Bangor council advances sidewalk ordinance, weighs overnight homeless space

[0:15] Susan Deane: We are live. Good evening and welcome to the city council workshop Monday May 11th, 5 15. We're in council's neighbors around the table. We have the city hasn't been here. We have city council, Councillor Carson, Council Walker, Councillor Bloom, Councillor Leonard, Councilor Beck, Councilor Fish, Councilor Malheur, and then Councilor Collins. We are up against a lot of information tonight, so we're going to try to through this as viciously as we possibly can, and we do have three executive sessions at the end of this, so are [1:03] Joseph Leonard: you ready? Yes, I was just going to say, do you want to have a hard stop so we can go into an executive session? But would that be a good idea? We need a hard stop. How long is [1:14] Michael Beck: your report going to be? Very short, very short. Yeah, I mean only a couple minutes over the changes. [1:22] Susan Deane: All right, so we should be okay. Yeah, because you only have one thing after that. Okay, all right. Council Beth, you have a report for us. There is no city manager update, so that [1:36] Michael Beck: military. Okay, first of all, I need to kick us off. So if everyone recalls, we had referred the issue of the sidewalk ordinance that changed to chapter 257-4 to the advisory committee on racial equity, inclusion, human rights. The over the course of two meetings they went over it, and they have provided us with the recommendation. The recommendation they went with was instead of changing 257 for, if you remember, originally it was to remove from the title the words for construction purposes. Instead they actually recommended that we add a new subsection 257 7, title occupying, blocking, obstructing, or partially obstructing a sidewalk or esplanade. The during the conversation, the committee changed their focus of the language to materials and objects rather than people or activities, because there's already a loitering ordinance that deals with, you know, the persons. They did, yes, I did that because of the lawyer ordinance. The committee noted that the inclusion of the word storage was important because it implies long-term existence assistance in the space, meaning this rule wouldn't unfairly Target a resident who's momentarily blocking the sidewalk to, you know, unload groceries or water or anything like that. And then rather than drafting a new all these new definitions for what constitutes an obstruction, we're trying to write out specific ADA measurements, the committee decided to revert this to simpler language that had been previously proposed by the legal department, section a that with the text that is from the legal departments prior proposed changes and the committee filled it with a cleaner easier starting point than their previous drafts it served as a standard exemption for expected public gatherings section B had to do with support based engagements what committee strongly advocated for the section to prioritize connecting individuals with resources over immediately handing out fines. And they noted that fines serve as a massive barrier to public, I'm sorry, to basic stability and recovery. And their goal was that it should be the city's clear expectation to offer outreach and solutions before, you know, penalizing the activity. The term civil penalties in that paragraph was chosen carefully, so it wouldn't imply that simply asking someone to move their items was a penalty. And the grammar of the section was tweaked because there was a run-on sentence in the original draft, so they created the line such resources include, comma, but are not limited to. The section C, the enforcement part, they specifically link that support-based engagement directly into this enforcement section to guarantee that it legally recognizes the preferred first step. You know, they had this a substantive discussion about the fine amounts. They lowered them down to fifty dollars for the first offense, a hundred dollars for the second offense within a six-month window, and then for belongings that are left completely unintended that we don't have any identity of who it belongs to, the ordinance defers to the city's policy on that, and that's what we ended up with. Okay, questions [4:57] Susan Deane: on the report or is maybe [5:03] Carolyn Fish: go ahead. I've I've read this several times and I'm fine with this. I think this was more specific for us to have clarity about the sidewalk. I think our department already initiates a support based offering for outreach for our homeless pretty commonly. I think it's part of their practice. I would I do think on see the enforcement and where it's repeated again and says it says if that individual can be readily identified and then says in access support based engagement see above seems redundant Where it was already specifically said that would be a priority, so I just think rather than repeat it and then say see above where it's already stated enough, I'd like to propose that I'm fine with it just stopping with that individual can be identified and then that's the engagement of how the police would first provide