Bangor committee debates sidewalk ordinance for unhoused residents

[0:21] Speaker A (unidentified): Hi, I can't hear. Oh, you're muted. Never mind, can you hear me? Really? [0:43] Speaker B (unidentified): Helps if I turn on the mic. How, I hear you. [0:52] Speaker C (unidentified): Catherine, can you say something so we can hear you? Test, one, two, three. Can't hear you. [0:58] Speaker A (unidentified): Hello, I don't know if that's on you. No, it, my audio thing is going green. [1:05] Speaker C (unidentified): Hey, I knew you would be here. [1:08] Speaker A (unidentified): Test,. [1:10] Speaker B (unidentified): It's weird though, I was like, there's a lot of cards here. One, two, three. Am I early? Test,. [1:14] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, the time change. Like these first few meetings after the time change, you're like, oh. [Carollynn Lear: I fixed it.] We got you, Katherine. Yay. Yay. All right. So we are live. [1:30] Carollynn Lear: Great. Glad everyone could see that. Yeah. [1:32] Speaker C (unidentified): Hello and welcome to the April, already, Advisory Committee on Racial Equity, Inclusion and Human Rights meeting. It is 6.01 on April 28th. We will go ahead and get started with our roll call. We will begin with, well, because we have folks online, actually what we're going to do is we're going to do a roll vote so I can call the names. Katie Robinson. Here. Adam Baker. Here and alive. Suzette Burrow. Here. Okay. Sharon is unable to make it. Shane Boyes. Present. Thank you. Mark Roth. Here. And Teresa Fallon. Present. Lovely. Thank you so much everyone. Hopefully Ray will be joining us shortly and our city council liaison is at a previous meeting but should be joining us shortly. And we also have with us our assistant city manager, Courtney O'Donnell. So we have one, really one thing on our agenda tonight to get through because we've got a lot of folks that, oh, you know what, I'm skipping, this is all connected in my head, excuse me. Because the next thing on the agenda is public comment but we do have basically one thing that if there are folks that are going to be coming to speak to tonight I'd rather move that public comment item down and just do approval of the minutes and then go ahead and get started because we have so many guest speakers with us tonight we want to be mindful of folks time so with that. May I have a motion for the approval of minutes for the March 24th, 2026 meeting? So moved. Thank you. Can I get a second? Second. Any discussion changes, updates? Yes, I am [3:36] Michael Beck: referred to twice in the minutes as Mike. [3:40] Speaker C (unidentified): Both times? Mike Roth, yes. Well, Mike, we'll we'll fix that for you. Sorry about that, Mark. I didn't see [3:49] Michael Beck: you talking to Mike. Yeah. [3:52] Speaker C (unidentified): I see it now. All right, Mark, we will update those. So I'll [3:58] Speaker B (unidentified): go ahead. Super picky, but I don't have an age. And right on the first page, but wrong in the second. It's not a huge deal. [4:05] Speaker C (unidentified): Okay, great. Well, we have a couple edits to the members participating in the meeting. We have our note taker coming in, so we'll make sure to blame her, just kidding. Yes, you are fine, Ray. Welcome, we're glad you're here. We read on time, perfect. Thank you, Ray, for the attendance and minutes. Can you hear me here? Perfect, thank you so much, Raelynn Burke. Ray, we were just about, we had a motion and a second on our meeting minutes for the March, but Mark's name is spelled Mike and Teresa's name is spelled with an H. [4:45] Speaker B (unidentified): Oh, I'm sorry, that's right. [4:47] Speaker C (unidentified): We wanted you to be here before, I'm just kidding. That timing was very, nebulous. So with those amendments to the minutes, we will take a roll vote on their acceptance. Acceptance, Ray? Yes, thank you. Adam? Yes. Theresa with no H? Yes, exactly. Mark? Not much. Shane? Yes. Katie? Yes, thank you very much. And I also approve those meeting minutes. All right, now our committee business. So as you read in the packet which was sent out, our committee city has been referred by city council to look at the sidewalk ordinance that had some changes made to it, rather some proposed changes made, and we've got some folks who are really have so much more experience in downtown and are directly impacted to share their feedback. We have folks from the Bangor Downtown Bangor Partnership and the Bangor Public Library. Before we get started on talking about what that amendment might look like and really, you know, sorry, no, you're fine, what our biggest feedback or thought process might be, I did want to open it up now to public comment for anyone that is in attendance. I would like, oh, I'm sorry, I'm gonna make a suggestion. Is it [6:17] Carollynn Lear: helpful if City Manager Carollynn Lear gives like an overview of the topic before we open? [6:23] Speaker C (unidentified): I always like a verbal overview, if that makes sense. That sounds wonderful. [6:26] Carollynn Lear: I think we're going to say I always like hearing from city managers. [6:29] Speaker A (unidentified): I always do. [6:31] Adam Douglas Baker: I was very excited for a moment. [6:33] Speaker C (unidentified): I am thrilled to welcome to the table City Manager Carollynn Lear to give an overview on our ordinance amendment and what this looks like. I thank you very much for that recommendation. I think it would be very helpful. We'll start us off on the same page. Thank you for being here. [6:49] Carollynn Lear: Okay. So I think this conversation really got started last fall, really specifically in the Cedar Street and First Street area. There were some folks in and around the CHCS property that were, I mean, essentially inhabiting the sidewalk space. And we started receiving a large number of comments from concerned citizens about that. And in many instances, those comments were not about sidewalk accessibility, but in a meaningful number of instances, those comments were in fact about sidewalk accessibility and sort of the walking experience navigating around people in that space. Subsequent to sort of that happening, we heard from Betsy Lundy and her constituency, sort of the downtown business community, expressing much the same thing. And so in speaking with our chief of police, he felt that really, if there was a desire within the community for police to address sidewalk accessibility, we would need an ordinance to do so. He felt like it was not clear in our existing ordinances that it was impermissible to place either yourself or your belongings in a way that blocked the sidewalk. And so we brought that to council. Council have lots of thoughts on that ordinance. I don't think they liked our approach, frankly, in sort of just making a deletion, which is why in your packet City Solicitor David Szewczyk has also given you an alternative that is maybe a bit more direct and straightforward with addressing the issue. But ultimately, Council wanted your input on this question and really, I think, some help in navigating how we define what that community standard is for sidewalk accessibility. [9:07] Michael Beck: I'd like to ask a question. What was the specific concern about the folks on Cedar and First Street? [9:15] Carollynn Lear: So I think it was twofold. It was for walkers. There were instances where they were having to walk off the sidewalk in order to navigate around people. There wasn't enough walking room to navigate. And then for individuals who were in wheelchairs or using walkers or using other assistive tools to walk, the challenge was more pronounced because you can't easily roll off a sidewalk and then back onto navigating on that. That was sort of the preface of the issue. I mean, certainly we received concerns that were much broader than sidewalk accessibility, but for purposes of navigating this conversation, I think that's essentially what we're trying to balance here, accessibility versus folks desire to be in that space thank [10:12] Speaker C (unidentified): you any other questions for city manager lear i [10:18] Speaker B (unidentified): wonder it was there anyone like that personally stated that like i am in a wheelchair i have a walking device that had the issue or was it more like just [10:27] Carollynn Lear: A thought of, oh gosh, just curious, I would hate to misrepresent what we received. And I would guess, yes, we received somewhere in the neighborhood of at least two dozen complaints that specifically raised the issue of accessibility, but I wouldn't feel comfortable saying affirmatively that they were saying, I have had an accessibility challenge, versus I'm concerned generally about that. Okay. For sure. [10:59] Speaker C (unidentified): Thank you very much for that. Well, I trust you won't go far. I mean, you can say it if you want. Thank you very much, City Manager Carollynn Lear. So with that said, and that information provided, now I would like to open it up. If there are any folks here tonight that have public comment about this particular issue before we invite folks representing Downtown Bangor Partnership and Bangor Public Library to share with us more directly their experiences. I would like to open it up. We reserve about 15 minutes at this time for any Bangor residents or other individuals directly impacted by this to share a three-minute piece of their own feedback on this topic for our committee to review. [12:00] Katie Brydon: Hi, I'm Katie Ko. I'm a resident of Bangor. My concerns about this ordinance is that it's criminalizing behavior that I think should be treated with more compassion. These folks are in the sidewalks because they've been removed from everywhere else, and we don't have a designated place for them to be. When we remove them from the sidewalks, where are they going to be? In the street? And then we'll have to have further regulations about that. That we need a place, a safe place for them to be. They, the sidewalk issue is relatively new. They have been hanging out for the last couple years occasionally on the sidewalks on First, in Maine. I live on Fourth Street. I walk through there a lot. If you walk through and you say excuse me, folks are pretty okay. They know that they are in a public space. They know people are trying to get through, but also when the outdoors is your home and I'm walking through your home, that's like they should Also be treated with respect even if they're having a bad day and they tell me to go fuck myself. That is also kind of reasonable because I am walking through their home because they do not have a place to be. Anyway, further criminalization is, I think, a terrible step. I know that they said that this will be a civil issue. Civil issues compound, civil issues create fines, create an inability to create, pay a fine, and what happens when you don't pay a fine? You end up incarcerated. If that's the only way we can get them in beds, that's, that's horrific. Thank you. Thank you. Any [13:52] Speaker C (unidentified): other comments? Okay, thank you very much. So as you, again, it's on your packet and as city manager earlier shared with us and we have been asked to look at the language and I welcome, I know that we have folks here from the Bangor Public Fiber, I think, in the Downtown Bangor Partnership, I think it would, if it's okay with everyone, be best to bring everyone up to the table if you're comfortable for us to have sort of an open conversation about this and our group can ask questions and we can kind of unpack what the expectations are and how we might best answer this. You want to come up too because I think obviously these questions will likely need your expertise. I assume was, is that beyond? We [14:51] Carollynn Lear: won't care. She's declined. All right. [14:59] Speaker C (unidentified): Well, hello. Thank you so much for inviting us. I was too, I was like, oh snap out of it. Thank you so much. Oh look, our city councillor is on this year, Counselor Back, you may join us when you can. We are just now going to be hearing from Ben from the Bangor Public Library. Again, you know, like council earlier shared, this may have started at one part of the city but has slowly grown to address a number of sidewalk issues and I think it's important that we hear from folks who are interested in sharing their own experiences, make sure that we have a really well-rounded view on what our options are and why this is an important conversation to be having. So thank you so much for joining us. Right, can I ask that [15:51] Michael Beck: you folks identify yourselves because I don't know who you are? Yes, thanks, I'm Ben Treat, I'm [15:59] David Szewczyk: the director of the Bangor Public Library. Thank you. David Sepchak, city solicitor. [16:06] Speaker I (unidentified): good to meet you both thank you well so i guess i'll start by just saying that like house people and unhoused people are all people right and so there's more similar similarities than there are differences. And that's always important to remember. But one big difference is that unhoused people are much of