GovOps approves fire grant, syringe pilot, and housing committee; tables arena contract

[0:03] Michael Beck: all right good evening this is the government operations committee i am michael beck i'm the chair of this committee joining me at the table our committee members councillor fish councillor dean councillor walker we've got councillor maleron zoom and myself also joining us at the table our city council chair haas assistant city manager formy o'donnell as well as councillor falloon and i guess let's go ahead and get right into it first item of business is an order authorizing a grant application to Versa Power Sponsorship Program in the amount of $7,500 for the purpose of purchasing a track kit for a fire department UTV. [0:42] Susan Deane: Yeah, I'm going to ask that Deputy Fire Chief Eric Pelletier join us. I'm sure he's a lot more excited about this track kit than most people. Good evening. [0:54] Unidentified speaker (Fire Department Official): So we have two UTVs right now that have rubber tires, and we're looking with this grant to put a track kit, so essentially replace those rubber tires with tracks, giving us a little bit more versatility, allow us to travel through snow, mud, and some other terrain that the rubber Tigers don't go through with that as easily, and also there is no local match for this grant. [1:17] Michael Beck: All right, any questions for the deputy fire chief? Do you need a motion on this? All right, I'll entertain a motion. Second, we'll make the motion. All right, yes, okay, do I have a second? You have a second. All right, any, we have to take a roll call vote because Council Mailers on Zoom, so we'll start with Councillor Mallar. Yes, okay, Councillor Fish? Yes, Councillor Deane? Yes, Councillor Walker? Yes, and I will be yes as well. Five yes, zero no. All right, next up we have a order authorizing the city manager to apply for up to 150 000 from the main cdc as part of a collaborative application to offer hiv hcv and sti prevention testing and referral to resources and we were joined by public health director [2:16] Jen Gunderman (Director of Public Health and Community Services): Good evening, everyone. I'm Jen Gunderman, Director of Public Health and Community Services. So the first, yes, so the first order that I have here for this grant application. So every so many years, the Maine CDC puts out an application for organizations to apply to do robust HIV hepatitis C testing. This was going on even before our HIV outbreak. We break the funding down into three different regions. Clinical providers, there's a track for clinical providers to apply and a track for community providers to apply. So we had a conversation with Maine General who has the region two and three Ryan White funding and with Penobscot Community Health Center who's based you know, in Penobscot and Piscataquisette County, about going in on a joint application for Region 3. One of the areas that our local health department, well your local health department has gotten really skilled in, is actually the distribution and the coordination of self-tests. This is one area of this RFP that is new, that hasn't been in RFPs in the past, we are thinking that the state who now gives out self tests are going to have it done by these funded operations. So in talking with me in general and Penobscot Community Health Center, everybody taking a piece, it was determined that because of our expertise in this area, that our part of the application could be around the distribution and coordination of self-tests this position this funding would go to fund a position to do that for the self-tests itself and then like many self-contracts there would be a percentage for indirect that goes towards all the indirect costs so what do you have here is a proposal There is a letter of intent that is due to the state of Maine tomorrow, but this is to get your approval, if you so choose to, for us to be part of that application for that [4:46] Michael Beck: particular area. Questions for the Director? I'll count to a finish. [4:50] Carolyn Fish: I was just going to make a motion. Okay. term okay i make a motion to authorize city manager to apply for up to 150 000 from the main [5:00] Michael Beck: cdc second thank you for a motion a second any discussion all right roll call vote councillor mallard yes councillor fish yes councillor dean yes councillor walker yes and i'll be yes as well five yes zero no so let's prove and that takes us on to the proposed delivery service pilot program [5:21] Jen Gunderman (Director of Public Health and Community Services): Yes. First, I just want to say thank you. I think this collaborative application really speaks to some of the things that we've been talking about here and that you've been talking about around coordinating and really maximizing every organization's skills and roles and not trying to do it all. So I just want to say thank you. We've put a lot of work into building relationships [5:41] Susan Deane: and this is an example of that. [5:44] Jen Gunderman (Director of Public Health and Community Services): Okay, so I think the last GovOps meeting came to you with a pilot lit proposal idea that you asked