mallor said, why are we teaching English as a second language and taking away from teaching English to our regular citizens? It seems we're spending too much time on the homeless and the illegals and disregarding the citizenry. We are teaching English as a second language to be in compliance with state and federal law, a law he says is so important when it comes to compliance with ICE. Regardless of his hypocrisy, helping ESL students doesn't take a thing away from our regular English classes. We are teaching English as we need both, we support both. Why do you think helping one group removes help from another? Helping the unhoused and the ESL learners helps our citizenry because they are our citizenry. Helping them is not just in line with the law, it is also the right thing to do. I'm ashamed of the way he talked about people, about children. He has a responsibility to the people of the city, to all the people of the city, not just the ones that look like him. We should be better than this. Mess. I don't know how to teach adults how to have empathy. I am frustrated with my inability to make people care about their neighbors, to care about people who look differently or think different or think differently than themselves. Counselor Maller's comments are out in the world and they reflect poorly on all of us. [27:03] Linda Dibbe: Hi, my name is Linda Dibbe and I'm a resident of Bangor and I wanted to talk about the mess in front of the public library. People don't dare to take their children. I've got multiple things about political people that are running, inviting. I wouldn't dare to go in there. There's so much trash, needles, and people hanging out around the library, it doesn't feel safe. People have said to me, I was going to take my grandchildren to the library, but I don't dare. The other day I went over to Westgate Service Center and they were picking needles up because they had called the Bangor police because there were so many needles between them and the healthcare mall and they were told that they needed to get online because they had sent that out and he said can you just give me a number I've got people waiting and they said no you have to get online and do that. I think if we're going to have programs it needs to be educational programs. But I think we need to make the city safe for everybody. And I think we need to be able to go to a public library or city hall, or any public building. And I think that we need to clean up in front of those buildings. I think it's a fine line between enabling and now that they're going to close the warming centers, there's going to be 200 more people out there. I think we need to there's a fine line between providing the assistance that they need and enabling them. And I think we need to enforce some rules that public buildings there needs to be an open area in front of that. So the public that pay to help keep these things going, can utilize the services. And so I think we need to look at how much are we providing? How much are we encouraging? I think some of the monies that we are using to provide food, clothes, warmth, which every American is entitled to. I think some of the money, we need to look at recruitment for social services, for case managers. A 90 year old woman died and her 60 year old son has some health issues. It took us six months to get him a case manager and three months to get him a place to live because he didn't have a drug problem. He might have a drinking problem, but he didn't have a drug problem. So I think we need to see if we can invest some money into providing the services to help people to rehab and get what they need, instead of providing the things to maintain the lifestyle. And we say, we don't have mental health place and there's no funds for that. Well, we need mental health places because just because they don't wanna follow the rules, they don't have the mental capacity to do that they have a mental illness and we need to treat the mental illness good evening [30:15] Scott Party: My name is Scott Party and I'm a resident of Bangor and I'm here tonight to talk about money and homelessness and sidewalks well not really sidewalks yet I listened carefully to the city manager discuss the unavoidable increases in this year's budget we hear a lot about the rising costs of fuel the jump in health insurance premiums in the inflationary pressures on public works but there is one increased cost that is notably absent from the city's budget presentation the cost of new homeland Homelessness created by council's tax policies. Early today I sent you an email detailing the domino effect of property tax increases. To reiterate the data for the record, economic data shows that landlords pass on 89 of property taxes has increased directly to the to their tenants. The U.S. government accountability office has proven that one hundred dollar increase in medium rent is associated with a nine percent spike in homelessness. The city manager mentions how much everything has increased And yeah, it has. It's crazy. For the one thousand renter households in Bangor who are already severely cost burden paying more than 50% of their income on housing, everything has already increased beyond their ability to pay. When with when the city raises taxes to cover their cover its own inflationary costs, it is effectively balancing the budget on the backs of those 1,000 households. If this budget leads to even a modest rent hike across the city, you are not adjusting for inflation, you are Mathematically guaranteeing that more of our neighbors will end up on the sidewalks, the same sidewalks this council is currently trying to clear through new ordinance ordinances. You cannot claim to be solving homelessness with a standing committee on one hand while passing a budget that fuels the eviction engine with the other. I urge this council to look past the lines line items of fuel insurance and look at the eight to nine percent increase in homelessness that follows these types of tax Hikes. Stop the domino effect before they start falling. We need a budget that prioritizes housing stability over municipal expansion. I am calling on you to be a council for all the citizens of Bangor, not just the wealthy, not just those residing in the Fairmount area, not just residing in little city, not or the tree streets. I am calling on the council for all the people. Thank you. Hello [33:02] Leo Vaccarello: My name is Leo Vaccarello. I am not a resident of Bangor. My partner Nathan McCarthy was here last month. I'm with solo on earth. I just wanted to swing by and just come by and talk to you real quick. He talked to you about the community solo program, how it could save the city approximately $200,000 a year. Wanted to see if the council had any thoughts on it and see if we could possibly get the bills to update and get a professional proposal out to you folks. The program is going to be changing in the Future and these farms are not going to be available. They're not going to be building any new projects in the future, so the program eventually will not be offering these savings anymore to the city. As of right now, see the Bangor School District's doing this program, Jackson Technologies just did this program, just to name a couple. It's an extremely easy process. The city doesn't really have to lift a finger for this. I just wanted to really give the city another chance to at least take a look at it. See folks can vote on it. It's a great way to put some money back into the budget to help do some other things in the city and help believe some of the pains that the city has with their budgets. And that's pretty much it. Just looking to see if it's something that can be re-looked at and something that can be discussed. Thank you. Adam [34:46] Adam Baker: Baker, Bangor resident. All my words are my own thoughts, and we do not reflect any committee. I just wanted to echo everybody's thoughts about Wayne Mallar or Councilor Mallar tonight. Night, I believe his comments were very unjustified and very empathetic. As someone who leads with empathy or who lives by that, I just need to speak against it, and I appreciate everybody speaking against it or speaking with me. Yeah, I just believe there should be repercussions for words, for hateful words like that. So thank you. Thank you is [35:36] Susan Hawes: There anyone else? Hi. [35:42] Maeve Durkee: My name is Maeve Durkee. I'm not a Bangor resident, I'm an Orna resident, but I'm coming here to both comment on council Maurer, council now hurts words. I think that is really unjustified and betray a kind of the wrong attitude for city government, and I'd also like to say that I support well one of the ordinances that are before the council tonight, the employee authority and immigration matters. I think it's really important that people be able to not comply with the ice [36:23] Carolyn Fish: Regime. Okay. [36:35] Susan Hawes: Seeing no one else approached, we'll go to those that are on remote. Hello. [36:48] George Lance: can you hear me this is George Lance yes we can hear you go ahead thank you thank you chair and councillors this is protected First Amendment speech on a matter of city governance now we'll use my time to criticize the conduct and fitness of for office of elected officials at the January 12th meeting I was cut off at two minutes and two seconds while calm and within time at the exact moment I began addressing a counselor 's public record that is not rule enforcement that is viewpoint Discrimination, and that pattern is continuing. At recent meetings I have properly registered for participation, at my hand up and was ignored on specific agenda items. I signed up the right way online, but you guys still continue to ignore my hand being raised on items, which is against your rules. That's not a neutral time restriction, that's denial of access to the forum on those specific topics. When the council allows comment on agenda items, it can't selectively refuse to recognize speakers who have properly requested to speak on those items. That is unequal access to the forum, raises First Amendment issues. Now returning to the substance, the public has the right to evaluate judgment, temperament and conduct those who hold power over them. Counselor Joseph Leonard's conduct as publicly reported includes throwing an object at a member of the public during a disagreement. This reflects a serious problem with tolerance for dissent and respect citizens. Counselor Angela Walker's criminal history is part of the public record, and the public has the right to consider that record when evaluating the judgment of her fitness for office. Those are not personal attacks, and that's the core issues of governance and public trust, and yet when a citizen trust attempts to raise these issues they're cut off, labeled out of order or ignored entirely. It's not neutral enforcement, that is a pattern of suppressing criticism. At the same time this council enforces very vague rules of dignity and seriousness, and when outside organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League influence governments and label and restrict speech, that raises serious concerns about pressure local bodies use to suppress lawful citizens criticism of Jews or genocide or usury. The First Amendment exists to protect criticism of those in power. The law is clear. For the record, here's one sentence of protected but potentially controversial speech. The Jews have too much control over our government and we need to assert that [Speaker D (unidentified): is] speech, not disruption, okay? [39:43] Susan Hawes: We have one more, okay, let me know ready all. [39:56] Speaker U (unidentified): Right, thank you, Mr. Ward. Yep, can you hear me? We sure can. All right, great, I got three minutes. All right, good evening, mayor, city councilors, citizens of Bangor. I'm here in city business to strongly condemn the city of Bangor's official support for Pride Month. You put up pride flags on public property, paint the rainbow sidewalks and crosswalks using city crews, promote the pride parade, and have our police departments escort and protect that event. The city is using taxpayer money and public resources to celebrate degenerate sexual behaviors. The radical left focus is on forces on our community. Studies like the Bell and Weinberg documented that 28 of gay men have had over a thousand lifetime sexual partners, with 79 saying over half their partners were complete strength city [40:42] Speaker K (unidentified): business. Yeah, I've raised that point of order. No, doesn't [40:46] Speaker U (unidentified): need to do a city business. Are you gonna let me continue to speak? Are you gonna continue [40:51] Susan Hawes: censoring speech? Thank you. Okay, we're censored. All right, I believe that's all that's on the list that has the hand raised. Okay, well, thank you for those that had public comment. We now we'll be moving on to the consent agenda. Madam Clerk, minister Bangor City Council regular meeting [41:14] Lisa Goodwin: of March 23rd, 2026. 