support-based engagement. It's just clear rather than redundantly saying see a problem I [6:15] Susan Deane: think, Councilor, I think Councilor Fish, you intend to offer that up as an actual amendment during the vote, so it's probably cleaner to work that out as clear other [6:25] Carolyn Fish: than being redundant saying see above. It already is clear about just cleans it up a little bit. [6:38] Speaker E (unidentified): Other questions now? [6:42] Susan Deane: This is his report, not the actual one. We're just hearing the report now and we'll still have that. It's on the agenda for a vote under council, but certainly this is an easier place to have those discussions if there are questions. A procedural question on that, if we were to suggest that it's amended, does that pass tonight or do we have to then bring it back? This is second reading, so it would pass tonight. So we could amend it. Yeah, it wouldn't hold anything up. Yeah, and then it's good to know. [7:28] Daniel Carson: I don't have any issue with the amendment, but I want to know, is this, if we pass this, is it going to address the question that was brought to us and actually lead to enforcement? [7:43] Susan Deane: Yes, yeah. I think this is a really clear standard to enforce as it relates to people's belongings on the side. I think from the law enforcement officer's perspective, it's important when you go out to the field to have that certainty that the standard that you're enforcing is what your policymakers want you to be doing. And I think this will provide that certainty. [8:15] Michael Beck: Council Mayor? The only question I have about that amendment is, you know, it was the recommendation of the committee to make sure that Section B was the preferred method first. And then if that person refuses or resources don't pan out, they want to move on to C. By removing that line out, does that intent still stay? Is it truly redundant? Or was that put there to actually make sure that Section B, you know, is the first and foremost method of, you know, engagement, and then if it doesn't work out, then they go out to enforcement? [8:50] Carolyn Fish: That would be my only question. Let's say this city itself shall prioritize, so I don't know. [8:56] Daniel Carson: How Jane do that? I would add that at the end of B. It does also the this shall be the preferred practice of the city prior to punitive enforcement action. So it is there, I think it's okay. [9:14] Public commenter: I do have a question or I was just do I stand here or so who's that for? A resident of Bangor and member of the community. No she doesn't need to. Oh she's an oh sorry okay and a member of the advisory committee on equity diversion human rights. Just I am in the minority so I don't know if I would be have permission to give a minority report from the chair. It's it's a the Robert Roberts rules section 51 boards and committees it's an advisory it's Roberts rules chapter 50 51 it is in Roberts it's The undersigned a minority advisory on the as a minority I can but it's up to the discretion of the chair is that lengthy no okay basically the same thing because I read through the amendment so maybe Suzette Furrow the undersigned a minority of the advisory committee on equity and diversity inclusion and human rights not agreeing with majority desire to express my views in case of amending the city ordinance chapter 257-4 the proposed recommended amendment of chapter 257 by the advisory Committee on racial equity inclusion and human rights as a member of the advisory committee I do not vote in favor of approving this amendment as written the addition of section 25-7 257-7 part c enforcement the part which states an access of support based engagement this is ambiguous and redundant and not necessary as in section in section c section b already addresses this issue this adds another layer of delaying enforcement of this ordinance the wording is ambiguous and will prevent the Swift clearing of the sidewalk material which does not belong on the sidewalk this ordinance includes all sidewalks in the city of Bangor has approximately 200 miles of sidewalks. This includes sidewalks in front of private and public schools, homes, neighborhoods, businesses, and professional buildings which are supposed to be walkable and clear in accordance with Bangor's designation as a livable community, which was granted by the AARP and the World Health Organization in 2018. We're supposed to maintain clear and safe sidewalks in accordance with the eight domains of livability. All sidewalks should be clear of materials regardless of their width without delay. The minority report is submitted by me, Suzette Furrow, as a member of the advisory committee on equity, diversity, inclusion, and human rights on this day, Monday, May 11th, 2026, and I do have copies for everyone along with the highlighted portion. [12:04] Speaker E (unidentified): Thank you, thank you. Real. [12:12] Michael Beck: Quick one of the questions that member Ford posted during the meeting was, or do you buy the sheets completely, come and answer your questions. [12:31] Susan Deane: So he and at least 2 folks on his staff reviewed