for further details on. So I'm providing that with you today. So the proposal, the overall proposal is that Bangor Public Health and Community Services gets completes an application and gets certified as a syringe service provider, otherwise known as an SSP. It would be specifically for delivery services of syringes for those, I am totally being upstaged by Kat Maller. I just want to say, this is a pilot specifically as a delivery service for people who are part of our case management services. This is not a brick and mortar. We're not operating a full scale syringe service provider like Wabanaki or Needlepoint Sanctuary. We are not offering mobile services where we pick a location on our schedule and people come. This is strictly for working with clients of police management who are unable to get to an SSP, and there could be provided with syringes. The other thing that this does do, to be fully transparent, and I mentioned this in one of on my last bullets, is that if we became certified as an SSP, if anything happened to any of the current SSPs, not that we want a HEAL repeat, but what we did learn from HEAL is that when one SSP has a significant reduction in services, we have a significant gap and it takes time to scale up. So this also allows us to have something in our back pocket if that ever became an issue again. I'm hoping it doesn't, but I'm just saying it would. The other thing that it does is there is sometimes funding that is only available for SSPs. For example, the Maine CDC put out an RFP in the past year for peer navigation services. It was only available for those organizations that were SSPs. So it also potentially opens up the avenue in areas that we may want to work in. So what I've provided here is a little bit more detail. One of the things that is missing here is a dollar amount, and I'll explain why. First, this would take no additional staff. It would be the coordination of it would happen with our infectious disease specialist that is was already paid by other non-city money. And the case managers would be working with their clients if they needed needles. So there's no additional staff that would be required. What we would do is if we got certified, we would work with Maine CDC to see what funding was available and what we could use. Because we would not be seen as a brick and mortar, what we would do is we would purchase needles and we would provide them to clients when they need them for as long as we have the materials. This is not a primary service. This is a supportive service. Yes. [9:14] Susan Deane: I think when we discussed this before you said that your provider would be probably visiting your client anyway you could provide it. Yes. But would it also be sometimes just a trip for it? Typically reason not. I mean there could be. [9:29] Jen Gunderman (Director of Public Health and Community Services): Be instances, there could be instances where a client calls and says, I just cannot make it to the SSP today. Is there a way that I can do an exchange with you in an urgent situation? Say it's Friday at 3.30 and they're about to go into the weekend. That would be an exception to the rule because our case managers, this is not their primary role. They are very busy with other tasks with clients, getting them to healthcare provider offices, getting them to have people work completed. This would just be an add-on service as needed and in situations where the case manager was doing something else and couldn't do that they would go to their primary responsibilities of making sure people are accessing services. The default is to get people through brick and mortar SSP. What we have seen is that people aren't necessarily able to do that in the. Time when. If. [10:24] Carolyn Fish: We didn't have this pilot program and then it became part of an ongoing part of the service that public health and community services would be doing in the future if there was a need or grants open as you mentioned there may be grants open as being an SSP that might not have been. I just would hate to see, I think that this is a great idea, I'm probably long overdue to tell you the truth. I just don't want to see somehow something we haven't thought of this going in the direction where the city in. Our public health and community service ends up being eventually because of the ties to grants so we apply for a grant or because there's a need for more SSP, they come to our community health services, that you now are taking more of the capacity of the other entities that are now working. Being kind of hijacked and using our staff, and then now you guys become a mobile SSP. [11:36] Jen Gunderman (Director of Public Health and Community Services): I 100% agree with you. And that, I think, to be anything bigger than this pilot delivery is a policy decision for the city. That would not be something that in any way would we look to make that type of a unilateral decision. That would be a decision to come back to the city council and say, this is what we're being offered. Right now, we can't do more than this. It's not possible. And this delivery is to fill a gap that's not being done right now. If one of the other SSPs is able