their life in public spaces, right? They don't have their private space to go through that I have to go through. And so things that relate to public spaces are gonna relate heavily to unhoused folks. But public spaces matter, and public spaces are, they all have purposes. Like, we set aside a space as a public space for a purpose, usually. And so, like, as the director of a public space in Bangor, I've had to wrestle with that a lot, because I know what our mission, I know what our goals are as a public library. And it's arts, culture, literacy, you know, communication tools and helping people connect, connects with the world around them through computers and resources that is that you do associate with libraries, and, we've, we've had as a public space other things that we've had to deal with. Well now we're talking about sidewalks, which are also a public space that also have a purpose, right? And so I don't think anybody's saying, like, almost people shouldn't be in the left, well no, I'll take that back. There are certainly people who say homeless people shouldn't be in the library at all, right? They just aren't me, and, there are certainly probably people who say, well, homeless people shouldn't be on the sidewalks at all, but I don't think that's what this proposal is about, right? It's about the manner in which we share public space together, and so acknowledging that the sidewalk is a public space, it does have a purpose and a goal, there's a reason we've set aside that space, is an important part. Of the process. Now whether the particular ordinance is that was proposed before is the right way to approach dealing with how to use public space is a completely different question. I understand you have different tasks to share with folks, but, I think it's important for me and one thing that I've had to come to terms with in my role, have to think about, yes, we are free to all. You see that over many public library entrances, the motto, free to all, and that's different from free for all. Right, like it's, it's, right, you can see, yeah, but it is, it is different from free for all, right, like it's not for any purpose, it's for specific purposes, and then we try to ensure that people are able to maximize those purposes in the space. Sidewalks, it's walking, right? And so we want to maximize people's ability to use sidewalks for walking while recognizing that it's going to be put to other uses, like sidewalk art festival or whatever the case may be, right? And so I think it's important to remember that when a space is closed down to unhoused populations, for whatever reason, or a space is closed down period where unhoused populations are found, they're going to move to the next space. And I think that's important to keep in mind. I think having something like this as a package with an effort to identify well positively where are some places that people can go and acknowledging that acknowledging those spaces is an important element of whatever happens but for the library our day-to-day experience is that we have people coming in outraged saying, why haven't you cleared those people off your property? They assume Pierce Park is our property. And so we politely, without throwing shade at the city, say, well, that's not our property. And so then we have people who feel uncomfortable entering the library. I've had a lot of people really recently in the past two weeks tell me you know I don't feel comfortable entering the library myself I don't feel comfortable bringing my children to the library it is having an impact on public space that has specific purposes to have that be the site of an encounter right and there is a nighttime encampment on the sidewalk in front of the library there's an impact there it may be that this committee says yeah well that's life people are gonna have to face the consequences right of the world not being perfect and so yeah we lose the library and we lose walking down that particular section of site that's important to me and feels like it's a real loss but it may be that what we have to do is say no we have a principled stand that homeless people have to be able to camp on the sidewalk that's that's important the other question we have to ask ourselves I think is why could homeless people be sleeping on bricks on the sidewalk what are the other options That are out there, right? Why are homeless people finding themselves identifying this as a space that they have to say? I think that involves talking to actual unhoused people, right? And I think that's probably a direction that needs to be gone in, because it doesn't register with me that the that the sidewalk in front of the library is the most comfortable, the most desirable option, the widest, the least exposed to the exhaustive tailpipes. It seems odd to me, and I don't understand that. But I think that's something that probably is worth exploring as you try to figure out how you want to approach this issue that's been committed to you by council. I guess finally, I myself am pretty desensitized to the knee-jerk reaction some folks have of seeing an unhoused person and saying, you know, like that kind of reaction, right? There are a lot of folks who have that reaction, there are folks who have that reaction on behalf of others and say, oh, well, I'm comfortable, but this person wouldn't be. And that's kind of hearsay. But there are folks who have that reaction themselves on a regular basis. I'm not one of those folks. I'm pretty desensitized. I'm aware that folks are living in really abject condition that I can't get to work every day and live through it if I'm not at least a little bit able to go through my day recognizing that I'm living with it. Not feeling like it's satisfactory or acceptable, but needing to live my life every day where I work with what I'm doing, who I'm working with. Even I, who am somewhat desensitized to these reactions, have felt pretty nervous at times when I'm walking past people who are laying under tarps. They're basically laying concealed under tarps, we have things that go through our head to say, why is a person concealed right here? Now, I can then take my rational mind out of that and take myself out of that and go through my rational mind and say, this person's under a tarp because they didn't want to get rained on. They didn't want you to settle on them. There's lots of rational answers to that, but we are trained and we are probably training our kids to be cautious about people who are concealing their location, who are hiding under a blanket, hiding under a tarp. If we're not training our kids to do that, we should be. So to have that sort of like, wait, let me think about this reaction for a significant subset of the population, there's going to be a sort of a reaction where people say, I'm not going down that street because I've had too many circumstances where I felt threat, where I felt at risk or where I have been harmed. And it was because I put myself in a dangerous situation and I shouldn't have. And so that's going to happen to folks. And I don't want that to happen as people bring their kids to the library to learn to read. I don't want people to have that happen as people bring their kids to the library to see the Declaration of Independence in September, like whatever the event is. is. I don't want that to be people's reaction to accessing the library. But I realize that this is not an easy issue. And I feel like I need to come and tell you what my experience is, what I'm seeing happening, and why I see it as something that I do have, even I'm feeling a visceral reaction at times when I'm not somebody who tends to have a visceral reaction to seem visceral. I have visceral reactions. I don't tend to have a visceral like fright response to the situation, but I'm feeling it myself. I recognize that this is a real thing. This is not kind of, these are my patrons that are experiencing this danger. And so that's kind of the last piece that I want to say is many of these people that are on the sidewalk are also my patrons but some are not. Some are folks who have been explicitly banned from the library for dangerous conduct, for harmful conduct, or for substance use, which is harmful I'm conscious that we've made a separation with some of the folks that are living right next to the library in the park for a reason. We don't make a willy-nilly decision about the one that they have to leave. And so, as I'm conscious that we've tried to set our boundaries, I find that we have no ability to set boundaries because the very path to the library is an encampment of people that we've said can't even come in the building anymore. That's what I have to share of my experience. I understand everything I've said is dismissible, right? Because there are other points of view that people have to say, other things that people want to share where they're like, oh, you know, you're overreacting. but that is my reaction and I'm here to share thank you so much for that Ben I [27:29] Speaker C (unidentified): Really appreciate that. I'd love to provide time for questions if any folks have any questions for Ben and his experience and they think that he has to share. I'll start it is rolling. I'm wondering have you seen and I don't know if there's any sort I know it hasn't there's not a an objective time timestamp to this experience, but have you noticed a attendance shift in participation at the library since the encampment has been more present and visible in that area? [28:05] Speaker I (unidentified): So it's been about what,, four weeks, three weeks? We tend to keep monthly stats, so no, I don't have like stats on it. I could go run those and share them because we work for ourselves monthly but we have data yeah I'm sure you have some numbers you have to keep yeah so we have a way of gathering that data we just don't go and look at it you know on a daily basis okay do you think that there has been we've had some pretty quiet days in the atrium and some days where people have said it's wider than normal for this time of year I mean, yeah, I think there's a good chance, but you know, I can look at the numbers. Yeah. [28:54] Speaker C (unidentified): Thank you so much, Ben. And I forgive my ignorance, but I do know at one point in time there was a social worker, right, that would work in the atrium. Are they still there? Or in the cafe, rather? In that area? Sorry if I'm conflating. No, it's fine. [29:07] Speaker I (unidentified): So there's a greeter position, and that person is kind of a lower, they're in a lower ranked position and their responsibility is really just to say hello to people as they come in but also to observe what's happening and so if they're in the atrium and see somebody approach someone and they're kind of giving them a hard time, intervene early while de-escalation is possible or when it's possible for a person not to have any further where they have to escalate themselves. So it's important to have a presence in that space and that's what the greeter position does. They're not a social worker okay I'm sorry that I don't know but we also have a social worker position rather than maintaining order in a space or for being responsible for monitoring conduct is more responsible for connecting the library with a network of services that are out there. And then recognizing as people come in, that's a new face. Hey, my name is Olivia. How can I, you know, how can I help you? Or I don't know how she does the interaction. She's trained in this, right? Yeah. So, it does that interaction, right? And, then tries to help connect people with services. And so I think of her as both a presence that helps ensure that the library is being a caring, supportive, responsible space, while also exerting pressure out of the atrium and towards the actual resources that are in the community. Because the people who are actually doing the best helping work, like the CHCSs and BCHDs and all the different organizations are not physically present in the library. They have their own areas that they work in right and they're really important but connecting people with those services in a way that is enduring and then also recognizing when pchc comes back and says hey i'm a case manager for so-and-so because i haven't seen them i have their housing voucher olivia is able to make that connection to our social workers so different kinds of positions But yes, we do have a couple of positions that are heavily based on reacting to the current situation. [31:32] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, thank you. Thank you so much. I think your question, you know, why the library got my brain thinking of that, like, because that is a good point. You know, there is something specific about, and I don't, I'm not making this correlation in my mind because of it. [31:47] Speaker I (unidentified): I can tell you, just go to any service center city, any major city in the country, walk into the biggest public library branch, and you'll see a large unhoused population. It's nationwide. If you build a palace three blocks down from the library and say, this is for unhoused people, there's still gonna be unhoused people in the library. It's just, I'm not sure exactly what it is. Part of it is that we're resource rich with things that are really valuable to unhoused folks, like computer equipment. Electricity. Electricity for charging devices. There's these resources that are really valuable so that the entire population are also really valuable to an unhoused population and perhaps more so because they don't have a home to charge the device in or a home to store computers. [32:40] Shane Boyes: Yeah, thank you, Ben. Shane? I would imagine as probably a testament to the environment you create there that people feel safe at the library to human need for safety might be driving, you know, maybe they're not inside maybe they're out on the sidewalk club because they know that is a safe space for them to be when we pursue things like this, that makes it an unsafe place for them to be. That's what I was thinking. I agree with you as a clarified question. In the city code. Code. Chapter 174, loitering. 