it, and didn't have any issue, primarily because this is, I think, I think if this were a new practice for the PD, it would probably feel a bit more onerous, but so much of what they do with that sort of enforcement begins with outreach and connection services anyway, that this doesn't really represent [Speaker E (unidentified): a new requirement.] And I believe Deputy Bushey is going to be here at six, so if you want to speak to him about that, somewhere where we find time to do that, we can. Anything else from your report? No, that covers it. Any other questions? I want to say thank you for being a part of that and getting this all along quickly. I think we're all, because we, so everybody is willing to accept the report, correct? That's a question, I mean, this would [13:37] Daniel Carson: be just procedural question, but we would need, this is not the language that's on the current [13:42] Susan Deane: right, we would need to substitute this, so if you look at the agenda, a copy of the original language and the new language is there, yeah. [13:54] Michael Beck: I think, I think we do have to amend by substitution and then [13:59] Speaker E (unidentified): after that we would need to do it right, making sure I'm following. [14:08] Michael Beck: We're getting here, it might be a good time, we didn't know how awesome, that's exactly [14:14] Daniel Carson: to what you're asking. Oh, it still needs to do this, right? Yes, that's right, no. [14:55] Susan Deane: We're set with that. Okay, thank you. Next we have the legislative committee update. All right, so last Monday we had the inaugural meeting of the legislative committee where we really just did a bit of brainstorming on the topics that committee wants to tackle. [15:17] Michael Beck: Just a point of order real quick. Can we get this together so we can hear? You just did. There we go. [15:26] Susan Deane: We brainstormed and talked about the topics that the committee wants to focus on at least in the near term. There was some brainstorming of ideas, but the couple of items that came to the top as top priority were one, modifying the ordinance, to allow the committee to reach out and to speak with candidates for office as well as other partners and stakeholders as originally drafted or the committee's ability was really limited to elected officials and so that would precluded candidates as well as other stakeholders and so at the next legislative committee meeting I'll have a draft ordinance change for the committee to consider and then that order change would go through the normal full council process the other item that sort of rose to the top as a priority was a discussion of whether or not it would be in the city's best interests to hire a lobbyist to lobby for our interests at the state level and I have produced for the next committee meeting a memo that outlines the services that we already pay for and then I'm hoping that you know I think it would be important to have a twofold conversation one are we happy with the things that we're paying for currently yes or no and then do we want to invest in a higher lobbyist and if yes do we want to stop paying for any of these other things that we're paying for and so I've drafted a memo that will be on the agenda for the next committee to sort of outline what we're already paying for in that space and then the third item that the committee had an interest in sort of exploring is Dorothea yes and what the state plans for that facility long term and then of course whether there are any opportunities for the city and I'm working with Jen Gunderman former employee of DHHS, to try to make some contacts within the state, to have someone come and actually present to us about what's happening currently and what their plans are, because I think that would be helpful to inform our own next steps. Anything to add, chair or committee members? I have a question about that. I think it would be nice to have somebody come and talk about the facility that how much of it is being used there's 40 residents up there that a lot of people didn't even know where they are and they've been there for a long time so some of that has to be livable has to be using them so the age-old excuse of it's two-hand man [18:35] Speaker E (unidentified): well I [18:40] Daniel Carson: Think actually for your benefit, because you weren't there, I know I'm an appointed pointed counselor Maller, but everybody else was, I think, there. For your benefit, the language change that we're suggestion suggesting was based on our, thinking that it would be best to build relationships with people as they're engaging in their own processes. So just that simple change, but allow us to sort of branch out. I [19:17] Susan Deane: think you're up again. I'm up again. So I wanted to give everyone a bit of an update on pierce park as you'll recall gosh we were four weeks ago we talked about the reallocation of some law enforcement resources to the parks as well as tweaking the park hours you know i think particularly pierce park and the sidewalk along harlow street has continued to be a challenge and as you know we certainly continue to receive a lot of public