to expand in that way, we can contract, right? Right? This is just a way of saying we have dealt with clients who have not been able to get to an SSP because they won't leave their apartment for many different reasons. We need a mechanism to be able to support those people. [12:26] Carolyn Fish: I agree. You see my concern. I'm all for this. I just have a concern about the future direction. [12:34] Jen Gunderman (Director of Public Health and Community Services): And I 100% agree with you. And whether it's about SSPs or anything else, after the past two years my mantra is like it does this really fit into our guardrails and we need to know how [12:45] Susan Deane: to say no thank you other questions for the director i'll [12:53] Michael Beck: say i guess what i'm concerned about is the kind of the state of funding for this right now i know that with the main recovery council there's a lot of talk about how the cdc is in the middle of a two-year cycle and they're reducing the amount of money that's available and it's not like they're creating any resources that's more under the field and apply then just taking the same amount of resources and dividing them up I guess for me I guess I'd like a little more a little more information about the actual gap like how many people need this service it can't access it elsewhere and how many needles do we think we're talking about and then until there's funding available who pays for the needles and out of what funding to come from so what I can say is the [13:37] Jen Gunderman (Director of Public Health and Community Services): the number of people is always fluid because people are moving in and out of housing all the time. Right now, it could be two people. A week from now, it could be seven or it could be one. It's a constant fluid motion. We would look to Maine CDC for the funding. That's what is the beauty of offering this in this pilot way just to our clients because if the funding isn't available, this isn't something that we have to do. This is something that we're going to make available when we're able to. We're not going to be seen as the place where people should count on to get their syringes. We have two brick and mortar SSPs to do that. This is just an option for our clients who may be stuck in a bind at the moment. Sure. [14:22] Michael Beck: So to that end also, I guess when it comes to the funding topic, because again, that is something that I'm concerned about. I don't want to create meet the HEAL situation by seeing another group not get funding depending on what we apply for. I'm sure that's a conversation we'll have at application time. Do you know how long it's going to take to get the certification, like what the process involves? [14:45] Jen Gunderman (Director of Public Health and Community Services): It's basically a document that you submit. It goes through a number of pieces. To be honest with you, if you approved this today, this would actually not be on the top of my priority. Like a day space RFP is on the top of my priority list. I would say maybe by the end of the summer would be a time that we would maybe have an application and by getting your approval today would just give me the ability to start working on something and engaging in more deeper conversations with me and CDC. [15:16] Michael Beck: Sure. And we've talked before about the fact that you know, like you brought the situation if one provider, something happened, we're not able to make that, you know, I'd hate to see the process have to start then as opposed to already having it. I guess the last question I have is about the people who have the need today. From what I was told is that you're as you're seeing them you can give them needles now if they need it and that's worth looking into if you know again I don't know for sure but it was apparently decriminalized I forgot the [15:51] Jen Gunderman (Director of Public Health and Community Services): bill number. Right. So that is true. The only reason why in the state of Maine, you can give out needles, there is no anything stopping. Being an SSP through the state does a couple of things. One, there is some quality assurance in that there are certain standards that have to be done, you have to have certain training plans in you have to have. And also, there's a difference between giving needles and providing SSP services, which also include counseling and testing, referral to services, education. It's much more robust than handing out needles. The other thing is that it does unlock some funding. And the funding landscape is not awesome in any direction. I will have to say, SSPs have been funded by the state for kind of a long time. So I don't have a crystal ball, but will all the funding disappear at some point? I mean, it's, we're in a different landscape, but I don't know if we keep worrying about sort of what we don't necessarily have control over at this moment, except what we know is that there are occasionally people that we work with as our clients that have a need, and we'd like to be able to fill that need as a, not at any moment, not to replace the brick and mortar work done by two SSPs. [17:15] Michael Beck: Big friends question. Any