174-1 prohibits, it says, it shall be unlawful for any person to loiter, loaf, wander, stand, or remain idle, either alone or in concert with others in a public place in such a manner as to obstruct an appellate street, highway, sidewalk, blah,, blah. This already exists. Why are we here? [33:37] David Szewczyk: Here yeah that does exist and the proposed ordinance change that's in front of the council and was referred to you is the sidewalks ordinance that really has to do with materials the proposed change that's that's been referred to you is about material because the loitering provisions already there and it really is balancing the needs of those residents who are on house and the needs of the city to maintain passable sidewalks, including for those with mobility challenges, and including maintaining free and unimpeded access on those sidewalks to businesses and places like the public library. So the City Council referred this item to you for your review and advice on where does this proposed change strike the right balance? Or in your opinions, should that balance be somewhere else? And so the change that's in front of you is a simple change to an existing ordinance that's been around for decades. That's 257 dash four of the sidewalks ordinance. It, says that a person can't block, occupy or obstruct the city sidewalk, Esplanade or Street to store materials. [35:04] Shane Boyes: Yeah, can I just interrupt you? I've read it. I was in the meeting as well. I guess I'm just confused about why we need this secondary when we clearly have a part of the code that says people cannot obstruct. I would assume that people cannot obstruct applies to people's possessions. I think when it was written, the one that is at question here is literally about construction material. It's not about anyone's belongings. I think that would apply under this part of the code. [35:32] David Szewczyk: The reason why the change has been proposed is for clarity. The loitering ordinance is pretty clear about people, but doesn't say anything about materials. My question then is, why wouldn't we ask the council to revisit 174-1? Well, there have been complaints about the proposed change being a repurposing of an ordinance that, in its title, says it's for construction purposes. And so the only change that is being proposed is to eliminate the words "for construction purposes," so that it has general applicability. You don't, sidewalks are for walking. And so it would, the proposed change would say, a person can't block a sidewalk walk with materials period. And at least one counselor has and other people have indicated, well, a problem with repurposing this ordinance which was drafted in the construction context for general applicability, and they didn't like it. And that's, there was also a sentence that is proposed to be added that just clarifies more that the police department or the code enforcement office may enforce the ordinance. So the enforcement anticipated would be to direct people to move their materials from the sidewalk. There isn't any criminal enforcement that is contemplated. If anticipated enforcement would be as if the people wouldn't move their material from the sidewalk, if they refuse to, then there's a possibility of a small civil penalty for refusal to comply. The reason why the legal department prepared an alternative standalone for your review was in the, in the case where you don't think that proposed ordinance change strikes the right balance, or if you have a problem with it being repurposed, that's why. The standalone alternative was prepared for your review as well, and that one would be a new ordinance section 257-7 that would be its own provision, and it would say that as city sidewalks are intended for free, safe, and unimpeded pedestrian travel on them by members of the public, no person shall occupy, block, obstruct, or partially obstruct a city sidewalk or esplanade for the storage of materials. So it says the same thing that the other ordinance already says, but it's in its own section and it's prepared new. And because it was a standalone, we also added for clarity, the subsection A would say this section would not, does not apply to temporary lines formed on sidewalks in order to access a building or to persons wheelchairs or strollers occupying a sidewalk or esplanade in order to view upgrade, grade which is pretty much the understanding anyway under the other ordinance but it's in the standalone if that's if that's a place where you think might be a better balance to say that we think that we would recommend the standalone over the over the proposed change to the existing ordinance. We also put in under subsection b a specific revision about enforcement. It just says the police department will enforce this section. The first and preferred method of enforcing a violation of this section is for the police department to direct that materials be moved from the sidewalk or esplanade by the individual who placed the materials if that individual can be readily identified. That would be anticipated to be the enforcement that would be used. It doesn't go on if the individual is readily identified but refuses to move the materials from the sidewalk or esplanade. This draft says that person is subject to a civil penalty of not less than $50 and no more than $100. And then it also says in the event of a second violation within a six-month period, the civil penalty shall be no less than $100 and no more than $250. These are all civil penalties. And then the last thing the enforcement provision says in the event the individual who placed the materials cannot be readily identified by an on-scene police department officer, any applicable both city policy pertaining to removal of materials on public property may be followed which there's already a policy in that regard so it refers to that policy and in a way that could be also a future policy if it gets changed may I just interrupt with a clarifying question to [40:21] Speaker C (unidentified): this so we obviously have seen the you know executive summary that was in the obviously the original packet for the City Council you heard the discussion materials are and I'm paraphrasing this for all of us but also mostly myself the materials are the issue what you're saying is that 22 57-7 could be something that we choose to include that's creates more clarity because of those subsections because that and I'm so sorry if I missed it. That has that wasn't in the original, right? Council right now. Okay, I want to declare that. [41:04] David Szewczyk: For purposes of providing options, or alternatives, if you don't try, if your position is that you don't, you don't think the balance is struck the right way. Proposed change that was, you know, you could, you could recommend the proposed ordnance change. You could recommend the proposed ordnance change with suggested changes that you want to suggest. You could instead recommend the standalone alternative. You could recommend the standalone alternative with any suggested changes that you want to make. You could also recommend any other proposed draft that you might want to make. And so I just the standalone is for purposes of alternatives. But the only one that's in front of the council right now is the proposed one. Yes. [41:59] Speaker C (unidentified): Thank you, Dave. I just wanted to say that out loud because I think it's important for all of us as we're listening to this feedback to understand that there are alternatives, but it's also important to keep in mind. I think that Ben got to the real crux of the issue, which is what are we talking about here? Right, are we talking about obstruction of sidewalk and what the language is, which is to be clear what we are here to do, look at this ordinance in terms of accessibility of a sidewalk, however without it being partnered with a discussion or some sort of understanding that this is going to impact folks who are living close to a sidewalk, what other things might we need to include. So like you said, I'm City Solicitor David Szewczyk that an opportunity to include something that will talk about what the enforcement actually looks like or identify what that obstruction actually means is important. I know that I personally have some questions and thoughts that I would like to add, but I also recognize that I cut you off. off, Vice Chair Boyce. So if I just may, Betsy Lundy is now online and Catherine is raised. Thank you very much. Betsy, we're looking forward to hearing from you. Thank you so much for being here and being available. I will give the floor to Shane and then Katie's question and then we would love to hear your feedback and insight as well. Thank you. [43:34] Shane Boyes: Sorry to not let this go, but again, I'm going to go back to 174-1, 171, 174-1 does also have a definition section, 174-2 and 174-3, which is ordered to disperse. It says, when any person causes or commits any of the conditions enumerated in subsection 174-1 herein, a police officer or any law enforcement officer shall order that person to stop causing or committing such conditions and to move on or disperse. Any person who fails or refuses to obey such order shall be guilty of the violation of this chapter. Again, I don't know that we need to add anything new. It's already right here. And I understand wanting to put it under the sidewalk section. But I believe the current, like what is in there now, was specifically written for construction and interference with sidewalks. This is about loitering in a sidewalk, I would think that this would fit under loitering. So my, wish would be that in our response, excuse me, maybe we recommend to the council that we revisit 174 dash one instead of trying to add something new, which I get the idea of trying to make it more clear, but I think in the context of the entire code makes it more money. Because then you have two sections that are essentially saying the same thing with different language. [45:04] Speaker C (unidentified): But not saying the same thing. And how do you figure out like what supersedes which? Because this one comes with a $50 fine and that one doesn't. [45:11] David Szewczyk: This one is about materials. The loitering one is about people. [45:16] Shane Boyes: Well, it does say the creation of, so and items belong to people right items aren't going to just get up and walk into the sidewalk themselves they belong to people but we are here to talk about the material [45:31] Speaker C (unidentified): specifically and if we did that would be a whole other thing to readdress i agree [45:38] Carollynn Lear: with you that like it's sort of like you know which one could go to the other one and [45:43] David Szewczyk: and add materials for clarity, but that's but you could also add just take off for construction purpose on this one too. That's what that's what's been proposed, because it was a change, the substance of the of the already in the was already in it just, you know, so that was what was chosen. But it's not the only way that couldn't address the situation or try to balance the situation. But again, it's for purposes of clarity and it addresses materials it's the materials that i understand that the police department don't feel is particularly clear in the loitering art ordinance you know that it addresses materials yeah thank you katie [46:31] Speaker A (unidentified): How about we let Betsy go first because you might answer something I had a question on, so [46:36] Speaker C (unidentified): So I defer. Thanks, Katie. [46:40] Marie Robinson: Hi, thanks everyone for inviting me into the meeting and I'm sorry that I cannot be there in person. Can everyone hear me? Let me start there. Yeah. Okay, great, okay. I apologize that I can't be there in person, but I did really want to attend and have an opportunity to speak to this issue because it is really of considerable importance to the people who are regular users of downtown and also impacts people who are the casual visitor to downtown and it's a little bit challenging for me for the organization kind of the direction the