26-122, order authorizing the sale of 10 Hersey Avenue in the amount of 25,000 to Back 40 Builders LLC. 26-123, order authorizing the execution of a municipal quick claim deed for real estate located at 44 Mount Desert Drive. 26-124, order authorizing the sale of 75 Fourth Street in the amount of fourteen thousand nine hundred fifty dollars to Back Forty Builders LLC. 26-125, order authorizing the sale of 117 Fourth Street in the amount of 17,900. I'm sorry, this is not right, is it? Oh, yes it is, I'm sorry, amount of seventeen thousand nine hundred dollars to Back Forty Builders LLC. 26-126, order authorizing the execution of a municipal quick claim deed for real estate located at 611 Broadway. 26-127, order authorizing the execution of a municipal quick claim deed for real estate located at 825 Broadway. 26-128, order authorizing the execution of a municipal quick claim deed for real estate located at 829 Broadway. 26-129, order authorizing the city manager to accept two thousand Fifty dollars and sixty four cents in funds as a result of a state criminal forfeiture. 26-130 order authorizing the city manager to accept six thousand thirty two dollars and fifty cents in funds as a result of a state criminal forfeiture. 26-131 order authorizing the purchase of a 7,000 gallon jet a fueler from Skymark refuel is LLC in the amount of 428,000 I [43:02] Michael Beck: Say we allow the city [43:06] Susan Hawes: clerk to continue. Yes she may continue in the amount of four hundred and twenty [43:13] Lisa Goodwin: $28,850 for use at Bangor International Airport. 26-132 order authorizing the purchase of a new ambulance from Auditronics for the amount of $471,703. 26-133 order authorizing the city manager to apply for funding from the Department of Transportation Small Community Air Services development program in the amount of $500,000 to improve air service. 26-134 order authorizing the purchase of a vehicle wash system from Maintenance Tech Inc. in the amount of $430,186 for washing all city vehicles. 26-135 order authorizing the city manager to execute a memorandum of understanding with Wabanaki Public Health and Wellness for a syringe waste program in the amount of sixty thousand three hundred dollars. 26-136 order appointing members of the voter [44:10] Joseph Leonard: registration appeals board chair. I make a motion on the consent agenda. Second. Okay the consent [44:19] Susan Hawes: agenda has been moved and seconded. We will have a roll call vote. Councillor Beck yes. Councillor [44:27] Lisa Goodwin: Carson yes. Councillor Deane yes. Councillor Faloon yes. Councillor Fish yes. Councillor Leonard yes. Councillor Mallar [Speaker D (unidentified): hello] yes thank you. Councillor Walker yes. Council Hawes yes. Nine yes zero no. [44:59] Susan Hawes: Okay referrals to committee and first reading. Madam clerk 26-137 [45:06] Lisa Goodwin: ordinance amending chapter 257 sidewalk section 257-4 to require licenses to occupy block or obstruct a sidewalk esplanade or street. First reading 26-133 oops I'm sorry that's wrong. [45:25] Michael Beck: Madam chair I wanted to have that item pulled when we just said 26-137. I'll be doubting [45:33] Susan Hawes: Okay council Beck wishes that 26137 ordinance be pulled. He's going to doubt that. How do we continue? We've got to continue 26 [45:49] Lisa Goodwin: -138 ordinance moratorium ordinance on data centers in the city of Bangalore first reading. 26-139 ordinance amending chapter 165 land development code district map to rezone a portion of property located at 355 main avenue from government and institutional service district to shopping and personal service district first reading and referral to planning board meeting on april 21st 2026. 26-140 resolve accepting and appropriating eighty thousand dollars from maine general medical center to implement outpatient early intervention services with respect to hiv disease first reading. Chair, I move these items be referred. [46:29] Susan Hawes: Second. Okay it's removed and seconded that these items be referred to committee and first reading. [46:38] Michael Beck: Is there any discussion? Just a clarification that motion excludes 26137 since it's been [46:45] Susan Hawes: that was pulled, council. [46:50] Susan Faloon: Flu, yes. Okay hopefully I'm doing this right, sorry. Regarding item number 26-138, I move that the council waive the requirement of reading on two separate days for this council ordinance. Second. Okay. [47:12] Susan Hawes: So I moved and seconded that the moratorium ordinance 26138 be waived for second reading. Is that correct? Is that what you said? It yeah. We need a roll call vote on it. Yep. But that's what it was for, right, to waive the second [47:30] Susan Faloon: reading, to waive reading on two separate days, separate days. Yeah. Okay madam clerk you're getting [47:38] Lisa Goodwin: your workout tonight. Council of bet yes. Council of carson yes. Council of dean yes. Council of yes that's the fish yes. That's the leonard yes. That's the mallor yes. That's the walker yes. That's the haas yes. Nine yes zero no. Okay. [48:03] Susan Hawes: So we still have the rest of them to deal with. [48:09] Susan Faloon: Yes council flume. Madam chair I move passage of item number 26-138. The proposed ordinance would establish a 100-day moratorium on the development of data centers in the city of Bangor. The city of Bangor is suddenly experiencing increased development pressure from data centers, which are a rapidly growing and evolving land use that typically requires substantial electricity and water usage for cooling and related operations. Often generate air, water, and noise pollution and can take up very large amounts of land. Because this development pressure was unanticipated, existing ordinances and development standards do not adequately address the unique infrastructure demands, environmental impacts to neighboring property owners, and operational characteristics of data centers. Therefore, the city council finds that a moratorium of 160 days is necessary to develop and implement the necessary amendments to the land development code to accommodate and mitigate negative impacts [49:16] Susan Hawes: from this development pressure. Second, okay, Ordinance 26138 has been moved and seconded. [49:26] Lisa Goodwin: We will have a roll call vote. Council Bet yes. Council Carson yes. Council Dean yes. Council Falloon yes. Council Fisch yes. Council Leonard yes. Council Maller yes. [49:43] Speaker D (unidentified): Council Walker yes. [49:48] Susan Hawes: Council Walker yes. Council Haas yes. Nine yes, zero no. Ordinance 26138 has passage. Next item, you have to do a vote for the two remaining items on referral. Point of order, yes. [50:10] Speaker K (unidentified): There we did, we do the vote on the rest of the items. Not yet, we didn't do the [50:14] Susan Hawes: vote on the rest of the items. Yeah, so she just said it right, she just asked that [50:43] Scott Party: I'm speaking to formally request that the $80,000 intended for HIV early intervention services be declined in its current form, or that an equivalent amount of city-controlled health resources be returned to the opioid settlement fund. This request is not a reflection on the quality of work performed by Bangor Public Health. On the contrary, the department does a commendable job. However, there is a growing concern regarding the concentration of diverse funding streams into a single department, often at the expense of other community-based initiatives. We must look at the precedent set by Penobscot County. The county specifically moved to exclude groups from certain funding cycles if they had already received allocations from the Opioid Settlement Funds. This was done to ensure that resources were not stacked in one area while other critical needs remain underfunded. This council's own committee acknowledged the significant resources already dedicated to public health when it issued over $500,000 from the Opioid Settlement Funds to that department for this same exact stuff. By continuing to funnel additional grants like this $80,000 into the same department for services that overlap with settlement's goals, mental health, housing, and substance use support, we are ignoring the committee's own logic of distribution. The opioid settlement account was created to address specific devastating crisis. Every dollar that public health receives from external sources like the Ryan White Foundation should be seen as an opportunity to free up settlement dollars for other community organizations that have not yet received any support. We need to put these funds back where they belong. If Bangor Public Health is receiving new federal or medical center pass-throughs, we should use that as a reason to return a portion of their previous settlement allocations back into the general opioid settlement pool. This ensures that the money meant for the opioid crisis is distributed broadly across the community rather than being consolidated within a single city department that is already well resourced thank you [52:55] Speaker D (unidentified): you [53:05] Speaker K (unidentified): want a point of order [53:06] Susan Hawes: is that what you're looking no she was looking at me and i was looking at her [53:09] Linda Dibbe: is [53:12] Speaker K (unidentified): the current motion on the table is it clear that it's for the referral of the items other than the two items i [53:24] Joseph Leonard: i can make the motion again yeah so i move that these items be referred subtracting thank you item 26137 and item 26138 second okay [53:50] Susan Hawes: it's been moved and seconded that is there discussion we're going to ask right now okay do you want to discuss [53:58] Carolyn Fish: yes i'd like discussion about why we're having the ordinance 26-137 pulled i feel it was pretty written pretty plain and simple it was referred to council and i don't know why we can't forward that at this time well [54:26] Michael Beck: just a point of order since that item has been pulled out and it's going to be motioned separately i think that would be the more appropriate time to speak [54:33] Speaker K (unidentified): about it chair i would suggest that the item that has been pulled is going to go next on the agenda right after that so that's when it would be i would agree that's the appropriate time to [54:46] Susan Hawes: speak on it sure thank you so we have just two items here council [54:56] Speaker D (unidentified): back yes i'm sorry what we [55:00] Speaker K (unidentified): have is a motion to refer all the items except for those two has the motion been seconded