other questions for the director, Counter Walker? I'm wondering. [17:21] Angela Walker: So the needles that are going to be through case management that are going to be delivered, will you be picking up emails? Yes, I did read a small portion of the funding helping with the disposable containers and stuff, so I was curious about that. And do you, is there a high number of participants who have barriers right now? [17:46] Jen Gunderman (Director of Public Health and Community Services): Every participant has significant barriers in terms of syringes. It's not a high proportion. [17:54] Angela Walker: And does case management there already offer transportation like appointments and those kind of things? So what is the barrier that [18:03] Susan Deane: they would have in terms of like Robin Acme or Needlepoint? So there's a couple of barriers. [18:12] Jen Gunderman (Director of Public Health and Community Services): So one of the transportation barriers is we have two case managers and we have one vehicle. And so what absolutely takes priority are medical appointments, housing appointments, running around and getting IDs, like that takes precedence. That is already challenging with just one vehicle between two case managers. In addition to the transportation issue, there are people that what we have seen as once they get housed, do not want to leave their apartments for a host of different reasons. And so that's, that's the group that we have become concerned about. [19:00] Angela Walker: How were they getting before this idea was about, how were these particular participants getting their needs met? That's [19:11] Jen Gunderman (Director of Public Health and Community Services): not information that is shared. Any [19:19] Michael Beck: other question for the director on this item? I will entertain a motion on this. Yes, and really just, I'm asking the motion really [19:27] Jen Gunderman (Director of Public Health and Community Services): is, are you okay if I put in an application, who knows what will happen at that point? [19:33] Susan Deane: So be in order authorizing the application. [19:37] Carolyn Fish: Okay, motion. I make a motion for approval of making an application for the pilot program for spin syringe service. Second. Any other discussion? All right, oh yeah, Council Fish, I would just like add to that, you know, I think there would have to be a layer of, you know, your outlines great, but if you do get approved and you get your certification, I think we need to apply these boundaries to it in the future, but [20:11] Jen Gunderman (Director of Public Health and Community Services): And I'm guessing what would potentially happen is if we got the application and we were approved and then got funding, I'd have to come back to you to get an order to get that funding. So there's many more steps here, yeah. [20:26] Michael Beck: And I would just add one more thing too, is in the memo it talked about the education involved with proper disposal. Anything that public health learns about the education process and what works and doesn't work for people to share with the other two. Absolutely. I think we'll all be better for it. So okay, well we'll take that vote now. Counselor Maller, yes. Council Fish, yes. Councillor Deane, yes. Council Walker, no. And I'll be yes. That's four yes, one no. So that will move on to council and that moves us on to the next item. Resolve authorizing the city major to accept an appropriate 250 from the Maine Primary Care Association for providing an educational presentation about the ROSE program? Yes. [21:12] Jen Gunderman (Director of Public Health and Community Services): So our public health nurses provided a presentation to Primary Care Association, which is the entity that oversees federally, not overseas, but provides support to federally qualified health centers in the state of Maine. So our public health nurses provided that and the Primary Care Association would like to provide a $250 stipend. That stipend, $250 actually could go pretty far to help support the Milk and Cookies program. Program that's held at the library. Questions. [21:42] Michael Beck: For the director on this item, seeing none, do you have a board on this one? Okay, I'll entertain that motion. [21:53] Carolyn Fish: We authorized to manage it to accepting for 250 dollars. [22:01] Michael Beck: second okay we have a motion over a second roll call vote count for mallard yes counselor fish yes counselor dean yes counselor walker yes and i'll be yes as well five yes zero no thank you all right that brings on our next item nominations for maine municipal associations 2026 the 2028 legislative policy committee yeah so this is for the upcoming [22:28] Susan Deane: Session and so I believe the process would be nominations, it goes out for voting in June and then folks would get started on that committee starting in January and it is about to your commitment and so I do think that this dovetails kind of nicely with the legislative committee and of course this is what helps guide MMA's position on the bills that come before the state legislature and so it's a rather large committee because of the representation across the