conversation has gone because I will say that this organization has advocated for years for passable sidewalks and it has never been about unhoused populations and unhoused populations regulations belongings it's always been about sidewalk accessibility whatever the impediment is we spent three years advocating for snow removal of sidewalks in downtown and beyond downtown the walk zones for all the schools because we really believe that sidewalk safety and passability is an issue of equity for folks who don't have cars for folks who are too young to drive. In an urban environment, there's a lot going on at the city level and through multiple organizations to increase the walkability of our city and encourage people to get out from behind the wheel and be pedestrians in downtown and become commuters on foot. So I think this initiative really exists outside of all of these other issues that we are talking about and I and I do think right now as a municipality we have a tendency to look at everything through this one particular lens all that said I don't think you can say that this particular issue does not impact the unhoused population significantly at this moment in time so I don't want to pretend that isn't an issue as well but I do want to just stress that the issues aside and I will tell you too we also advocate annually with our you know public works department for sidewalk maintenance and repairs for broken bricks and for weed control and all the things that make it difficult and I know the question has come up is you know how often is this an issue and I can tell you that you know you although you don't hear maybe from all of the folks that it's impacting, it is a pretty common issue that we hear about, you know, that people have difficulty getting from point A to point B around Some of these physical impediments, which was why we introduced the ordinance last fall, was, you know, and I will say also too, not to jump all over the place, but we have tour operators who give walking tours of downtown and we have we probably give about 50 tours a year to people on American Cruise Lines. If you've ever seen them walking around, many of them are, I'm trying to think of the right word because I just met with Eastern Area Agency on Aging to get the right word because I was going to say elderly but I know there's a different term now that people are using, but people who are older and they do not, they do not, many of them use devices to get around, their scooters, there's wheelchairs, there's walkers, and for those who aren't using them very men, a lot of them, you know, they still have difficulty getting around. We had to work with them on issues of like where their little tour bus picks up and drop drops off when they first started coming, you know, kind of tail around and watch people walking and I remember seeing people spend about, you know, 20 minutes trying to get to the Bangor Historical Society from Main Street because that slight hill incline was so difficult for them to pass that they and we got them to reroute so that they could drop off at the top of the hill rather than the bottom of the hill. So we've been watching these mobility issues. And I will say for the tour operators who are giving these pedestrian tours, they do run into big challenges. The library is a shining jewel in our city. It has art galleries. It has a lot of historic artifacts. It's just plain a beautiful place and a place that we like to show off and that the tour operators like to show off. But it can be really difficult getting into and out of the library when there's when there's people obstructing the sidewalk, walk which actually was not as much of an issue last summer as it looks like it's going to be this summer and why we were so we've been so vehement about addressing it now because I think I do not want to see what happened on Cedar Street last year happen in front of the library, which is an even more heavily pedestrian zone and it does tend to escalate when you allow One, and we've seen it. When you allow one person to do it, then another person comes, and another person comes, and then suddenly you have this big, like, 20, 30 person issue to deal with. When in reality, if you had just told the first person, like, hey, you can't lay on the sidewalk here, you can't leave your belongings on the sidewalk here, it would have cut the issue off entirely. And so we're constantly advocating to the police department, because I would agree with, I think your name, with Shane, who is it? Shane, who is speaking earlier. Yeah, I think we have all the ordinances that we need on the books. For whatever reason, our police department does not feel comfortable enforcing them. And I think what they're really looking for here is direction from city council, who ultimately is looking to you for direction about whether or not we prioritize the accessibility of sidewalks in a way that they feel comfortable enforcing the ordinances that we have. And in fact, I will say that when we introduced, we kind of introduced two separate ordinance suggestions. One was about leaving property around, and the other one was about sitting and lying on sidewalks, which is a big issue. And it's kind of the two things are seem a little melded together here. You know, but ultimately for whatever, you know, whatever angle is taken, We really need to maintain sidewalks as passable for pedestrians. [53:35] Speaker C (unidentified): Thank you, Betsy. Thank you so much for that. Really appreciate your insight. And I wanted to punt it back to Katie. I don't know, Katie, if that answered your question. And then before we open it up, obviously, two additional questions over here. [53:52] Speaker A (unidentified): Yeah, no, thank you, Betsy. That was actually really helpful. I did answer part of my question, because I'm on this committee. I come from a healthcare lens. So I do know very much. I think about, you know, walkers, those with strokes, even those with children, you know, safety of sidewalks is so incredibly important. We don't want them falling, breaking anything or falling into the street. So I do understand what you're saying with that. And so my question is for Counselor Beck. I think he's over there in the corner somewhere. I missed the last meeting because I was sick, but I did see in the notes about you did have the homeless committee was created. And I don't know if this is, I know it's been established. Has anyone, have they met yet? Is this part of the agenda? Because safety is a priority, but I think this is multifactorial issue. And I do think that the homeless pop, the unhoused population on the sidewalks, is an issue that has to be resolved too. And so I know that's like sidebar, but I just curious if where we are with that committee and if this is going to be part of one of their tasks to look at to help with this situation. [55:04] Michael Beck: Yep, so we're in the process of doing the interviews to seat the committee. The way the ordinance is written, their first task is a long-term strategy, so before they can do anything else, as the word is currently written, you know, I guess if I understand your question is this something that could be referred to them, and I don't believe, and again speaking for myself, but my reading the ordinance is this is not something that you would refer to them. I mean, they may pick it up as part of their overall conversation about that long-term strategy, but it's not like something that we can just hand off to them, at least in the in their first year of operation [55:41] Speaker A (unidentified): until they finish that first task. So it sounds like it's going to take a while for the committee to be seated with the plans for strategy. So it almost sounds like there is a, I don't want to make anybody feel anxious, but it sounds like you know a summer coming that we have two issues simultaneously. We have sidewalk safety, which is a priority, but we also have those that are using the sidewalks for living conditions, which we also need to rectify. So if we can't go to the housing committee, who's going to be helping with this part of the conversation? Because I also, I know we'll get to voting, but I do feel very strongly, as the guest stated, that just putting on 50, 100, 250 fines is not going to solve the problem. So what is the next strategy for solving this issue? I don't think changing the verbiage of [56:51] Speaker C (unidentified): I fully agree with you. I do think that is the task at hand, right? Regardless of where we put the language, where we put the word material, sure that is our task, but I think that the council is looking to us to determine if there are ways that we can help shape this ordinance in a way that does feel enforceable, right? Right, to a degree, so that there is accessibility for all individuals who want to use a sidewalk, while simultaneously understanding that folks live near sidewalks and they do own things near sidewalks. And where is the balance of, I hate to use the word fair here, but like in terms of sharing this shared space, how do we make it so that folks have accessibility, flexibility, and ease of transportation, while also recognizing that I don't think any of us would be able to sit here in this meeting and say, you can't be here, but you have nowhere else to go. Not our problem, because that's why we're here, right? We want to create a holistic approach to creating equity for the city. So I think it's a little difficult, because at the end of the day, to Katie's point, we're not here to create a homelessness strategy for folks living near the sidewalk. We're here to look, is this equitable? What is the right, where's the right place to be [Carollynn Lear: right and] how do we suggest to council what those amendments might look like in a way that is very clear and enforceable, with equity and intent of recognizing humanity and not getting people stuck in a cycle of civil suits and incarceration and so on and so forth. Betsy, I see your hand. Mark was in the queue. I apologize. I'm going to throw that over to Mark [58:56] Michael Beck: and then we'll come back to you. Thank you. I think that in no way would anybody say that our sidewalk should not be accessible. I think that would be an absurdity. I think, as I'm understanding, I think that since construction materials have been removed from the issue materials, I think my hunch is that 's basically talking about materials that the unhoused folks are using and are having on the sidewalk. I think that maybe we need to define materials in a better way, or maybe we need to address the issue head on. I think as I was reading through these documents, I was, I was very disturbed, because each of the documents talks about unhoused folks can't be on private property, they can't be on public property, they can't be on property that belongs near another facility in the, in the city. So where do they go, you know? It's, I think we've seen that before, that each time a, an area was cleared, the folks moved to another area because they had no choice, that they have nowhere to go. So I think it, you know, I really echo what Katie was saying, that really it is two separate issues, and it would certainly seem to me that the issue of homelessness will Ultimately need to be kicked to the committee that's being formed. Formed. And if we were to define what materials are, I think it's probably a fairly simple determination. We want to have sidewalks accessible for all. [1:01:07] Katie Brydon: Thanks, Mark. Betsy? [1:01:13] Marie Robinson: Yeah, I just want to just keep trying to pull us back to the point that what we, I understand that issues of houselessness is something that needs to be solved and thought about, but I don't think that we have to wait on solving the issue of sidewalk accessibility. We don't have to hold hinge that on solving issues of houselessness. They're really two separate issues. One is really complex. There is no doubt people have been talking, I mean, I was gonna say people have been talking about it for years. But it's been an ongoing issue that has certainly escalated in recent years, let's put it that way. There's a lot of people working on that issue, but that doesn't mean that until we have a solution to one thing we should sacrifice another thing. We really have to think about what the intent of a sidewalk is, what is the purpose of a sidewalk, and if people want to change the purpose of a sidewalk, you know, we can look into creating ordinances that actually make them, you know, storage facilities, but I. Don't know that 's any, that's what people want to do. I don't think that 's the will of, will of the people. I don't think people want to make sidewalks impassable, and on some level we're really muddying the waters by merging these two issues. Thank. [1:02:41] Speaker C (unidentified): You, Betsy. Suzette, and then. [1:02:43] Adam Douglas Baker: Adam. So I do attend the Livable Communities Committee, which is a band work committee as well, led by Aim Creek. A big part of that committee is blockability of sidewalks and, you know, the importance, it's, it's Bangalore's