okay [55:06] Lisa Goodwin: it has been councillor carson yes councillor dean yes council faloon yes councillor fish Yes. Councilor Leonard? Yes. Councilor Malheur? Yes. Councilor Walker? Yes. Councilor Haas? Yes. Nine yes, zero no. So [55:36] Susan Hawes: this will be referred to committee in first reading. The next item is the one that was removed, correct? Yes. [55:45] Lisa Goodwin: 20 so go ahead 26-137 ordinance amending chapter 257 sidewalk section 257-4 to require licenses to occupy block or obstruct a sidewalk esplanade or street first reading councillor fish [56:04] Carolyn Fish: Thank you madam clerk. This ordinance is, this proposed ordinance amendment would revise Chapter 257 sidewalk section 257-4 to require a license to occupy block or obstruct a sidewalk esplanade or street for any purpose. Section 257-4 already requires a license to occupy block or obstruct a sidewalk esplanade or street for construction purposes, and the proposed amendment would simply remove the words for construction purposes so that ordinance continues to apply for construction projects but also applies for the obstructing or blocking of sidewalks esplanades or streets with material for any purpose. The police department has experienced issues with individuals storing material on sidewalks and esplanades especially in downtown Bangor. The storage of materials on sidewalks and x planards in the city at times leads to pedestrians stepping off the sidewalk and into the street to maneuver around blocked portions of the sidewalk or esplanade. At other times, pedestrians attempt to walk over or through the materials blocking the way. The goal of this modest ordinance is to change and ensure that pedestrians are able to safely use the city sidewalks for walking without having to step into the street or walk over those or through those materials. This ordinance amendment would also clarify that the police department and code enforcement division are authorized to enforce the ordinance. Violations of this ordinance are subject to civil and not criminal enforcement. Point [57:48] Speaker K (unidentified): of order chair. Yes, the policy of the city has been to have public comment at second reading not first reading, and so I would just suggest that is the policy and that the chair direct that public comment should be had at second reading. The chair is, you know, makes the [58:15] Susan Hawes: decision. Yeah sure the, that has been the policy that they are commented on at second reading and that's when we would be taking for this. Okay point of order yep could we also make that so [58:34] Susan Deane: that in the future we do not allow certain individuals to speak at first reading because we allowed an individual to speak at first reading already this evening right different circumstances [58:46] Susan Hawes: but yes same person that would be true. Thank you I would [58:53] Michael Beck: make a motion that we would allow the public to speak on this matter since we have already allowed people to speak at first and other ones so that would be my motion before the council that we allow the public to speak on this [59:08] Susan Hawes: i agree with counselor i'll make a second on that okay we are going to allow for this particular item we did have one person speak so how many others wanted to address this okay podium don't [59:35] Scott Party: be shy, go ahead. I guess I'll go first. My name is Scott Party again, still. I am here speaking to express my firm opposition to the proposed ordinance regarding sidewalk obstructions. It is plain to see what this truly is, an out of sight, out of mind policy designed to sanitize the appearance of our downtown at the expense of our most vulnerable residents. This measure is not about public safety or accessibility, it's about aesthetics. I asked the council, has a single individual actually filed a complaint about being unable to navigate a sidewalk? Or was this brought to you by a group more concerned with how the city looks to visitors or businesses? You don't have to answer. We continue to add new regulations when we aren't forcing the ones we already have. If the council's primary concern were truly the ability of citizens to navigate our paths safely, we would address the following. Every year residents are forced to walk in the middle of busy streets for months because of the failure to clear snow and ice, which can't be done all the time, from the sidewalks, and we see it all the time. This is a far greater safety hazard than a few belongings, yet it remains unaddressed. Cars parked at the end of driveways frequently block the entire sidewalk across the city. I've done it myself, I know that to be true, I'll be more careful. This happens much more often and creates a total barrier for wheelchairs and strollers, yet it rarely receives this level of legislative urgency. This past Saturday I was on Harlow Street in front of the library. There were several individuals there with belongings. While some items were on the grass and a few were on the edge of the sidewalk, anyone could have easily walked or wheeled by them with great ease. There was no obstruction of the public way, only a reminder of a human crisis that some find unpleasant to look at, and yes, it is hard to look upon, it is hard to look upon. Appearance, the timing of this ordinance is telling, having recently established a standing committee on homelessness, then the city now seems to focus on ensuring the population is no longer visible. Removing people from the public eye does not solve the problem, that simply hides it so the council can pretend it has gone away once the sidewalks are clear. This ordinance is a solution in search of a problem. It targets a specific group for existing in public spaces while ignoring the systemic failures like snow removal, housing cost, you know all the rest that I've already talked about that actually impact pedestrian safety. I urge the council to reject this message and focus on the real solutions rather than aesthetic cleansing. Thank you. [1:02:28] Trisha Quirk: Hello my name is Trisha Quirk and I'm a resident of Bangor. Although I appreciate Mr. Pardee's work here in Bangor, I also disagree with his description of what this ordinance is all about. I experience on Park Street on a weekly basis groups of people gathering to smoke on because they're there for meetings and things like that but I don't agree that it's not a safety issue I believe that the businesses that are providing the places for these meetings should also provide a safe smoking area for the people that are attending them i see on a regular basis the teenagers and i say female teenagers from john baps high school trying to navigate the sidewalks on park street and i do believe it's a safety issue it's not trying to cleanse the sidewalks it's a safety issue for these young people to be trying to walk through the barricades that are on our city sidewalks right now If you've been down on Harlow Street today, there are two tents that are on the sidewalk. I believe they've been told that they can't camp on our city parks, but now they're camping on our city sidewalks. And as a woman trying to exercise downtown, I don't know what to expect when I walk by or I run by these tents. And I believe that it is a safety issue, and it's not just a cleansing of our sidewalks. So please city council when you're thinking about this ordinance, keep this in mind. Thank you. [1:04:36] Ben Treat: Okay, well, we're all very polite here. My name is Ben treat. I'm the director of the Bangor public library. I'm a resident homeowner. homeowner. I'm coming here tonight in my capacity as library director, so I'm not here to tell you what to do. I'm here to provide you advocacy in the form of my factual experience of working at the library. So I also consider bringing Where the Sidewalk Ends by Charles Helverstein, but that didn't seem like it was appropriate to them. So when people tell me their stories of coming to the library, it's it's frequently, especially from a particular generation, a story about walking to the library, biking to the library, coming to the library, and that golden look that they have in their eyes when they're talking about that experience of the independence of being able to go to the library as a child is something that is an important memory for them. And so I think sidewalks do matter on a lot of different levels, and that golden that golden experience that people have of going to our downtowns and experiencing our downtown in Bangor and experiencing that independence is important, and I think it's it's a it's it's why I felt that it was important to speak because it affects the library. So just talking about our experience, when library staff tell people to get off the property because they're smoking or put out the cigarette, people walk at the shortest distance they can, which is what any of us would do, right? This isn't a criticism, this is just a fact. Like they walk the shortest distance they can to the sidewalk, the next place where they can smoke. So you have a gathering of people, could be two people, could be five people, gathering to smoke at the end of the walkway. And so then when library staff, the greeters, tell folks, well, can you clear out the end of the walkway so that people can walk into the library, they move a little further down the sidewalk, but you still have a group of people smoking. And so there's occupying the space there on the sidewalk in a way that really is obstructing people's ability to walk up and down the sidewalk. Now some cases there's going to be baggage involved, and that would be relevant to this ordinance. Other cases there's no baggage involved, but this is part of the day-to-day experience that we that we witness. Then people might have to leave the park when it closes at 10, right? And so when people leave the park when it closes at 10, they aren't going miles and miles away, they're going to the sidewalk. And so they're occupying, as Miss Quirk mentioned, they're occupying the space right in front of the sidewalk, in front of the library, on the sidewalk. So this is a thing that we're seeing over and over in the library. We do hear complaints, and I know you hear complaints too from the public about that, and this ordinance does relate to that subject matter. Thanks very much. [1:07:32] Adam Baker: adam baker bengal resident all my words are my own and do not reflect any committee i'm just speaking here to advocate that you vote no on this as soon as i heard it last monday when i was here i just instantly thought of the homeless here and how it to me it feels like it's targeting them underlining even though it doesn't say it out right instead of even voting on it i would urge the council if you do want to change this to just start from scratch and just start with a brand new ordinance That doesn't money anything with the construction materials and just instead of being confusing, just start from a new slate and just work from there if you really want to change. Thank you. Hi. [1:08:24] Katie Ko: I'm Katie Ko, I'm a resident of Bangor. What I hear when I hear people talk about this is a lot of frustration about a lack of particular resource. We don't have a place for people to be that isn't the library. We don't have a place for people to store their belongings besides the sidewalk. We need to address those issues and not criminalize unhoused people because a civil matter becomes a fine, a fine goes unpaid, and it becomes getting jailed. And then it's a lifelong process of getting yourself out of the prison, out of... Anyway, not very eloquent on this, but what I'm hearing is there's a lot of frustration and a lot of difficulty, and instead of further criminalizing the unhoused, we should be thinking about what kind of resources we can set