other municipalities in Maine but of Course, you know, having Bangor being sort of such a large portion of the state, we do think that there's value in participating in it. Okay, good questions. [23:13] Michael Beck: Do we have a name in mind for some of your nominee? Nope, just spitballing here, because it's not my time to give away, but I understand we have a brand new legislative committee with a brand new chair by the name of one person, Councillor Carson. What do you think about the possibility of you being the nominee for this? [23:39] Daniel Carson: I call him. He'd be interested. [23:43] Michael Beck: You would be interested? [23:44] Daniel Carson: Yeah, I would. But I think to Assistant Manager O'Donnell's point, this is a really important opportunity. And, of course, we'll be having a legislative committee meeting after this one, where we'll talk about, I think, the purpose of that, but one of the things that's routinely come up besides advocating to fill gaps, advocating for ourselves, really is we're the third largest city in the state, and we have not yet appropriately thrown our political weight around statewide as we could. And I think this is a great opportunity to let our voice be heard, to collaborate with our sister cities, to work with elected officials from all across the state, and really designing credible policy for MMA to continue to advocate for. I mean, it's an extremely credible body to be part of, so 100 [24:39] Michael Beck: % okay. Any thoughts on the nomination? [24:45] Carolyn Fish: Second your nomination. I [24:49] Susan Deane: would move to place Councillor Carson on the nomination form for the Maine Municipal Association's Legislative Policy Committee from July 2026 to June 2028. [25:03] Michael Beck: Second. Okay, we have a motion, we have a second. Any discussion? We'll call vote. Councillor Malheur? Yes. Councillor Fish? Yes. Councillor Deane? Yes. Councillor Walker? Yes. And I'll be yes, so that's five yes and zero no. Congratulations and thank you. Okay, well that moves on to our next item in order authorizing the city manager to enter into a five-year contract extension with Oakview Group for the operation of the Cross Insurance [25:39] Susan Deane: I'm back. Is Doug on the panelists? [25:46] Wayne Mallar: I am here. Oh, wonderful. Perfect. [25:50] Susan Deane: All right. So we're here before you to discuss the next stage of our relationship with management group, which has since its construction managed the Cross Insurance Center under an original contract. Contract and then several contract extensions. Doug and I started talking about our next contract extension this January. Doug has proposed two options for us, one that's a three-year extension and one that's a five-year extension. The primary differences between the two options are that under a longer term, Oakview is offering us a lower monthly management fee as well as a considerably more substantial capital investment into the Cross Insurance Center. In addition to those two differences, there's really only one difference compared to our previous contract with Oakview, which is the addition of an incentive-based compensation component for gross food and beverage sales. So this contract would compensate Oakview equal to 2% of gross food and beverage sales. And in exchange for that addition, the fixed management fee is actually lower than it was in the last contract. If it's structured in such a way that if food and beverage sales stay flat,, they will net the same amount of compensation. But if food and beverage sales grow, Oakview sees an upside. And I think that's a really good deal for the city because if food and beverage sales grow, the city also sees an upside, which is I think overall what we want because of the landscape. Doug's on the line. He planned to be here but had an emergency meeting and then of course Jake is actually in the audience of who is our on-site manager happy to answer questions. [28:31] Michael Beck: Do we have questions from the committee? So I have a lot of questions but I'm and I'm sorry I didn't circle up with your brothers before it's I'm wondering if some of these questions are actually better answered in an executive session with staff. Okay to have some concerns about the contract itself. Okay so I don't that's something that we would want to go into executive session now to discuss or would this something we I know this contract is up next month so there's not a lot of time to fiddle with this. So that in mind what does this committee what do you think would be the best course of action here? I guess I think my threshold [29:19] Susan Deane: threshold question would be do you think these are questions that we are going to have the answer for you know off the top of our head or do you think these are questions that we're going to [29:30] Michael Beck: need to track down? Some of them may be different. Most of it's about negotiation. Okay about how these terms came up and regarding you know potential or fee. Okay yeah I'm happy to go [29:46] Susan Deane: In to executive session to address that particular. I'm happy to answer that, or is there any objection [29:55] Michael Beck: from the