designated Livable Communities City back in 2015. So people do walkability studies and how important it is for especially older people to get out and walk. I live in a neighborhood where a lot of people walk, people in their 80s walk every day, year round, and I mean, so I just think we need the sidewalks to be accessible for everybody, you know, to be able to walk. There was a woman this morning that had, you know, was obviously visually and player, had a cane, and she was walking by the library and almost fell into the street. So I mean, these are things. that are happening so I just think you know a sidewalk is a sidewalk it's it's meant to be walked on and also the library how much of the library is taxpayer funded by the city of Bangor taxpayers 70 so these are taxpayers that need access to their library I do hear from people that do not go to the Vanguard library anymore they go to Brewer and there is a fear there you know whether you think it's justified or not I think it's a valid concern and I think it's seriously impacting the Vanguard taxpayers everybody coming to bangor it's a serious issue a sidewalk is meant to be safe it's right here from the livable communities you know safe accessible well-maintained sidewalks are a fundamental community investment that enhances public health and maximizes social capital so it's important for a sidewalk to be walkable it's the purpose of a sidewalk and if the police need this so they will finally enforce an ordinance i think that 's important and i think i'm fed up and i think a lot of people I represent a lot of people that are fed up too that the sidewalk needs to be accessible handicap people I mean I've had people in my family in wheelchairs I thought that this committee is supposed to be about accessibility for those people as well so you know you have to have ordinances rules and laws and they have to be enforced otherwise it gets out of control and so I'm pretty adamant that this does need to be done and it needs to be enforced yes thank you yeah Adam yeah so I'm very conflicted with this I mean I get the accessibility part and I hear that but I also just feel for our homeless here I know it's a separate issue but like when we talk about materials and when we're talking about the sidewalk we're not talking about other things we're talking about people's belongings and another thing is that what happens when their things are taken and that's your entire life and they have nothing left and already what they don't have they lose everything that they already have and I would like to see something where they have they can still get their stuff back we're in some capacity in that but I mean I also agree about we need clear sidewalks as well but these [1:06:15] Carollynn Lear: are human beings as well so thank you Adam right is there stuff not allowed to be anywhere [1:06:26] Speaker I (unidentified): On the library property, or is it just the sidewalk? So the park and the sidewalk, we don't have any say so over. On library property, we don't allow unattended property, and so that could be inside the building or outside the building without a pleasure building, and there's a shopping cart. We don't just like take it through a dumpster or whatever like that, you know. We try to figure out whose it is, and we say, hey, you know, we don't allow unattended property, you know, we figured out, and sometimes it takes a couple of days. Sometimes people take and leave their shopping cart at the library for a couple of days, and when they come back, we're like, oh, okay, oh, that was so-and-so, you know, we didn't see them left. And for inside the building, we also have a practice, which is that we take property that's been left in the library atrium or wherever, usually the atrium, and move it to bins in the back, and it's that only area, and label what day it was left, and so then we wait a couple of weeks, and then we throw out the belongings if it's been a couple of weeks, and it was time for the belongings, sometimes. So sometimes people will leave behind stuff because they had to get away from a situation, they saw somebody, you know, they didn't want to be around for some reason, they might have really good reasons, right? So they head out, and they leave their belongings behind, and we want to make sure that we, I give every opportunity to reunite the property, but that's part of the reason I'm going on a length of this is that 's the kind of thinking we have to go through with a 60,000 square foot facility, right? Imagine a whole city, like there's a lot of thinking that's to go into that kind of program. And so it's important to do it. I think it's an important conversation to have, it's just, it is very complicated with It's a lot of work that we put in just trying to manage not just tossing people's belongings, but also not leaving them behind a letter in the atrium either. [1:08:43] Carollynn Lear: I think that we must consider one another as a collective, that basis of DEI and what our committee is here to do. So the concern regarding accessibility to sidewalks should be addressed. With that said, I'm in favor of either the amendment or our various options, which I have questions about. But I too am curious if there's going to be other conversations happening about identifying alternative locations. But I know that part of a grander conversation today. I think it's important that we do focus on the accessibility of sidewalks and in life. [1:09:34] Speaker B (unidentified): Lisa? I probably look like a tomato, but I just felt like I should share my thoughts. I'm a nervous talker. I think that it's honestly almost offensive to act as if this isn't an issue of the unhoused. I think that this is a direct result, and we need to see that, of closing their homes, encampments, and just displacing them and where are they supposed to go. I personally don't think that we can even address this until that's addressed, because to what a couple others have said and about the belongings, I appreciate that like you will hold on to them and the great links that you go through for that, but if this is like enforceable and they're not like you mentioned something if the police officer can't identify the person and they'll take next steps for removal, but this is like all they have. Like this might be like their entire home in like a bag, and I just don't see how we can address one without, I mean they're, I get again they're human beings, so I really just think they [1:10:39] Shane Boyes: need to go hand in hand personally. Thank you. Change, just want to say it feels a little bit like we've been put between a rock and a hard place here, because we can't, like there is no happy medium to this, right, like something's gonna have to give in one direction or the other, and we've been asked to figure out what is the least upsetting way to do that, and that just doesn't feel right. Like we can only make a recommendation based off of what we know to be true now, not what we anticipate may be true when there's a homeless committee, and I agree, like I don't think it's appropriate for us to participate in this at this point without having an actual plan for how to address what is the root issue. And I hear, I do want to recognize, I hear Betsy what you're saying, I agree. I think it's not just people's stuff, right, it's also like broken bricks and weeds that grow and trash that gets left by people who are just walking downtown and can't find a trash can, right, like there are all kinds of Factors that play into this, it shouldn't just be about telling unhoused people that they can't stay on the sidewalk. Yeah, right, like how would changing this impact if I wanted to go and protest in front of the federal building but on the sidewalk, which is city property? What if someone comes along and says you're impeding my sidewalk? But what's my First Amendment right protest? If I step out of the way, that might be good enough for me, but that person might say no, I feel unsafe walking past you. Because of what you're protesting, and there's just a lot of conflict here, and I don't think it's appropriate for us at this time to make a recommendation. [1:12:21] Speaker C (unidentified): And I, thank you Shane, thank you. And I do just want to say that the objective for tonight as a recommendation for our committee is to say, you know, we do not think, we have options, right? We do not think it should pass with this language about materials, or we can make amendments that are going to address a sidewalk issue while creating as much psychological safety and opportunity for folks that have their belongings near the sidewalk as possible. I fully agree that if we were to address this amendment as it stands, we do need to address what does obstruction of materials actually mean? What does obstructing it look like? For instance, the ADA recommendation is that you have 36 inches open on a sidewalk. That is the law in terms of how the individuals that use accessibility and mobility devices need 36 inches, okay, so we have 30, like do we say beyond 36 inches, you know, do we create specificities that make it feel enforceable for police to address but also recognize that like you aren't always going to be completely out of the sidewalk and sometimes you can't step into the road because that's more dangerous and if you do have your belongings is there a process of a strike system, you know, like instead of saying we told you once here's a 50 fine, we told you twice here's a 250 fine, is it a recognizable scaffolding so that we're able to identify help engage and what is what happens to the belongings, like I think that is a great question, we don't have to say yay or nay, we can say yes with these amendments, yes if we address these issues, no entirely, that's we're hearing all the different sides of this conversation because it's an important conversation to have and personally I think the entire reason advisory committees exist is because this type of nuanced in the trenches weedy conversations the counselors don't have time for this. So if they're going to be doing city business, they should have a really well thought out opportunity to hear from people who are living in this world, who understand the nuance and say, yes, here is a recommendation that's going to address the issue while still having humanity and understanding what those needs are and being specific in these pieces so that it doesn't just feel like a broad stroke, because that's what gets us into trouble. That's what gets us into lawsuits. That's what gets us into issues right when we don't have that nuanced definition and I think that's what we're here to do. I'm so sorry Susan I did see Counselor Lear with her hand raised as well as Betsy and I do obviously want to encourage we always encourage conversation from the general public during these conversations as well we have individuals here too so I and I want to keep us moving as well because the fact of the matter is this has already gone to first reading it's gonna go to second reading regardless of what like what we say we can say here's our recommendation we should say something though this is a great opportunity for us to be able to share something at second reading [1:15:44] Carollynn Lear: i just didn't want to lose the thread on the storage of property issues your packet does have a copy of the city's policy regarding the ordinance storage of property i think dave's new draft does reference the storage of property it references it that policy [1:16:03] David Szewczyk: or instance in front of the council now is just a slight change to an already existing ordinance [1:16:10] Carollynn Lear: and i would say just in my own opinion that might be a place where you want to make additional recommendations as well to say you know yes in addition to referencing the policy maybe the policy should say this about the storage of things you know okay it should you know for hours or duration of holding as sort of additional protections if that were something that was [1:16:36] Speaker C (unidentified): of interest to the same thing i did not mean to talk over you i apologize i just wanted to be clear that thread of property is just our general rule but it's not in the ordinance [1:16:50] Carollynn Lear: it is not in the order it's no this is a city policy that exists right I would give our own internal policies okay I'm so sorry city [1:17:07] David Szewczyk: solicitor subject it's not in the ordinance now the item to get referred to you is a proposed very minute change to an ordinance yeah the policy that counselor lear is referring to is an internal policy having to do with disposal of materials that may be in different places the ordinance change is not about anything having to do with disposal of materials the anticipated enforcement would be you know you have to move the materials off the sidewalk thank [1:17:52] Speaker C (unidentified): you, Betsy, and then Suzette. [1:17:56] Michael Beck: I [1:17:59] Marie Robinson: was just gonna say like a couple of things. One, when we launched our Ambassador program, one thing that really surprised us was