up that are alternatives to the library, that are alternatives to people storing their things on the sidewalk, and this can all be done in your advisory committee on homelessness which you are forming. Why is this happening now? Why is this not getting referred to them? It's inappropriate to do this at this point in time. You're creating an entire committee for this. Let them do their jobs. Thank you. [1:09:44] Jody McDonald: Despite what this looks like, I really hate public speaking, but I'm Jodi MacDonald again, resident of Bangor and a runner. I've been running for 20 years. I've trained for marathons. The only thing that has been unsafe for me, and I've had to run 22 mile loops, the only issue that has been a problem for me has been on sidewalks, people plowing and leaving all of their snow there, or cars there. Every single time that I've run downtown, it's traffic. It's people who are not stopping at stop signs, people who are trying to make a turn and not looking. I just wanted to put up there that it would be nice if everybody that has a demographic that has a car is as respectful as the demographic that right now is being blamed for a lot of issues of society. I was about this far from homelessness as a child, so I kind of speak up about this, that we need supports for society, just like, okay, we need supports for society as opposed to the blaming, as opposed to criminalizing people that may not have chosen this. Many people in the system are veterans, many people that are, that are unhoused were in foster systems and kicked out at the moment that they turned 18. I think we need to look at our community as our community, and we do need to spread resources, but it doesn't, it doesn't match the straight face test that this isn't yet another opportunity to break down a camping area. Don't love seeing them, but I'd rather treat people like people and give them the opportunities to heal and have their own homes, because as a kid it sucked and receiving all of this outside feeling that it was my fault or my mom's fault. That's not what a community is. That hi [1:11:40] Mitchell Cooper: Mitchell Cooper, homeowner in Bangor. I am also here to speak against this ordinance. I would call it a thinly veiled attempt to get rid of the unhoused population, but that veil is nowhere to be seen. I would second what Katie was saying, we have a committee forming to address a lot of these issues. This is not just a simple issue, but if we take a step back with a more pragmatic eye, as somebody who enjoys concise language, you remove a description on what materials are, what is considered blocking the sidewalks here, and you can start to get into kind of silly situations, right? If I'm moving and I'm setting boxes from my truck down while we're trying to get them into a house, do I need to get a permit? If I'm unloading groceries from my car and they get sat down on the sidewalk, is that a permit? Am I going to have a police officer come up and harass me or somebody else because I don't have a permit because I'm using materials to block the sidewalk? You know, if I went to the grocery store and I bought too many limes and they're just falling all over the place and I'm in the sidewalk, do I need a permit for that? Like this, it's silly. So we're gonna do something like this. Let's at least put some kind of thought and effort into what we're considering here because it's it's absurd to be quite honest. There's no reason for us to adopt legal language without descriptions, without definitions, and so we're leaving that to the imagination and a lot of people have pretty terrible imaginations. [1:13:21] Daniel McCullough: Daniel McCullough, resident of Bangor, similar to what someone previously spoken about, sweeping out everyone from the tent city. I understand there was other reasons for private ownership having to do that, but it was let's get rid of something, but not find a solution for how to fix that. It doesn't look good. Let's get it away. There's a similar thing. It's uncomfortable to have people on sidewalks. It doesn't look good. It's you know it's oh my goodness are they going to say something to me when I'm walking by rather than find the solution for it. I find that taking away that simple phrase for construction materials is going to is too broad a stroke is going to create many more problems than probably people are thinking about. What if somebody's watching a parade and they have their baby carriage parked, okay, they're going to need a permit for that. I think everybody in this room home and listening on in Zoom land would support nurses, okay, the nurses at Northern Lights just recently averted a strike, they were able to get a contract which is wonderful. However, as a long-time Union activist I certainly would have been on that picket line supporting them in a strike. If you're if you're cleaning up somebody's if you're if you're impounding somebody's belongings that's kind of a Fourth Amendment violation of certain seizure. If you're when a nurse is picketing or anybody is picketing they're demonstrating they're holding signs, that's their first amendment right. Someone drives by and they're honking or they're giving them a thumbs up, that's their first amendment right. Someone's driving by and giving somebody a finger, you may disagree with them, but that's their first amendment right too. So this ordinance would actually be violating two constitution amendments. So there is a solution for this, but we have a homelessness committee that's happening and that's something that while we get some input from That before we go ahead and do something really quickly and realize how many problems it's going to create afterwards. Thank you. Good [1:15:27] Lee Chick: evening. I'm Lee Chick, I'm a resident of Bangor, and some of you know that I'm also one of the trustees of the Bangor Public Library. I have no appetite for making the lives of people who are in trouble already more difficult, nor do I have appetite tight for asking the Bangor Police Department to now engage in a new process to enforce this proposal. But I feel like we need something because I think it's more than optics. Many people see this as a safety issue. So whether this is the right proposal or not, I can't tell you. I know there are smarter people than me who are working on the issue of solving homelessness, but when I hear anecdotal evidence of people not coming to the library because they fear running the gauntlet that might be there, and safety is an issue, we heard testimony earlier this evening just on that subject, so I'm not making this up. But the fact that some people, especially young families, find it difficult to come to the library when there are a lot of folks with housing challenges around, I think we need something to be able to at least take back the sidewalk around the library. I believe Ben and his staff have done an outstanding job of increasing the friendliness of the interior and of the sidewalk leading to the library. But I think we need a little more help around the library sidewalks. Thank you. [1:17:13] Linda Dibbe: I'm Ian D. Bay, or Linda DBA, I go by both, and I spoke earlier, and I just, I'm not picking on the homeless people. I too have been homeless, I too lived in a tent, I didn't put it in the front of, in the middle of the sidewalk, so I think one, we need to find the support for the, for people, but I do think that public buildings should be open to all people, not blocked by homelessness, shopping carts, whatever. I just think it needs to be looked at. There has to be another way, another resource, and another place so that people can get to public buildings and not feel unsafe, [1:18:01] Speaker D (unidentified): safe. So that's all. [1:18:10] Monique Bouchard: Good evening, councillors. First, thank you for letting so many of us who came to speak about this issue, have an opportunity to do this, even though it's uncharacteristic. And the first reading. My name is Monique Bouchard. And I'm a resident of Old Town, but I work here in the city of Bangor with downtown Bangor partnership, but I'm not actually coming in representation of that organization. But in my capacity for the past 10 years as a walking tour guide here in the city of Bangor. I've provided historic walking tours for the Bangor Historical Society, and also in the last five years for other guests who come and visit the city and local people as well. When I look at this ordinance, I'm coming from a very pragmatic perspective at the moment. There are a number of intersecting issues that cause people to need to congregate in places, and I will tell you that I have a very firm feeling that there's a strong difference between discomfort and a lack of safety when it comes to human beings. And there may be people who are very uncomfortable with people. It does not mean that they are unsafe. All that said, it is also not safe to have people on the sidewalk making it difficult for people to pass. I walk through the city with groups of people and that's not necessarily common for everyone, so I recognize I'm sharing my perspective just because it's a little different. It's not just me and a person or just me by myself. It's fairly easy to navigate to a certain degree in many cases in the summer. However, I navigate gate with a little caterpillar tail of about 20 to 30 people coming through the city of Bangor. They could be people who are residents, they could be people who are coming from the cruise ships, which are most common these days. When I'm introducing those people to the city and we walk through the city of Bangor, our experiences with other human beings are inevitably very positive, and people feel really good about the city. The places I don't love are when there are people, and this could be any people, I don't know what people's situations are, when I see them in a place and they have, it could be a guitar, it could be a busker who's sitting in the middle of a sidewalk, it could be a person who is just hanging out with backpacks and things. But when I have two people with a walker and someone who's being supported by somebody else, because a lot of my clients are older folks, they're navigating already a fairly challenging urban terrain. For them to have people congregating, people can move when other people come, and they frequently do, right? We make a path. When people have things, it's harder to make a path. And that's the place where my reactions to people are a little different than maybe the solo person. [1:21:19] Susan Hawes: Yep, so. Okay. [1:21:31] Betsy Lundy: Hello, my name is Betsy Lundy. I'm a resident of Bangor and I'm here tonight speaking on behalf of the Downtown Bangor Partnership. I already sent many of my thoughts to you via email earlier, and I had a really short piece that I was going to say, but listening to people's comments caused me to kind of add on. So I apologize, I'm probably going to take my whole three minutes. Thank you for considering an amendment to Bangor sidewalk ordinances. Though we recognize that the ordinance is not perfect, we support the amendment as a step in the right direction towards maintaining sidewalk access for all users downtown. To address points made by a previous speaker, this ordinance was not timed in conjunction with the city's commission on homelessness. The Downtown Bangor Partnership introduced a sidewalk ordinance last fall. This isn't the same thing, but it has many of the spirits of the ordinance that we introduced included. I'm unsure why so many people seem intent on making sidewalk accessibility an issue relegated to homelessness. Additionally, the Downtown Bangor Partnership has addressed the issue of sidewalk accessibility on a number of fronts, including sidewalk maintenance and snow removal, both issues that Council has heard