feedback about those challenges. I think from my perspective the officer presence in the park has made a noticeable difference in the incidence of non-compliant activities in Pierce Park specifically but you know over the course of the last few weeks we've certainly received a lot of other input about other parks and so I think next steps will be to sort of let our law enforcement experts follow that issue where it arises to ensure that folks feel safe using our parks and that folks aren't violating the law or ordinances within our parks i think the issue that is persistent in and around pierce park is the sidewalk accessibility issue which i think we're well on our way to addressing after the hard work of the acre committee and their recommendation but what i did want to highlight for you is some statistics so they because i think it's really helpful for purposes of understanding the scope and the depth of what we're seeing in the city so the bcat team tracks all of their contacts as they're doing their work and in January and February BCAT engaged with 21 and 18 new people new people new to them out in the community as part of their work which in and of itself I mean to me feels like a pretty big number 21 and 18. In March and April that number grew to 42 and then 44. So then so for a two-month period that is over 80 new people that he has engaged with in the city. I think what that tells us is that the issue of warming centers closing is being compounded by new folks becoming homeless in the city of Van Gorghe, 82 it seems, a much larger number than I would have expected. What I want to emphasize about that is certainly tools like the sidewalk coordinates are going to help manage immediate issues. But that doesn't change the fact that there is a large population of folks who don't have a home to go to at night in Blackboard. So they are going to be somewhere overnight. And no number of sidewalk ordinances is going to change that it is going to be a problem that pd will be chasing that our public health experts will be trying to manage there's not going to be a quick fix to the fact that there is a large population of unhoused neighbors here in Bangor and that number at least in March and April grew pretty exponentially. [23:22] Carolyn Fish: I know we've got a short time, so I'll touch you guys. 42 and 44, and I know from some of the people that are boots on the ground, so to say, a big majority of these aren't even from Bangor. So I think that our concern for our unhoused and those that are in our community, and I've even broadened that thinking speaking a little bit more liberally to even accept the fact we're a service center they may in fact be from our sister communities but I think we really have to engage in some immediate without waiting for legislation I think we as a city have to address this and somehow stop this overwhelming influx of people being bused here and it's happening every day when I see 42 and 44 What's it going to be next month and next month and as we continue to engage with these people it's it's distracting us and tapping the services that should be reserved for our Bangor [24:19] Susan Deane: People in need Councilwoman and Council Carson thank you so when they engage with when BCAT engages with these folks do they ask them where they're coming from is that part of the process so BCAT does collect those statistics when they engage with folks the historical breakdown down. The last time I had them pull it, which was probably a couple months ago, was it's roughly 50-50 as far as folks reporting that their last residence was Bangor versus their last residence being somewhere other than Bangor. But certainly that would fluctuate because every human is different with a different life story what [25:11] Daniel Carson: was my comment oh I think we expected it was the warmer weather I think we said this pretty recently some people that we knew that this was going to start happening which makes me even more interested in and I think I talked to the city manager here about this on the phone but I don't I don't know if I said it in here yet but I'm thinking this also sort of highlights an urgency around needing a language change to the newly formed homeless committee. The ordinance that we put that passed and that's sort of guiding our forming that committee starts with the first project being that long-term plan and that of course sort of removes their ability from being able to engage in a prior like stabilization discussion, which I think for these warmer months, we might need to discuss, right? As the population is growing, as we don't yet have day space, we haven't, right, it's sort of compounding. And that would be the logical committee, I think, to take on that question, but probably right now can't do it because of that ordinance, so. [26:21] Susan Deane: And I'll just respond quickly to that one. So I've drafted that, and it will be on your next GovOps agenda to address a stabilization plan and then anything that council wishes to refer to take [26:35] Speaker E (unidentified): priority that's [26:40] Michael Beck: okay does this lead to a conversation about a temporary