that the city does have no policy on what to do with recovered covered on attended property because our ambassadors always defer to city policy on that. And that was, you know, the only city department that we found that had an unattended property policy was the bus, that the bat, which I thought was really interesting. But again, I still think that's a separate issue from what we're talking about here. I think it's really easy to get lost in the weeds. I think the city has been talking for a very long time about, you know, how do we, how do we help our houseless population going to continue to go on. I understand the inclination to want to defer to the moment when there's a solution for okay, if they're not allowed to store their property on a sidewalk, where are they allowed to store that, but that could be a year down the road, and that's a year fear of people not being able to walk down the sidewalk. And I understand that right now it is concentrated in front of the library and Harlow Street, but we're talking about all sidewalks, we're talking about not just downtown sidewalks, we're talking about all sidewalks everywhere in the entire city. And once you start to allow something to happen, it is going to increase, and it is going to escalate, and we've seen it already, and it's just going to get worse, and at that point you're going to have a really difficult problem on your hands. Right now I don't think that we're meeting ADA standards. If you look at, you know, Katie brought up the ADA requirements of 36 inches of passability, I don't think we have that in a lot of places and spaces throughout time. I don't understand why we can't prioritize, like, why there's only one groups, you know, perceived needs getting prioritized over accessibility for everybody else. And I don't know why the inclination is towards allowing the situation to continue and likely escalate for an undefined amount of time until some other solution is reached, because you are depriving people of equity when you block a sidewalk. [1:20:39] Adam Douglas Baker: Luck thank. [1:20:42] Speaker C (unidentified): You yeah thank you Betsy Suzette that was similar what I was going to say is about [1:20:50] Adam Douglas Baker: handicapped people accessibility I mean isn't just setting us up for a lawsuit because Americans with Disabilities Act I mean if you I guess I don't understand the reasoning either why would we want people to block a sidewalk I do I'm a regular walker I walk two miles pretty much every day in Bangor on the sidewalks and there is a homeowner that is creating a huge mess around his house and I know he's been notified by the city and he is going to you better believe he's going to encroach on that sidewalk if nothing's done about the this so I mean it's going to happen I agree Betsy throughout the city and then we are going to have a huge mess and that this is should be more about equity and like I said livable communities a big part of that is a walkability of the city you know like I said elderly neighbors that walk I mean the sidewalk is a sidewalk it has to be clear it has to be like we get you know if you put something on your sidewalk you're going to get a note like it's for sale or it's free you're going to get a note from the city that it has to be removed I mean you know I've seen that happen before too so I think it's pretty straightforward a sidewalk is a sidewalk it needs to be accessible for handicapped people that walk a lot of people do not have cars I have relatives that don't have cars they walk everywhere in Van Gogh so I think it's pretty cut and dry the sidewalk [1:22:15] Speaker C (unidentified): needs to be clear it needs to be accessible thank you for all people Katie go ahead [1:22:27] Katie Brydon: So as Suzette said we already have a solution they put tickets on mattresses that are on the side the road tickets on electronics that people put out in front of their houses there is a solution already we don't need to make more laws but I do think that there is a three-prong solution that you guys can suggest the city could set up a safe storage of property system where things are labeled they're safe they are delivered to the resident where they're at once they are located a day program that I believe the city was already referencing the other day, which we obviously know that the library is attractive to people. What are the things that we can replicate in a day program that would allow folks to be there instead of in the library? This is something we can do. As this is a moment of crisis and we want to move immediately, the council could move quickly and set that up. And then we need a safe place for an encampment for them. Where will they go? They ended up here because they closed the railroad tracks. Before the railroad tracks, they closed the Hope House. We have had them in places that are more remote and more acceptable, and we have gotten complaints. They will need a place to go. If we set up a safe place for them to be, then they will most likely if we make it attractive if we make sure that we have garbage disposal if we make sure that we have porta potties people do not want to be sleeping on brick as Ben said we could give them better options I don't think we need to have new laws to be able to do that I think a three-pronged approach it's going to cost money but it's already costing us money it's going to cost us more money when the police are going out and using their man hours to enforce something like this it's going to cost us more money when we have public works going out and removing these belongings it's going to cost more money and it's going to cause distress and then these belongings are going to be lost to these people and that's all they have anyway thank you I think there are solutions oh okay thank you good [1:24:50] Andy Hamilton: evening my name is Andy Hamilton I've been a 40-year resident of the City of Bangor, and just as I feel about institutions I'm affiliated with beyond the community, I think of this as our community, and I love the phrase, we've got to be thinking about the city as an integrated whole. I thought that was very expressive of the sense of inclusion of this committee. by the way chair members of the committee they're having an excellent discussion there are a couple things that to me bring it back to the question at bar and the question of bar is what to do about materials associated with folks who will be using the city sidewalk I happen to be fortunate enough to be over in the Fairmont District, and I drive down Cedar Street pretty regularly to get to work. There's a lot going on for downtown businesses in terms of access by their customers to the businesses, and we're feeling a bit threatened, and we're feeling like we're not being listened to. And so I like the fact that in this conversation, there's some sense that there needs to be balance of all the constituencies in Bangor. I think Betsy has done a good job of trying to bring it back to a focus on sidewalks. I would say that one of the most basic rights that we hold is the First Amendment right to protest. That's not the question tonight because that is protected. The Constitution makes that clear. Speaking of the Constitution, there is very recent Supreme Court precedent. City of Grants Pass versus Johnson. It is clear that communities have the right to say, you can't sleep, you can't camp, you can't loiter, or you can decide that you don't want to do any of those things. I like to think of Bangor as a community that was on the move. When you think about how we've had opportunities to bring public to this community, like the Waterfront Concerts. It's happened because there's been a shared community commitment to make Bangor a better place. I think we are facing one of the most challenging issues. My wife and I went to Australia and New Zealand recently. You see it there. There's a beautiful, I was telling Ben, there's a beautiful Victoria Library in Melbourne that is just gorgeous. There are issues there. It is because the library is a safe place. It's a place where there's resources. People like to read, they like to learn, they like to better themselves. But I think the sidewalk possibility question is foundational. It's part of having a civil society. I think Suzette said it well. If you're going to have a livable community, you've got to be able to use for exercise, for betterment, the opportunity to be on the streets. And I don't think this is a linear progression of this issue. My goodness, if it's linear, somebody's learned something about this that a lot of us have been missing for a long time about the unhoused issue. It's not linear, but if you don't take steps towards addressing the needs of the collective, come back to that, then the city is not progressing. And I don't want to be in a community that's not progressing. I want to see change. Change is not easy. It's sometimes very hard. But we need to change the dynamic. And yes, there does need to be a place to be able to serve the unhoused in this community. That is a very present question, but that can't be resolved in tonight's discussion. And the chair has done a great job of bringing the committee back to the question of what to do about the streets. Streets, and I think there are two aspects. As Betsy said, there's the aspect and Davis, there's the aspect of how people in their own conduct can affect the possibility of Streets. That's already addressed. I agree, that's already on the books. But there is this question of what about materials that are used by people, and I agree that has two prongs. I would not want my stuff thrown out. I don't care if it's in my house, if it's in my backyard, if it's in my garage, if it's on the street, and I have an opportunity to get it out of the street or the sidewalk without affecting the passability. What I think is important at this juncture is we recognize there is going to be a solution for how the unhoused are served in this community. I respect and appreciate the passion for serving the unhoused, but there is a present issue with materials blocking the sidewalks in public spaces, in public places, in public assets that should be enjoyed by all members of the community. Let's not serve one group to the exclusion of others. Balance. And I think this committee is doing a great job of resourcing, researching the issues of balance. And so I would come back to the question, could you give a recommendation? In response to the concern that we're making law, if I heard the city solicitor correctly, we're gonna delete three words from the city ordinance. That's not really making law. And the one tradition in the law that's really important is that the law should be accessible to the public. This, I think, takes a somewhat antiquated approach to just saying it's only construction materials that can affect passability on sidewalks. No, that's not true. That's not the modern experience. It can be anyone's materials that could affect passability. So I just wanted to applaud the committee for doing its work, for remembering that it's the collective. And so if we can balance the collective needs, I see the passion of this committee for a solution of the unhoused, that's coming. That's gonna be a tough one, but it's coming. And so come back to the question of the sidewalks and the possibility associated with materials within the sidewalks. Thank you very much for your time. [1:31:09] Speaker C (unidentified): I appreciate it. Okay, I know that we have so many discussions. I do just, I feel like this is starting to snowball and I think that there are, I see that there's another individual that wants to speak and we have set the precedent that individuals can speak. speak. But I want to be mindful of our time of the actual task at hand. So I would like to include the individual to speak because obviously equity and it's what we're here for. And then I would like to for any speaker that feels so sorry to have been stuck up here all night. If you would like to recuse yourself or at any means leave, then we can actually have a discussion about what our options are for either passage or amendment through this for the city's second reading next week hi I'm Acadia Miller I'm not a Bangor [1:32:03] Speaker B (unidentified): resident but I spend the majority of my time here so just to be completely clear we're talking about removing the term the words for construction purposes okay I just in my opinion and removing those words does kind of make it about the unhoused i mean like what are we really talking about here it does and because of that i have a major issue with the fine the whole fine situation the fifty to a hundred dollars could be devastating i mean and the unhoused population doesn't have that 's like yeah i don't i don't either currently it's like multiple days of food and i just i just disagree that i just think that removing that specific phrasing does make it about the unhoused population and that's all i wanted to [1:33:05] Speaker C (unidentified): say thanks acadia thank you mark yeah i had a couple of thoughts i'm sorry [1:33:11] Michael Beck: i think