and acted on to improve conditions for all users of downtown. The request of the Downtown Bangor Partnership is not intended to target any one sector of the population, but instead to address an accessibility issue experienced by all. Many people who spend little time in downtown Bangor have spoken tonight about their limited experience, defining it as optics, which is a telling description, because they're likely speaking about the experience they have when driving by, because it is an optical experience. For those who are regular users of downtown, it is not an Optical experience, it is an experiential experience for regular users of downtown. This is a real issue experience daily, and the Downtown Bangor Partnership asks that the council continues to take steps to improve the pedestrian experience downtown by approving this ordinance. Thank you. [1:23:36] Joshua: Thank you. That'll be the last one. Sorry, my name is Joshua. I work and live in Bangor. I live in Fairmont. Sorry about living in Fairmont. And I just wanted to be clear, from my perspective, I am downtown a lot. And I take my son downtown. He's almost, well, he's four and a half. He's almost five. He wouldn't be saying he's almost five. In fact, he would yell at me if I didn't say that. So, and we go down quite a lot. We go to, we're members of the museum. We go down to, we're actually planning to go down to the new ice cream shop this weekend. And we go down to all sorts of shops, candy, everything. We've walked down that area many, times. I just wanna make it clear that from my perspective, having lived experience in the downtown area, I understand where you're coming from, many people may just be driving by. To me, and I'm also an economist, so I won't even get into the economics of this necessarily, but we have an issue that exists where we have unhoused neighbors, with that is a myriad there's a myriad cause of that problem and these types of what are fairly broad ordinances and I agree with Mitchell who made this point and Adam that it is so broad as to be almost absurd in the way that it can be interpreted including as someone had said the first and fourth amendment rights violations which I think you know I don't know if anyone to considered whether or not protesting would then be considered a small protest needed to be permitted by the city so four or five people deciding to go on the sidewalk which also is something that happens but you know we have this we have these this issue where i we want to maybe fall into the trap of out of sight out of mind and as a person that is downtown quite a lot I 've I've said in the past I would love if we're the I think we're the old YMCA Or wherever, by the, by the person. I would love if that was where we helped unhoused people live for a while and to get back on their feet, because one of the, one of the reasons is to, make sure that individuals are aware that this is a problem and that there's a push in a pressure for a response. And unhoused people are not, they're not unsightly, they are people. And I do worry very much about this ordinance and other ordinances and the fact that we haven't really waited until the committee on homelessness can actually review it, that we fall into the trap of dehumanization of people. We see them as, again, we're talking about optics rather than actual people. And I think we've already talked today about comments that were made that dehumanize people, and we should probably try not to codify that in ordinances. That's just my thought, a little rambly, but I just wanted to throw that out there. Thank you. Okay, thank you. [1:26:34] Susan Hawes: I think we have, all right, one more, that's it. I'll make myself brief. My name is Gabrielle. [1:26:42] Trisha Quirk: I'm no longer a resident of Bangor, I actually live in VZ now, but I'm not going to reiterate the other points that so many others have made into why they do not support this ordinance. I don't support this ordinance, and I hope that you won't, too. But I do want to raise the point about discomfort not being the same as unsafety. I used to live right smack dab in the middle of downtown Bangor, next to 2nd Street Park. And every single time I left my house, which is about three times a day to take my dog out to walk him around the neighborhood, I would encounter our unhoused neighbors. They are our neighbors. They live in our neighborhoods and they deserve to be treated just the same as any other resident of this community. That means that they have the same rights. It also means they have the same right to free movement, which is protected under the 14th Amendment. And I'll also like to mention, I sent an email when I first heard about this ordinance last week and I did not hear back, so that's why I'm gonna try to keep this brief. But they are our neighbors, we need to treat them with respect. And one of the things that I noticed in this ordinance is that it has the ability for people to apply for permits, and specifically for businesses to apply for permits. That means that this ordinance disproportionately impacts people who are poor, people who are unhoused, people who live in urban environments, who may only have the only place that they could go out and sit outside would be on the sidewalk. There's a woman I drive by every day on my way to work, and that is where she is seated. She's sitting on the sidewalk in her chair having a smoke. If we're going to consider somebody sitting in a chair to be an obstruction, maybe you should try going to Boston or New York or any other sort of large urban environment, which Bangor is very rapidly approaching. We're no longer a small town. It's time for us to act like it and treat people, they are our neighbors, as our neighbors. Thank you. Okay. [1:28:38] Susan Hawes: This ordinance 26137 was chair. Might I make a point of or discuss a point of order? [1:28:48] Speaker K (unidentified): So this proposed ordinance already went to committee and went to the gov ops committee, and there was a vote of four to one to send it the full council. It does not need a referral tonight, and I believe that counselor Fish already read the ordinance. Am I wrong about that? Yes, I did. So you can't, the council cannot take a vote on the proposed ordinance tonight. So I would just suggest that you don't have to do anything tonight. If you want to have discussion, that's up to you, but there's good, you can't. Take a vote on it and it doesn't need any referral, so I just wanted to. [1:29:31] Susan Hawes: Make that clear. Okay, let me send it to the next meeting. That's a bit, yep. Well, I wanted to explain. [1:29:40] Michael Beck: Why I doubted this motion, why I had it pulled out, and to that end I thought it would be helpful for the council to have a little history about this and where it came from. This law goes all the way back to 1968. It was actually introduced by council, councilman Houston, and at that time it said, whereas insufficient control exists over the occupancy of sidewalks and other areas of public rights of way by individuals performing work on abutting buildings, now therefore be it ordered, and they added it. At that point, and at that time it did not have the words for construction purposes. So fast forward to 1986, and this became, to that point it was supposed to be the city engineers, engineer's job to deal with getting the licensee, licenses out, because this is a construction issue. They amended it in 1986 under order 86132 to change it from the city engineer to the code enforcement officer. Now again, everyone understood this was about construction. Now fast forward to 2019, an interesting problem came. Up in the infrastructure committee on August 6, 2019, that point 4g and 5g were getting real popular and the FCC had ruled. Hey municipalities, you got to figure out a way to let people get access to the utility poles. In the, you got to figure it out. And the city said, well, we don't want to do a bunch of easements. So in that infrastructure committee, they presented a change. That says, hey, why don't we add a new section to chapter 257 dash 6, which deals with utilities and permitting? But we got a problem there to meet some confusion in the public. They may not know which process to go through. I know what we'll do. We'll add the words for construction purposes so there's no confusion between 2574 and 2576. So here's my problem. Now fast forward to today, just less than seven years later, and suddenly like, hey, let's rip those words right back out and make this ordinance mean something that has nothing to do with construction and just make it broadly. And my biggest problem with that is it violates the very spirit of our code. Let's go back to chapter 1, 8, section A. And I read, chapter and article titles, headings and titles of sections and other divisions of the code are inserted in the code and may be inserted in supplements to the code for the convenience of persons using the code and are not part of the legislation. So this change, this modest change, has zero legal effect. it's it has zero legal effect my issue is this we have a issue that needs to be solved not this way I'm not gonna take a can opener to a construction ordinance that was nearly tailored and it's been that way for 50 plus years to solve an issue that 's can be addressed elsewhere we have the tools for you know enforcing camping in parks and curfews in parks and you know loitering laws that you know you can't you know obstruct or fetter people when they're trying to get through all of those things are already on the books. My issue is this ordinance makes no effort to deal with something very important and I have no allusion to this effect that mostly affects the unhoused. What about their belongings, their survival gear, their life? There's no policy and the city has no policy for addressing what happened to their property. Most other municipalities who have dealt with this issue and gotten sued for it now have what's called a tag-and-bag policy, where you leave a notice of what you picked up. You let them know where they can go get it, how long they'll be storing it, usually 30, 60 days or more. And it's a way for people to be reunited with their belongings. Because what looks like trash to one person, we're talking someone's military records, their medals,, their pictures, all of it. So what I'm asking for by saying no, I'm not saying no we should do nothing. My belief is we should be addressing this issue by talking to one of our advisory committees. I know the issue of the homelessness committee got raised, but our ordinance tasked them with coming up with a long-term strategy as their first task. So even if we wanted to, we couldn't give this to them. However, we do have another advisory committee the advisory committee on racial equity inclusion and human rights this is a human rights issue I want to have a conversation I think we should refer this to them really I think we should tell them to start from scratch they can come to us with an ordinance that's well thought out that deals with the issues about what am I going to do with all of the stuff on the sidewalk that's in a way that helps both business owners the general public but also make sure that the individuals have access to their things and they come back to it i just for legal matters and everything i just this is not the way and i will tell you this right now we do this and we enforce it that way we will get sued and if i and if i was the one following the suit exhibit a would be that government operations committee where we as a committee admitted this is going to sweep up into some behavior and our remedy for that was oh, they'll just use common sense. That is the hallmark of every lawsuit that has ever gotten destroyed in court. And I'm telling you, we need to scrap this and