space because I [26:44] Susan Deane: we're not going to be able to ordinance our way out of this yeah I think you know we've talked about this a little bit and I think the question is that is the urgency so necessary that we want to tackle that immediately or is that something that we want the advisory committee to tackle and I can I could argue in either direction but I don't have a vote so I haven't yes it is urgent enough that I think we've talked about this before the sooner we get started on something because we know how slow It is going to go. There's so many things to look at, the type of building, the size of the building, where's it going to be. We already know it's going to cost money to do that. We've talked about this for six to eight months now. If we don't start, we're going to be sitting here in December and the snow's going to be blowing and we're going to be no better off than we are right now. So we really do need to get going on this council. [27:56] Carolyn Fish: Fish, I agree. I 'm reserved about how much funding the city, you know, we have a lot of grant and a lot of those grants go to a lot of non-profits. So I'm hoping that our homeless committee can help us assess and see what partners we can partner with. It, you know, undoubtedly will cost us some more money, but in the long run they'll save us money from this redundant cycle we're in. But I would really appreciate getting their input and pulling in the non-profits and seeing where, because we're not, you know, we're not going to be able to manage it. We need a lot of advice from them before we just start throwing money at it without knowing what the consequences, accountability, responsibilities are. But it should be top priority. [28:44] Susan Deane: Already put them, maybe that would be a good item for the newly formed committee to have an open discussion forum with potential partners, non-profits and council members or whoever, so we can all start out maybe on somewhat of the same page instead of each group doing their own little startup. If we can do it as a group, it might get off the ground. I [29:12] Speaker E (unidentified): certainly think [29:15] Daniel Carson: it's a valuable conversation and I think that we should definitely be starting that now. My, of course, I mean, we need, whether it's a outdoors space or we're finding a building, you know, definitely the concerns that I have would be first that I don't want to ordain our response to that committee before it's formed. I don't want to look down and tell them, we've put you together, actually, this is what our plan is, because then what is the purpose of all that evidence gathering? And I worry about the risks of quickly creating a space unless we have those sort of guardrails in place, we know how it's going to be managed, to know who's going to be on site. And so I really think that it would be important to find partners to take ownership of this question, because ultimately even, you know, with our homeless committee, whatever we come up with as a city response or a city strategy, there will continue to be organizations and people out there who are also doing simultaneous Things and so I think this might be something to sort of reach out and, you know, if we're thinking about this, that we really want to find those partners and we want to see some community ownership of the question. I [30:58] Michael Beck: would just say, as we go through with this, it would be also good to know about, keep us updated about the impact that this ordinance that looks like we're going to pass later is going to have and, you know, where it's rotating the problem too, because, you know, today it's a library and we don't know what's going to be tomorrow, you know. So it'd be good to know, you know, how urgent is the idea of having a temporary space, because I think going to be dictated about, you know, where people migrate and what the problems are that it presents. [31:32] Susan Deane: Yeah, I think we're also very close to being ready to have the RFP ready for your eyes. I think unlike the warming shelter situation where we had a really clear idea of what the city was looking for in response, I think this is one where we would like your feedback on the RFP before we issue it to make sure that what we've produced is aligned with what you were expecting us to do. So we are going to bring that back to you for your feedback before we actually go out and issue it, you know. I think that will, that will potentially address the challenge for, you know, maybe eight to ten hours of the day, which I think will improve the situation for many of the members of our community who are being impacted. As far as the potential overnight night space, I think what I'm hearing is no immediate action, but let's keep an eye on sort of where the problems are popping up, or is, am I misreading sort of the tone of the conversation, and is there something more that you would like staff to start working towards? I [32:44] Michael Beck: may be in the minority, but I'm more of a we need to do something sooner, because we don't have an answer to the question of where do people go at night, and that's going