that i think that as a committee i believe we can make a recommendation to accept the language opening those two words and second the language that is indicating that sidewalks are need to be free of obstruction and that sidewalks are for everybody i would suggest that perhaps we change the word materials to property which i think is a more accurate description of it and i think then aside from that as a committee, perhaps we can at some point interface with the Committee on Homelessness. I was having a conversation with my son about this several weeks ago, and he said, why doesn't your committee meet with the folks in the Homeless Committee and try to produce some kind of document? And I thought that made sense. That's something that perhaps we could be thinking about in the future so that we're we're addressing that issue. We're not we're not sweeping under the carpet, you know. We're we're saying this ordinance, it makes sense for the entire population, but there is this other issue that needs to [1:34:49] Carollynn Lear: be addressed. Yeah, thank you, Mark, Theresa. I can be quick also because I know time [1:34:56] Speaker B (unidentified): time. But something important that I haven't heard and I forgot to mention, I'm a case manager in Bangor. I've spent time near CHCS and in that park right near there and near the homeless shelter and other areas, handing out business cards and letting them know what my agency offers. And I'm doubtful, I have to say, that many of the complaints are not just because unfortunately it is an ugly sight to see that people sleep outside in the elements. I think a lot of the complaints I would bet on it that are simply because of that. We don't want to explain that to our children. And I understand that. As someone who's lived here for over 10 years, have three children that I've raised here, we absolutely love it downtown. And we've had to walk in those difficult places. We love the library and how inclusive they are, honestly. And I have never had an issue with or have been fearful for my children. It's more of like hello and goodbye and we respect you, we're humans, you're humans. But that's how I raise my children. I think that and I understand this is it is separate and we have a little kind of a smaller task to work on than this is becoming. I recognize that, but I also think that I'm not seeing the issue with, you know, yeah, I remember when right near CHCS, right on the back end, it was kind of full of people and their belongings, a simple, excuse me, how's your day? How are you doing? Do you know if these resources available? And they move right over. I haven't heard of any cases and I'm sure we would have because people do like to blast the negative of Bangor. I haven't heard of any situations where someone was like, no, you can't cross in your wheelchair. And quite honestly, I don't believe that even happens. So I do feel that we're accessible. But I think we're accessible to all and we're not just focusing on the unhoused. I think we're just focusing on everybody. So that's all. [1:36:55] Speaker C (unidentified): Thank you, Teresa. Adam, did you have your hand raised? No, I did not. [1:36:59] Shane Boyes: Oh, this is not to I'm sorry, bringing it back to the language at hand is to in subsection 257 dash four, it currently reads license required to occupy right away for construction purposes. The council, the proposal is to just delete for construction purposes. Is that correct? Nothing in the body of the subsection would change. There's there was other than the addition of the importance of one sentence. Yeah, right. So in thinking about this from an equity lens, if you delete that it would then just say license required to occupy right of way. That implies that someone that can afford to get a license could then occupy the way i don't like i'm going to go back to what i was saying before and say i just feel like it fits more appropriately under loitering because then it applies to everyone right so if you can afford to be here you can be here but if you can't you can't so just looking at it from that perspective i can see why someone would be that and say oh well if I can afford a $25 license then I could do whatever I want in the sidewalk [1:38:28] Speaker C (unidentified): well also I just I think that this I think that to me the issue at hand right is language specificity because we could a hundred percent say no one's gonna do that but that's why this is that's why there's so many questions and so what feedback bubbling up right like we could say like they're not going to give you a fine right they're gonna use their humanity but unless it's explicit then there is this fear that it could be used to criminalize folks and I think that is what we are here to do it was pundit to us I wish I had a better word for pundit so thank you it was referred to us because these are the questions, again, that the city council is hearing. And it's our job through an equity lens to look at this and say, this language isn't specific enough, or this language is specific enough and it ought not to pass, or this language is specific enough and we agree with it. Those are our choices here. And while we've all shared our feedback and we've had lots of rich discussion, and I'm grateful for that, at the end of the day, we have three we have a choice of three and what we need to do now is either identify in that first choice of we would like to amend it with these specific language changes we need to determine what those specific language choices are or ought not to pass or pass as is but someone's going to have to make the motion for that and that's going to move us in the right Direction, City Solicitor, did you have something you want [1:40:19] David Szewczyk: to say before I was just going to address the issue of the license. The section would also continue to be applicable for construction projects. Those are the people that be getting [1:40:32] Shane Boyes: licenses, but the way it would be written it would imply anyone with a license just looking [1:40:38] David Szewczyk: at big picture, right, anyone in theory could go and try to get the license, but in reality it's going to be the construction projects that are going to get, you know, to block a sidewalk to construct some building that's going on, you know. [1:40:53] Carollynn Lear: I'm so sorry, Andy, I have to have you come up if you're going to talk. [1:40:59] Andy Hamilton: License doesn't imply that you pay for license fee. License is the right to use and it's revocable in the law, okay. [1:41:10] Speaker C (unidentified): All right, I want, I want to move us forward on this item. Is there anyone who feels strongly about making a motion in one direction or the other? [1:41:24] Shane Boyes: I agree, I think the language is clear, right, like it is very clear what has been proposed. I would move that we accept the language but encourage ought not to pass. All [1:41:44] Speaker C (unidentified): right, I am, I'm going to need a little help with the language choices of making that motion, if that were the case. And again, forgive my ignorance, but would it be appropriate for, is this where, if there is anyone that would like to maybe instead offer suggestions to the language to do that now before we make the motion? [1:42:08] Adam Douglas Baker: Or did you just think? Were you listening to that, Dave? [1:42:12] Carollynn Lear: Yes. The question was the procedure, given that he has made a motion essentially to recommend that council not approve, right, and now Katie's asking when would be the appropriate time for an alternative discussion about suggested [1:42:29] Speaker C (unidentified): language to amend, like if there was an individual here with who would like to say, you know, I think without specificity around what enforcement looks like, really identifying what the, you know, maybe be removing the fine piece of it, because that's the thing, like this doesn't, there's so many, there's so many what-ifs in here in the right in [1:42:55] David Szewczyk: the current ordinance the first thing that it says is that well the fine provisions are something that is used as civil penalties in the event that somebody refuses to, you know, remove materials. I heard a couple of things though, if there hasn't been a second on the motion yet, if you wanted to explore potential language to suggest for changes, I think you could do that. The other thing though that a lot of times when we're talking about procedure, it's often suggested that a motion be made in the Positive so that a no vote would in essence be that the that the proposed ordinance ought not to pass, and a yes vote would mean that we would be yes it ought to pass as is. Sometimes that's less confusing, and I'm not saying this is how you have to do yeah, but then sometimes it gets confusing if the if the motion is made in the in the negative, you end up with double negatives and such. So that's just what I wanted to suggest. I think that there could be explored possibilities for alternative language you can employ that now if you want, but if there's a second then you have to discuss [1:44:23] Michael Beck: you know whether or not i'll say i'll second the motion okay, but i have a question before you [1:44:29] Speaker C (unidentified): go. Sorry, i just there was discussion on the table before it was seconded, so i okay i wanted to give that opportunity. Thank you, i'm sorry. Well, i mean i got well before the [1:44:41] Adam Douglas Baker: second that i wanted to just make another motion, but i don't know if i can do that, just to approve just prove this, but we're still discussing the first one, but i don't really i don't think that language is clear, the motion that Shane made, i don't it wasn't really okay. Well, like but you [1:45:02] Speaker C (unidentified): don't have any other suggestions to i can make my own motion. Okay, well let's not let's let's open this up to any additional recommendations before we opt or not. I'm a little confused. Thank you so much Ben, that was really helpful, i appreciate it. [1:45:29] Carollynn Lear: Sorry, i'm confused by the promotion. All right, so the original motion made by Shane [1:45:40] Speaker C (unidentified): was that as it stands they referred to us, do you like it with having where was this construction removed and construction purposes? My golly, sorry guys, hold on. Do you want it with construction removed, and do you also want to include the part about it being enforceable? I apologize, i had a window up and now that window is gone. Let me tell you [1:46:10] David Szewczyk: what that sentence says if you want. Oh you have it right here, this is it right here, that's [1:46:14] Speaker C (unidentified): it. So this is the license required to occupy right-of-way, strike for construction purposes, and then add the police department and the code enforcement division shall enforce force this section. What Shane is saying that as is our recommendation to council would be ought not to pass, instead of us determining recommended solutions like city solicitor subject had in the additional, in 2257-7, he said that we could also include, you know, specificities about, you know, what, you know, why this Section doesn't apply to the temporary line formed on a sidewalk in order, and also what that enforcement looks like. And I do see value in specificities. Mark. [1:47:16] Michael Beck: Mark. I have a question for you, Shane. What is the reason that you are saying it ought not to pass as a recommendation? [1:47:26] Shane Boyes: Many. I guess for clarity's sake, I would just say that it is not clear. The language is specific, but it is not clear as to the impact on people in the current moment. because we don't know right like if we say yeah go ahead and pass this and then the police department begins removing everyone we don't know what their option is right and i don't feel that 's just looking at human rights it just feels like we're adding another layer of you can't be there if we say go ahead and pass it as is we're just saying it's okay [1:48:12] Carollynn Lear: to tell people they can't be anywhere. Yes, I think that, correct me if you want, I think we [1:48:21] Adam Douglas Baker: first have to have a motion if we're going to approve this or not approve, and then if we want to amend it that would be the second step, right? We have to first of all say do we approve this or the proposed you know ordinance amendment. Well the motions on the table [1:48:42] David Szewczyk: and unless Shane withdraws that motion there can't be a second motion. [1:48:49] Michael Beck: It has to just be one motion at a time. Yeah, thank you, that discussion of that motion and then presumably vote on the motion unless it's what you want. I'm not sure if the second's on the [1:49:03] David Szewczyk: table yet. The second, it hasn't been seconded. Then no. It's, can I second? Yeah, anyone? I thought [1:49:12] Speaker C (unidentified): that he did. Mark. Okay, Mark makes a second. Okay, open for discussion on specifically the ought [1:49:17] Carollynn Lear: not to pass. I [1:49:22] Speaker C (unidentified): personally