get to work right away on doing it in a right way that is thoughtful and covers all of the bases and make sure we have a policy that is fair to every resident of Bangor so they can be reunited with their belongings should it be seized. And that's why I asked to be polled and that's why I'll be voting no in this current forum. [1:35:25] Susan Hawes: thank you okay the city solicitor just told us we cannot vote on this tonight anyway it's gonna have to either go back to committee or be rewritten or what 's your pleasure i would [1:35:40] Michael Beck: Make a motion that this item actually be referred to the advisory committee on racial equity inclusion and human rights for their opinion. Second is. [1:35:49] Carolyn Fish: This up for discussion. I mean, I don't think that this was put before the committee for a decision for this to go anywhere. I just would like to say that I do, I've thought of a lot of scenarios myself where as it's written it could be questioned. I think we're not here to debate civil rights. I think any rule in law and ordinance that any city has, you ask any attorney you hire them, they're going to go from it from the perspective of which their client had hired them for. So we can argue all kinds of. pros and cons and if this happened and if that happened so all of our laws and all of our rules and it could be challenged and this was not a direct and I kind of resent that it seems to be a lot of people believe it 's geared to address homelessness there's skateboards there's bikes. There's, I can think of two situations brought to my attention in the last six months where an elderly lady, who's I think 83, carries. And she came to my office while there was an encampment. And an individual who was having not a good night had approached her. And being petite and very scared, that was a very scary situation. And it was on the sidewalk outside of my office. I know of a couple of young gals coming from St. John Bapskull that had an interaction, and that almost escalated into something badly. So it's not just for the unhoused. It's truly for the safety and the unbalanced experience for all of the citizens, taking into account our unhoused individuals and what would happen with their personal belongings, that it's their whole life. So this is not to pick on or try to hide and keep them are unhoused. I think Bangor has been very compassionate. I know we spend over five million dollars in grants where the for the city our size it's unbelievable the resources we do provide for our unhoused and our mentally challenged people and we've made a big effort but we have gotten unbalanced with how much we seem to even tonight listening to everybody we're not talking about the elderly people that have disability have mobility issues. The children that are trying to get to the sidewalks, that they just, the taxpayers that pay the taxes for their use and enjoyment, it seems like we want to put one part, a huge part of our city, at a disadvantage so we can continue to give special privileges and special advantages to another group, and we need to be fair and balanced. So maybe as this is, I am for having it looked at to be more reasonable, but not have it looked at to be amended to give a certain segment of the population, even if they are homeless, and over a higher value, higher position, over another resident that may have mobility issues, or any resident that wants to access the streets and sidewalks. So I'm willing to look at this, but it, I just don't want the public to feel that this was deliberately thought of to get the homeless off the sidewalks. That was not the purpose. It was for safety and a fair and balanced access to our public facilities and [1:39:20] Susan Hawes: our public streets for everyone. Thank you. Okay, so that we did complete the referral section. Well, I [1:39:30] Michael Beck: have a, there's a motion I made and there's a second regarding referring this to the advisory coming on racial equity, inclusion, human rights. Okay, [1:39:43] Speaker K (unidentified): there is a motion and a second on the table. There's also, it looks like another counselor who would wish to have discussion on it. Go ahead. [1:39:51] Susan Faloon: Thank you. I don't want to repeat what everyone else has said. I can see both sides because I, my late boyfriend had to be in a wheelchair at the end of his life, and I was the one who had to push the wheelchair, and I know how hard it is to get around in a city with a wheelchair, even without things on the sidewalk. That said, I couldn't support this in this form because, you know, by just removing for construction purposes, but we list out materials that are all related to construction, it doesn't make sense, and it's not going to address things like people. Several people have mentioned people congregating, and this, in the way I interpret it, isn't going to address that anyway because this mentions materials and not people. So I think we need to spend some more time on this. But I think we also need to look at, are we talking about things that are left on a sidewalk for days and days, or are we looking at things that are just temporarily blocking? I mean, if someone parks, someone mentioned a stroller, or if someone parks their shopping cart for 15 minutes to go into a store, is that going to be a violation, or does it have to be something that's there for 24 hours or 48 hours? Are we going to differentiate there also? Chapter 257 outlines penalties for violating the required license, but what about the penalty for people not obtaining a license at all? And chapter 257 does frequently refer to licensees, but I think most of the people that are going to be affected by this are not going to be the people who have gone out to get a license. And so do they face the same penalties? That's not outlined in there. So if somebody leaves their stroller or their shopping cart or their tent on this sidewalk but they never got a license for that in the first place, in my mind this doesn't even address that because they're not violating the license that they got because they never got the license. And are there going to be any warnings for people? Are there gonna be additional penalties for repeat offenders? It seems like they're just, we've got a lot more work to do on this. So thank you. Okay. [1:42:27] Susan Hawes: It's been moved and seconded that this ordinance be referred to the acre [1:42:31] Lisa Goodwin: committee. Roll call vote please. Councillor Beck? Yes. I'm so Carson? Yes. Councilor Deane? Yes. Councilor Faloon? Yes. Councilor Fish? No. Councilor Leonard? Yes. Councilor Malheur? No. Was that a yes or no? No. It's a no. Councilor Walker? Can you hear me? Yes. Councilor Walker? Yes. Councilor Haas? No. Six yes, three no. [1:43:18] Susan Hawes: Okay, ordinance two six one three seven six three will be referred to the acre committee. Okay, the others referrals have already been sent. We now are at unfinished business. [1:43:39] Lisa Goodwin: Madam Clerk, first item 26-095, ordinance amending the code of the city of Bangor to establish Chapter 46, Employee Authority and Immigration Matters. [1:43:49] Michael Beck: Councilor Beck. Thank you, Madam Clerk. This ordinance establishes clear limits on the city of Bangor's involvement in federal immigration enforcement, consistent with federal and state law, in order to prioritize public safety, community trust, and the responsible use of municipal resources. The ordinance makes explicit that Bangor does not operate its departments, programs, or public safety services for the purpose of enforcing federal civil immigration laws. It affirms that city employees will continue to comply with all valid federal and state laws, judicial warrants, subpoenas, and court orders, and will continue to cooperate fully in the investigation and prosecution of criminal activity. What this ordinance does is draw a firm line between local public safety responsibilities and federal civil immigration enforcement. The ordinance is grounded in a public safety rationale. When residents are afraid that routine interactions with local government could expose them or their family members to immigration enforcement, they are less likely to report crimes, seek emergency assistance, cooperate with investigations, or access basic city services. This ordinance is intended to preserve trust between the city and the people it serves, which is essential to effective policing, emergency response, and community well-being. Furthermore, this policy ensures that Bangor's limited tax dollars are reserved for local safety priorities rather than being diverted to unfunded federal enforcement mandates. This ordinance affirms that Bangor's role is to keep its residents safe, uphold the law, and ensure transparency and accountability in the use of public resources, not to serve as an extension of federal civil immigration enforcement. This item was reviewed and recommended for passage at the government operations committee meeting at March 2nd, I think I ran into that problem last time. It actually was not. The government operations committee discussed this draft ordinance at its March 2nd, 2006 meeting. After discussion, the committee voted not to recommend passage of this draft ordinance due to the legal concerns and administrative challenges with the city implementing a distinct local framework governing employee engagement with immigration enforcement officials when a new, similar state law is expected to take effect in July 2026. Instead the committee recommended council pass an order directing the city to begin complying with the state law immediately and to formalize a written procedure to assist staff through council order 26 110. Council order 26 110 was passed on March 9th, 2026. Madam Chair, I move to postpone this item until the meeting on April 27th, 2026. Second. Okay. [1:46:34] Susan Hawes: It's been moved and seconded to postpone this to the meeting of April 26. Council Carson. Thank you, Madam Chair. [1:46:44] Daniel Carson: At the government operations committee meeting when the first version of this was brought forward, I think was made pretty clear that I was very interested in the due diligence pieces of other departments, and I am in favor, and not just on a question like this, we're exploring data centers, we're going to explore a lot of big questions, and generally am in favor of putting in the effort to create local frameworks, especially where gaps have been identified. However, I am also of the mind that I believe when you come to when you when you work to build a local framework that it's also important to understand potential exposure and consequences and as a matter of due diligence i would love to hear from the airport about potential risk exposure or consequences if this were to be passed in its current form and so I really would appreciate having the opportunity of hearing from Jose if it was possible [1:48:10] Jose Saavedra: Good evening, Jose Saavedra, airport director. Counselor Carson and the council as a whole, I haven't had the chance to fully review view the intricacies or get an expert opinion on some of the language that is in the council order as it is. But I do have some areas that I have noted that would be in direct contradiction with current agreements that the airport and as a department of the city that are included, such as providing space and access to federal immigration enforcement. By virtue of operating an airport, an international airport, we have agreements with the Department of Homeland Security, particularly Border Protection, in order for them to conduct all sorts of operations that are necessary for the operation of the airport. The council has approved several of those agreements over the years and it is a key component of part of what we do at the airport. Again I