to lead to a lot of the problems we're going to be facing throughout the summer leading into fall and winter, you know. So I'm of the opinion of, you know, like the idea of engaging community partners, I don't think the city should be running it, absolutely not, but you know, it's a matter of, you know, we have a parcel of land that we can put towards this. Who's willing to step up and help run it and, you know, keep it going well and prevent it from becoming a Camp Hope 2.0? [33:19] Joseph Leonard: Just very quickly, people's lives and likelihoods are being impacted right now, so I think it is our responsibility to act as soon as possible. I understand Counselor Carson's concerns about overstepping the committee. People's lives on the line here though, and I think the committee would understand that we need to take action right now, and what we produce right now it's very likely going to be produced by the committee anyway because there's only a few ways to tackle this problem at this point in time, and right now I'm only seeing one available option for us, so if we're amendable I say we get started right now. That's [34:06] Carolyn Fish: sufficient, and councilful is the other thing too is, you know, if we do something immediately, again I think we have to prioritize our own residents and our neighboring communities that are part of our service center number one, and number two, the people themselves, from what I've understood, there have been actually beds in places available at night that many of those on the street are choosing to prefer the street, so I think that we have to also weigh in whatever options we give for night housing thing, you know, we're still going to have those that choose to be on the street, and so whatever our protocol is going to be centered around that. I'll [34:54] Speaker E (unidentified): keep it quick, I'm just going [34:55] Susan Deane: to say I am in favor of doing something sooner rather than later. [35:01] Daniel Carson: Yeah, I just wanted to clarify that I also am in favor of engaging in the conversation sooner than later. I just wanted to sort of put all the concerns out at one time, but I also don't think that us engaging oversteps the committee. I just didn't want to ordain for them what their solution was going to be. I think in [35:24] Susan Deane: to make matters more clear for those that are trying to engage and for the PD, they need to know where they can tell the unhoused community to move. If we're asked them to move from a site, we can't expect them to move down the street, so I do think we need to have some sort of an area at least to let them know what is acceptable, but we also need to have some kind of rules and regulations as to what we think is acceptable in that area, and it can't become another, you know, ammo, so I think it's very important, but we also need to make sure that we are on top of it, but we can't just have police moving people on without any idea where to tell [36:10] Speaker E (unidentified): them to go, and that's been the problem. Yeah. [36:16] Michael Beck: I would second that, but yeah, there has to be some kind of rules of engagement at a time, and I think a big one is, you know, if you're in this space, you need to be engaging with outreach, engaging with a case manager, you know, this part, this is supposed to be a transition, so we want to make sure that people are, you know, doing something to move forward and taking advantage of that, those resources. [36:40] Susan Deane: So I will take this directive back to staff and see if they have any thoughts on the right way to start engaging their partner on this topic. My gut reaction is it may wind up being very similar to what we are looking to do with day space, which is just sort of putting out broad parameters of what we would be interested in seeing in an overnight space and seeing what the service provider community can come back to us with ideas for how to structure it, but I'll engage with staff on that before drawing that final conclusion. [37:23] Carolyn Fish: One short addition to that is I know we have city lane, but I know there's also a lot of private land and a lot of non-profit land, so if our options are limited, I think we should think open-mindedly to what other options there are and not be specifically so close and limited to just city land, I think, you know, as we think this out, just to be broad-minded to see what all the [37:49] Speaker E (unidentified): opportunities might be, okay, all [37:56] Susan Deane: right, yeah, all right, we need a motion to go into, actually [38:02] Daniel Carson: actually three sessions, but I'm all in the same motion, Madam Chair, I move pursuant to one MRSA section 4056D American Federation of State County Municipal Employees Airfield and Building Maintenance Local 926.06 and pursuant to one MRSA section 4056E consultation with city solicitor regarding the legal rights and duties of the city pertaining to ordinance enforcement issues and pursuant to one MRSA section 40563 consultation with the city solicitor regarding the legal rights and duties of the city pertaining to the use of city property that we enter executive