feel like I recognize that as it stands there are too many variables that penalize individuals. I do think it's in our due diligence as a committee to offer recommendations, not just saying no. That's why we have this space to be deep in this, well right, where the council can't, where we can really identify, we all, you know, if you agree that this should not pass, then what is it, that's what is it hinging on, and are there hinges that we can fix so that it's more, it addresses the sidewalk issues but then it also keeps it, well it addresses the accessibility but it also doesn't penalize folks and doesn't just say it has to be yes or no, it can be specified. My mouth is so dry. I like trying so much water and specified is not a good word. Yes. [1:50:28] Adam Douglas Baker: For me, I would have the recommendation of having language to include our storage, like our storage policy, at least, at least have that in there. [1:50:45] Speaker B (unidentified): I just can, I just, I just feel like, yeah, I mean, I wish that we could propose another resolution, but it's, I think that we could be here for days doing that. I think that there's a whole other issue that needs to be resolved first. Where do we put people? Do we just tell you to leave? I just think it's very complicated. [1:51:08] Shane Boyes: I agree, yeah, I just want to join with you and say the fact that council gave us one meeting to solve this problem, it could seems like an impossible task, right, for us to do what we need to do well. We need more than one hour and a half long meeting. Can we come back? I don't know. [1:51:31] David Szewczyk: That the council gave any directive about what we need, but it will go ahead, but I believe that the council would probably request that you have meetings more often than you regularly do, you know, so that it doesn't, I believe that's what council would intend. I think that's a great idea. [1:51:58] Shane Boyes: The directive, sorry, is actually from Courtney's email. It says, this item will need to return to council next month so the committee should wish to make a recommendation. So should the committee wish to make a recommendation and will need to be done at Tuesday's meeting, I think, if I may, sorry, I think. [1:52:15] Carollynn Lear: That's because there's a sense of urgency, I think, behind this, and it has had first reading, but absolutely I think that there is opportunity for this committee to set another meeting for further discussion if that's what the committee feels in its best interest, and that would be a special meeting specifically to address amendments to this ordinance if we felt a need. Absolutely you could do that, yes, yep, and if I might add just, we could also, if folks on this committee need assistance in the interim with, for example, drafting or something, we could be a resource so that you're not coming sort of trying to pick things out of thin air and put them on paper not being sure that it would work in the interim. Room, thank you, and if I made, there was a question about when it has to come back to the second reading. I think the city solicitor is better at answering that, but what I would say is that it was referred to this committee for a recommendation, and so I think that there's certainly some flexibility in terms of the timing, but because of the sense of urgency, I would expect that if we were to sit on it, for example, for too long, that the council may request that it come back for a second reading with Or without a recommendation from the committee. So I would just, if you're looking to create that or set that second meeting, that we not wait until the end of next month to focus again on this, on this topic. When is the next council meeting? The next council meeting is May 11th, I believe. Yep. So there is [1:53:47] Speaker C (unidentified): there is opportunity to meet between here and there. So from a logistic standpoint, we would pass, we would vote on the ought not to pass, and then could we vote like, or you could withdraw the [1:54:00] Shane Boyes: motion. Yeah, right. I will withdraw my motion and make another motion that we need again at some point in the next two weeks. I withdraw my second. Thank you. Second the amended motion [1:54:15] Speaker C (unidentified): motion, which is that this committee meet before May 11th. Yeah, I think that we can certainly [1:54:26] Carollynn Lear: sit here and maybe schedule that while we're all here. Also, Katherine has her hand [1:54:31] Speaker C (unidentified): raised, just so you know, to be able to identify if there are amendments, which so hard to chair, not just about what I think. Yeah, there, if there's opportunities to dive into this and get a little bit more at it, and so that we all feel good about that [1:54:48] Speaker A (unidentified): recommendation, we can move forward. Hey, thank you for everybody. This was a great conversation. I do have one question for the pending meeting, if we have one, is there any way for the city manager or someone, I've been reading up on the ADA of sidewalks, and I think that is an incredibly important part to this conversation and what Bangor already has in place for ADA for the sidewalks, because they actually have rules about, you know, extending the sidewalk slope, things like that. So I would also want to see what type of infrastructure we already have for compliance, because I think that's also important in this conversation too, because we all agree to safety for sidewalks and keeping that in mind. Yeah, I'm sure Betsy maybe could help us with that. I don't [1:55:35] Carollynn Lear: know if she's still here, but now I'm interrupting. I just want to clarify, so are you looking for information about what the city does to comply with the ADA with respect to sidewalks? [1:55:50] Speaker A (unidentified): Yes. Okay, got it. And then if there's, because there's some new laws that got updated a few years ago, so have those been implemented? Because if there's ways that we can make recommendations, maybe we can play off of that a little bit. [1:56:09] Speaker C (unidentified): Suzette, in that language on sidewalks, does there have ADA compliance or any sort of mobility compliance online? Because I know when they did their full walkability survey a few years ago, that was [1:56:22] Speaker A (unidentified): And it would be helpful to read that too. Not like I'm trying to take over whoever does this for a job, but I just think we have to be educated too about this, you know. I take ADA very seriously, and you know, this is aligned with the conversation. Yeah, thank you so. [1:56:44] Speaker C (unidentified): We have a new motion and a second. We will need a roll vote. The motion being to schedule a meeting before May 11th so that we might give a more thoughtful recommendation. I will call names for a roll vote. Katie. I'll be there. Adam. Who's that? I'm at. Shane. Yes, thank you. Ray. Yes. Mark. Yes. Teresa. Yes. Baby. Yes. All right, unanimous passage. Thank you. With that said, let's identify a time for that. Are Tuesday evenings generally best [1:57:50] Adam Douglas Baker: for folks? I know birds like remain for good, so Tuesday. It's upcoming Tuesday, the [1:57:58] Shane Boyes: 5th. It's my daughter's birthday, so I prefer not to meet that day, but you call me without me. I don't [1:58:04] Speaker A (unidentified): have to be there. She doesn't want to celebrate her birthday, probably not like five, or you know [1:58:08] Carollynn Lear: what, she'd have fun. It is, yes, at some point in her life she's gonna have very good. Oh yeah, I could do any other day that week, but there's a day that also works for everyone else. I just [1:58:27] Speaker B (unidentified): can't do Wednesdays. Okay, or earlier than six, to be honest. That's right. I think there's going to [1:58:34] Carollynn Lear: be challenges next week with the council liaison having any capacity to participate because of budget meetings. Yes. [1:58:44] Michael Beck: Yeah, I'm not concerned just because, yeah, I really, I know like I'm gonna, this is your recommendation, so you don't need me for the discussion in [1:58:55] Carollynn Lear: that case. I might recommend Thursday, May 7th, if possible. There's a budget workshop meeting that night in this room at 5:15, but if this committee started at six, we would meet in the Paul Budney room just down the hall. Oh, sorry, the city council budget workshop with the school committee. Oh, it's not the Wednesday. Did we move [1:59:25] Speaker C (unidentified): it? And we've moved it so many times by calendar. What night is [1:59:28] Adam Douglas Baker: school committee? I believe this. I think it's the seventh. I [1:59:31] Carollynn Lear: believe it's not on the calendar for either of those days. So that gives me pause. What? On the public calendar, there's budget workshop on the sixth and seventh. Correct. correct white pocket oh are one of those the ones with the school yeah which is the seventh because i think the school committee meeting is on the six right okay well that won't work then [1:59:59] Shane Boyes: Monday the fourth there. [2:00:03] Carollynn Lear: are many nights or that's a committee night so staff would be like very limited I think we could probably on personnel committee meets on Tuesday so it's a very full schedule honestly Friday is the only day if you're looking at an evening meeting what about Saturday just go ahead and [2:00:32] Shane Boyes: schedule on the fifth and I'll just write up my thoughts and send them in [2:00:36] Carollynn Lear: and are you are capable handle all of Wednesday or is there a better is there [2:00:40] Speaker B (unidentified): a later time on Wednesday that you could my girls are gymnastics why is Wednesday the best day that we could do it we could do a makeup class yes Wednesday [2:00:50] Carollynn Lear: Wednesday we could make well then yeah let's do that yeah tomorrow and we're every other yeah it's not on the calendar yeah six would be great [2:01:06] Speaker B (unidentified): yeah we could do a makeup they've never messed or someone could take them or dad can take [2:01:11] Carollynn Lear: them yeah and six yes like this very badly i know well i forgot all right wednesday may 6 at 6 p.m in this one more paul bunyan room that's may 6th [2:01:28] Speaker B (unidentified): is that my sex yeah okay [2:01:29] Carollynn Lear: Okay. Wednesday, May 6th. At 6. At 6, right. [2:01:35] Michael Beck: 6 of 6. Yeah. Would it be possible, because I'm [2:01:39] Shane Boyes: assuming you're going to send an invite, a Google invite or whatever. Yeah, sure. Can you attach this document if you know where it lives, just so we can all have access to it? We'll also [2:01:50] Carollynn Lear: seek to compile the other information that we've heard as well, and make sure you get that ahead [2:01:56] Adam Douglas Baker: of time thank you so a motion could be made to approve it as written as well at the next meeting [2:02:05] Speaker C (unidentified): yeah and that's what we'll do we'll like because we have those three options and we didn't really get to dig into the first and then not meet it moving as to that so we could have idea [2:02:18] Speaker B (unidentified): i didn't want to are you sorry so we can bring ideas like sure this could pass but we need we should add this and say this so we should think of those other okay well yeah because i think [2:02:31] Speaker C (unidentified): that we had a lot of items that came up for instance what are the possessions what you know how can we clarify you know the if we need to readdress what the enforcement looks like that kind of thing here it's two settings are there any other people Spartans that we should be sure are here I love that question I personally feel like this was a really a lot of information receipt today and it kind of prevented us from making a decision and actually referring the item to council and I think I Would hate for us to spend a whole other hour and a half discussing. I think that we had some really rich discussion that was so helpful, but we have to identify what from an equity lens we think is most valuable and move forward in that [2:03:28] Carollynn Lear: capacity. So it sounds like that would be public discussion or yes, that's great. It will it would not be live the because the budget workshop would be live streamed, but it will be recorded and upload it to youtube after the fact, and a zoom link for remote participation would also be available. I don't want to just have that access to this one more yeah almost you [2:04:06] Speaker C (unidentified): may I make a recommendation counselor beck in the there was the thought that you might miss tonight's meeting and you wrote an email about the counselor liaison updates about what's happening which is always so helpful. Instead of making time for that now, would it be appropriate for you to email? Is that okay for us to just be able to sort of understand what's happening at a council level? Are you going to hold your hostage passage and read my whole thing? All right then may I have a motion to adjourn salute second thank you roll vote right yes okay I guess we don't need a roll vote then