haven't had the chance to fully explore all of those intricacies of what that would entail. I think that there's a caveat clause that says that it wouldn't be applicable to some of the agreements that are in place. However one of the concerns that I would have is after those agreements in place expire then it prevents the airport and the city from entering Into agreements to continue to provide some of the customs clearance services that are offered out there and again a variety of other implications that have not been fully analyzed that might be in conflict with the current language as it is. [1:50:10] Daniel Carson: Council question then council back. I just want to follow up. Thank you. We is it possible for? Experts at the airport to take a deeper look at this as it's written perhaps I would [1:50:25] Jose Saavedra: Probably defer to expert aviation legal experts outside of the airport that might be able to better answer [1:50:31] Michael Beck: Those questions council rec my question is so it sounds like it would be of benefit for us to postpone this tonight and provide more time for that review in order to have a full understanding of the [1:50:44] Jose Saavedra: Implications of the ordinance with the language as it is i would say so that's [1:50:51] Carolyn Fish: For fish, Jose, do you have concerns that there's potential that some of the federal funding that we very much need [1:50:58] Jose Saavedra: for runways and etc could be in jeopardy? It would be a matter of looking at the specific grant assurances that the city has committed to in order to fund and continue to receive federal funds. The other big component is we're a diverting airport, the first airport coming in from Europe or before aircraft leave the United States, and it is known for that capability to be able to process international flights and clear customs at the facility. So I would have some concerns in removing the airport's ability and as a product remove the designation as an international airport. [1:51:46] Susan Hawes: Is there any other questions? Ambassador Dean. [1:51:49] Susan Deane: So my question is, has this ordinance changed since some of the suggestions had been made to change the wording? Is this the final or was there another one that was perhaps going to take the place of this one? Go ahead. Yep, there is another one. I don't have [1:52:09] Michael Beck: the date in front of me, but I emailed it to everyone in council asking for feedback and review. That was the one that I was going to amend with, but knowing that there's more review to be done, I believe the solicitor and others have also asked regarding more time to review it for the department heads. So again, I think it's prudent that we [1:52:29] Susan Deane: postpone and allow that to happen. So just to follow up with that, so this one and the reviser would need to be reviewed by [1:52:39] Michael Beck: my plan was to amend by substitution, so the one that went out to council would also go to all the department heads who would be doing the review, council [1:52:54] Carolyn Fish: fish. Yeah, I would like to see this referred back or delayed because I would like to also hear our attorneys concerns as far as other funding or potential liabilities, and you know, I think sometimes things are well intended, but you know, we have a city with a lot of federal funding and Washington holds the strings, and sometimes when they misbehave they can hold back a lot of funding. I'm curious as to what our city solicitor has for concerns about potential negative fallout. Do [1:53:36] Speaker K (unidentified): you want me? Do I have the floor, chair? It's up to you. Sure, I did review the initial draft, the legal department did, both of the attorneys here, and also the revised version that Councillor Beck provided, and identified a number of issues of concern with both respect to the original draft and the revised one. The revised, the revisions that Councillor Beck put in there took care of some of the concerns, but there were still a number of concerns that remained. And that, as you know, the council passed an order already ordering that the city comply with the statute that's known as LD 1971 immediately, even though the statute itself doesn't become effective until about July. And I also so may want to remind the council that there is a, an internal policy that has been reviewed a few times by legal and would be put in place by the city manager because the city manager has the authority, regarding the, employees of the city. And that policy would state that if employees in general, it says if employees are approached by ICE or the Customs and Border Patrol, they are to get management involved in the situation and specific people within management, including the legal department, and that the management would be the ones to address any such, say, a warrant that's presented to them to either access the private, the non-public areas of city buildings, to perhaps it's an arrest warrant, or to access what may be non-public documents. So that policy, in conjunction with the council's order, my opinion is the better option, as opposed to the proposed ordinance, even with its revisions, there are a whole number of issues that are difficulties. And if it's true that one of our suggestions at legal was that other departments review the draft if the council wants to go forward with some version of the draft. draft but my opinion is that the other avenues that the one that the council's already taken and the one that they directed the city manager to take is a better option than trying to continually revise this draft if the council i don't know what's going on if the council wishes is for the legal department to go down the long road of trying to address all of these issues i'm sure that airport council the experts the airport expert council will probably identify at least the ones that we have identified, maybe more. And so my opinion is that the council not send us down that path, but if the council does want to send us down that path, there would need, in my opinion, to be further reviewed not only by the airport, but the clerk's office and the police department, HR, and which one am I leaving out? Public health, to review the draft and make, you know, to avoid any unintended consequences that may result from the passage. Basically, what you're going to have if this is passed is a complicated ordinance that is overlaid on top of the state law and is different from the state law. The revisions do not make it identical to the state law. It is also more ambitious than other places like Lewiston. When they put together an ordinance, it would be farther reaching than that. And there are, so one of the problems that I mentioned when this was in front of the committee was that this had a, it the first draft has a training section in it to train every employee in the city on these complex legal issues that are in here. The second draft that Councilor Beck submitted removed that training requirement. The problem is, that the draft, even as revised, continues to require every employee to comply with these complex legal terms and issues that are in here, which would be on a split second, not split second, but if they're confronted by ICE or CBP, it would be a matter that they would be under pressure, whereas the policy that will be in place and the order that already is in place covers these issues in a much more direct and a simpler way that would involve avoid the potential liabilities of employees perhaps not following the provisions of the ordinance for all kinds of reasons and then the city ending up with potential liability for violation of the ordinance. I don't have time during this talk to go over all of the issues that were addressed by legal that were identified by legal in the draft, but I'm I'm sure that the airport council will also see those issues. And so my recommendation is that the draft not be sent further on, but if that's what the council wants to do, then we can try to do that. [2:00:25] Carolyn Fish: Okay. So is it your recommendation, as it's written tonight, if we pass this, you're comfortable with this, that has instructed staff to have guidelines lines as to, you know, what to do if ICE shows up, where if we want to pursue making amendments to what's written tonight, then we have to go through a continued legal opinion in different departments, Department of Health and at the airport. Is that what you're saying? [2:01:01] Speaker K (unidentified): I'm not sure I get your whole question. [2:01:04] Carolyn Fish: Where if we're voting on it as written tonight to pass it as it is what's in front of you tonight [2:01:11] Speaker K (unidentified): Is the first version the amended version is not in front of you tonight? Yeah, right. And so but my recommendation really has to do with both versions so [2:01:30] Susan Hawes: It's moved and seconded for postponement to April 26th, 27th. [2:01:42] Speaker K (unidentified): Could I clarify one more one more thing, chair? Go ahead. My recommendation would be that if the council does not want to go down the road of attempting to revise the ordinance that the motion to postpone be voted down and then the vote be taken on the ordinance tonight because it is second reading. If the council wants to go down the road of attempting to revise the ordinance then I would suggest that the motion to postpone should be voted yes I [2:02:20] Susan Hawes: mean I got that okay. Roll call vote. [2:02:26] Lisa Goodwin: Council Beck yes. Council Carson? Council Dean no that's the balloon yes that's the fish no. Council Leonard yes that's the Mallor you're muted is [2:02:52] Speaker D (unidentified): he muted? I vote no. Councilor Walker yes. Councilor Haas no. Five [2:03:06] Lisa Goodwin: yes four no okay. [Susan Hawes: Ordinance 26-095 five] yes four next item 26-118 ordinance amending chapter 165 land development code to comply with new state laws ld 1829 ld 427 and ld 997 councillor falloon thank you madam clerk [2:03:36] Susan Faloon: Madam chair I move passage of ordinance 26-118. The proposed changes would update portions of the city's land development code to comply with the requirements of the state laws known as LD 1829. These updates have the primary effect of increasing residential density allowances in most of Bangor's urban zones where residential is allowed, allowing accessory dwelling units on more lots, creating additional allowances on height and parking for affordable housing, allowing off-site parking agreements within 0.25 miles, removing the requirement for the creation of three to four dwelling units to have subdivision review in clarifying the requirements for water and wastewater disposal for new housing. These changes align with the council goal of creating more housing. This is the first set of changes to comply with the new state laws. Another set of changes will be forthcoming that changes the zones in the cities developing in rural areas. This item was reviewed and unanimously recommended for passage at the planning board meeting on April 7th 2026. [2:04:54] Susan Hawes: Okay ordinance 26118 has been moved and seconded. [2:05:00] Michael Beck: Not so bad just to make a statement of thanks to you know the planning board and the staff you know. I know there's a lot of changes happening with the state and the fact that it was working so hard to keep us up to date and keep us in compliance. Thank you. I know this is a lot [2:05:15] Lisa Goodwin: of work, so thank you. Roll call. Councillor Beck? Yes. Council Carson? Councillor Deane? Yes. Council Falloon? Yes. Councillor Fish? Yes. Councillor Leonard? Yes. Councillor Mallar? Yes. Council Walker? Yes. [2:05:34] Susan Hawes: Council Hawes? Yes. Nine yes, zero no. Ordinance two six one eight has passage. Nine yes, zero no. [2:05:42] Lisa Goodwin: Next item, 26-119. Resolve authorizing the city manager to accept and appropriate 426,533 for the Rural Health Transformation Program Nutrition Education Program from the University of New England. Council Walker? Yes. Thank you, Madam Clerk. [2:06:04] Susan Deane: I move passage for 26119. This resolve will accept and appropriate 426,533 from the University of New England for the Royal Health Transformation Program Nutrition Education Program. Bangor Public Health and Community Services has been implementing SNAP-Ed programming since 2012. 12. Federal funding for the SNAP education program was ended nationally on February 28, 2026. In response, Maine DHHS dedicated new federal Royal Health Transformation Program funding to nutrition education. UNE is the, excuse me, implementing agency for the program. Funding is for a five-year program with what, year one funding beginning May 1st, 2026. This funding will allow an important program to continue operating despite the loss of federal funding. In FY25, Bangor Public Health and Community Services SNAP-Ed nutrition educators provided nutrition education to 3557 youth in 25 schools, and 266 adults in Penobscot and Penascatikwis counties. These participants qualify as low-income. The program helped teach participants how to stretch food dollars and make healthy choices. As a result of this program statewide, 45% of adults increased eating vegetables, 27% of adults increased use of a grocery list, 53% of teens increased use of nutrition facts labels. 17% of youth increased physical activity. This item was reviewed and recommended at the Government of Operations Committee meeting on April 6, 2026. Okay. [2:08:06] Susan Hawes: Resolved 26 1 9 has been moved and seconded. No discussion. Roll call, please. Yes,, [Speaker D (unidentified): yes, and yes.] Resolved 26119 has passage. Nine yes, zero no. [2:08:50] Michael Beck: Point of order before we go to the next item. I believe both Councilors Mallory and myself have conflict, as we have immediate family members on the list for clerks. [2:09:01] Speaker K (unidentified): Go ahead. Chair, I've been advised that there may be a third council member with a spouse on the list. Does that sound right? [2:09:13] Susan Hawes: So three members, right? Oh, well then I have a conflict. Bless your heart, you [2:09:20] Speaker D (unidentified): I think [2:09:23] Speaker K (unidentified): The to be proper procedurally, the council should take a vote on the fact that three members have a conflict, and then there's needs to be a vote. If one of the members is a con is conflicted out and is the chair, there should be a vote to appoint a chair, temporary chair, to just to address this one item if the chair is conflicted out. [2:09:53] Joseph Leonard: Speak co-wonders group. I would move that counselors Haas, Beck, and Mallor have a conflict on this matter. Second. Okay. [2:10:08] Susan Hawes: It's been moved and seconded. Roll call. No. [2:10:14] Speaker K (unidentified): Only there should only be. [2:10:15] Lisa Goodwin: Six people voting on this one, not the ones that are. Councillor Carson, yes. Councillor Deane, yes. Councillor Faloon, yes. Councillor Fish, yes. Councillor Leonard, yes. Councillor Walker, yes. Six yes, zero no. [2:10:37] Speaker K (unidentified): There needs to be a motion now to I move to appoint councillor. [2:10:43] Susan Deane: Joe Leonard as temporary chair in the absence of councillor Hawes for this one item, order 26-141. [2:10:54] Lisa Goodwin: Second do roll call and roll call on everything. Yeah. Councillor Carson, yes. Councillor Deane, yes. Councillor Faloon, yes. Councillor Fish, yes. Councillor Leonard, sure. Councillor Walker, yes. Six yes, zero no. So. [2:11:15] Speaker K (unidentified): The conflicted counselors should step out of the room. [2:11:19] Speaker D (unidentified): I'll. [2:11:21] Susan Hawes: Never get back in here. Okay. [2:11:36] Joseph Leonard: I think we still need to did council Walker did you read through this yet? No, it hasn't been read yet. Okay, I'll I'll wait on your read-through and then and then the motion second for council order 26-141 appointing city clerks under new business. [2:12:14] Susan Deane: This order would appoint election clerks to work elections for the next two years. Honest goodness, sorry you guys. State elections laws requires the municipal officers to appoint election clerks to serve for a two-year term. At least one election clerk from each major political party must be appointed to serve at each voting place while the polls are open. Municipal officers must consider nominations submitted by the major parties, but they are not required to appoint these nominees. If a municipal party committee does not submit nominations, the officers may appoint any registered voter enrolled in that party. Nominations may also come from other sources. If a minor party committee submits nominations, at least one of those nominees must be appointed. Additional unenrolled or minor party clerks may be appointed if there are not enough major party clerks available. If vacancies remain for a specific election, the clerk or warden may make temporary appointments. The attached list of election clerks includes individuals who have requested to serve as well as those who have served in prior elections. Neither major political party submitted nominations. Second. [2:13:41] Joseph Leonard: All right, so it has been moved and seconded. Any discussion on this item? If not, I will call for a roll call vote. [2:13:51] Lisa Goodwin: Councilor Carson? Yes. Councilor Deane? Yes. Councilor Faloon? Yes. Yes. Councilor Fish? Yes. Councilor Walker? Yes. Councilor Leonard? I will be a yes. Six yes, zero no. [2:14:06] Joseph Leonard: Order 26-141 has been passed. [2:14:37] Lisa Goodwin: Next item. 26-142, Resolve Ratifying City Applications for FY27 Congressionally Designated Spending for City, Police, Airport, Public Works, and Parks and Recreation Projects. Councilor Deane. [2:14:51] Susan Deane: Thank you Madam Clerk. I will try to get through this last item without any conflicts or postponements. Let me just find it. This resolve would ratify the city's applications for fiscal year 27 congressionally designated spending for city, police, airport, public works, and parks and recreation projects. Each year Maine's congressional delegation hosts an application process solicitating local projects to consider for inclusion in federal spending appropriation legislation. For fiscal year 2027, the deadline for submitting CDS applications to the main delegation was mid-March. This year, the City applied for funding for four City projects. The first, the Bangor Police Department submitted a request for $165,282 for the purchase of equipment to modernize our evidence response capabilities and enhance the technology in the forensic laboratory. The second, the airport submitted a request for $4.2 million to support the replacement of passenger boarding bridges at gates 8 and 12 at the Bangor International Airport. These are the last remaining boarding bridges that have not yet been replaced as part of the airport's ongoing terminal modernization efforts. Efforts. Replacing these bridges will improve passenger safety and accessibility, increase operational efficiency for airlines, and support continued passenger growth at the airport. The third, Public Works submitted a request for $7.5 million to construct a 5,000-square-foot facility for climate-controlled parking of snow-fighting equipment with additional bays for quick turnaround maintenance and washing. This building would replace our aging fleet parking ports, which do not provide adequate protection of equipment. And the fourth, the Parks and Recreation Department submitted a request for 24 million for the Parks and Recreation Center portion of the new Parks and Recreation combined facility project. I move passage of Council Resolve 26-142. Second. [2:17:00] Susan Hawes: Resolve 26-142 has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? [2:17:09] Lisa Goodwin: Seeing none, roll call vote. Councilor Beck? Yes. Councilor Carson? Yes. Councilor Deane? Yes. Councilor Faloon? Yes. Councilor Fish? Yes. Councilor Leonard? Yes. Councilor Mallar? Yes. Councilor haas yes nine yes zero no resolve [2:17:34] Susan Hawes: 26 excuse me resolve 26 one for two nine yes zero no has passage that brings us don't all stand up and cheer now to the end of the agenda i will remind counselors that we've had the discussion that some of our good nights have added 30 minutes or more on to our meeting so keep it short absolutely no pressure there [2:18:10] Susan Faloon: okay I will try to keep this quick then I just wanted to address something that I've been hearing more frequently and that is that the council spends too much time on issues affecting our unhoused neighbors and our immigrant communities and not enough time on City business is and I just want to push back on that a little bit and say that almost every decision that we make as a council impacts a subset of our community and that does not make those decisions any less valid or any less important there will always be topics that matter more to certain residents and that's okay what isn't okay is suggesting that some residents matter more than others we each bring different priorities to the table and I think we need to respect that we're not always going to agree we don't have to but we do owe each other and our constituents a basic level of respect for the work that each of us is trying to do and with that i will say good night thank you council carson thank you madam chair i want [2:19:11] Daniel Carson: to recognize everybody that i mean comes out and speaks to us during the public comment portion i certainly appreciate any and all of the comments but in i also want to recognize those of you who stuck around through the entire council agenda usually the room clears completely out when we get into council business and so i want to appreciate those of you who stayed the whole time and are fully engaged in what's going on here and with that good night that's a big in that same [2:19:46] Michael Beck: vein i'll say that you know i'm a i love going through the old bangor annual reports and there's There's a quote in there and I'm not going to get 100% right, but basically it says, a city is only as good as the citizens who will see to its guidance. And I will tell you from all of the people who take the time to speak on both sides of every issue, we're in good hands, we're a great city. There's a lot of people that love Bangor, I love Bangor, and I just appreciate everyone who took the time to speak to their government and give us a chance to talk about some issues. So thank you. [2:20:20] Susan Deane: Good night. Council Jean, I will keep it quite brief, but I want to just say thank you to everyone that came out, I appreciate our citizens, I appreciate our counselors, I appreciate our city staff, and with that I will say good night, Van Gogh. Council Leonard, well I was going to [2:20:37] Joseph Leonard: share my entire draft of my mystery novel I was writing, but I guess I'll just say good night. [2:20:41] Carolyn Fish: Thanks Sue. Thank you. Absolutely Fish, I can't say good night without noticing the temperatures are starting to swing in the right direction finally, and with that I'll say good night Spring, good luck. [2:20:58] Susan Deane: Like most meetings, I just want to say how much I appreciate public comment and you guys coming out and dedicating your time to have your voices heard, and that we hear you guys, and I appreciate all the counselors in the city staff, and with that I was good night. Councilor Mallar, good [2:21:24] Susan Hawes: night. Okay, with that, thank you all for attending and your participation, and have a pleasant evening. What's left? Good night.