committee to have a discussion in executive session just to get these questions answered tonight? Sure, we would need a motion. I'm trying to what MRSA this to be 4056 [30:26] Angela Walker: If we're going to an executive session, I'll need to be able to get in. [30:31] Susan Deane: We can actually probably just pick just two of us. Yeah, okay, but this is, oh yeah, so yeah, you'd still need a separate, yeah, it's [30:52] Michael Beck: looking for the which one to put it under, so it'd be [31:03] Susan Deane: the real property, economic development, or legal counsel, not sure. Those are the citations, yeah. [31:22] Michael Beck: Maybe he'd probably be the best because it would potentially put us at a substantial disadvantage, yeah. [31:31] Susan Deane: But we would need Dave to be in on that one, okay. So I guess maybe that means that we should schedule that then at a later date, okay, and [31:45] Michael Beck: then I'll get you all the questions. Yeah, sorry, earlier kind of like this afternoon kind of thing, so apologies for that. So I guess I would need a motion then to the table until the [31:57] Susan Deane: next scheduled, or well, since we have Doug here, does anyone else have other questions that we can work out? Oh, [32:13] Daniel Carson: is there Council Carson on that committee? Thank you. I just, I'm curious about food and beverage sales, yeah, what those numbers look like. Do you, do you want to answer those, or [32:24] Susan Deane: do you think that actually, so I can talk to them generally, but sorry, I gotta come to the table [32:36] Unidentified speaker (Venue/Event Manager): but I can kind of generally talk about what that means. Close the sales from our concessions and catering at our venue, so for all events when we are selling concessions at in the arena, selling catering for private events, the convention center, it would be the gross revenue of those combined sales that we track around financial reporting, the traps. I don't have the total number in front of me at this moment, but that's something that we keep track of kind of [33:07] Susan Deane: on a that by that basis and then i think doug was gonna have the specifics on what all of the various components generated in compensation for the last year so i don't know doug if you have the two percent food and beverage stat handy or the gross food and bev yeah carol and i do and [33:33] Wayne Mallar: And again, I apologize to the committee for not being there in person. As Carolyn mentioned, I have an emergency budget meeting at our corporate office. So, again, apologize for not being there. The answer to the question is just to go through some of the numbers compared to our current base management fee. This new proposal has us taking about a 40,000, a $40,000 a year haircut and taking that money and realigning it with food and beverage sales again with the thinking, the thinking is that the more food and beverage we sell, whether it's at concessions or in the convention center through catering business, it aligns, as Carolyn said, with the city's goal of making sure that the facility is active. So again, we make money as the facility is active, you know, along with you and our projection for fiscal 27. Of that two percent is forty one thousand dollars. Again, what we tried to do is give back money from our current base fee, which is again just that, and give us the ability to make that back with food and beverage sales. So if things are flat, our fees honestly remain flat, and our goal obviously is to grow the business overall, grow food and beverage, so that we all make money together. [34:53] Susan Deane: My question is just the original contract was 2012. I went with Oakview. Was there an RFP at that time? There was, yes. And have there been any RFP since that, or have we been, we've been extending contracts, we've been extending, and I think that is probably the exact conversation that counselor about, okay, that's just where my head was going there. [35:19] Michael Beck: Are questions I had, so there's another question I can ask. So who sets the price of the food and beverage, like who says that? Overview does, Overview does. Because my question would be why gross and not net, because we're also, you know, given an incentive based on how the bottom line is, so it feels kind [35:42] Susan Deane: of like a double net. Yeah, all right, do you have thoughts on that from a business model, so gross versus net? I mean, obviously it would be a higher gain if you were to do that because your base would be smaller, but [36:01] Wayne Mallar: again, I can tell you this, you know, from our standpoints, you know, the group that proposed it proposed it on gross because again that's big, that's on volume through the door. Certainly we would be willing to have a conversation on that, and as Carolyn said, obviously, we would look to have the percentage be higher, but would be open to having that discussion. And [36:30] Michael Beck: the other question I had was about the surveys. There's an incentive there for surveys are over a certain percentage. It's a third party who does it, which comes out of operating costs. Is this the survey, is it just given to everybody who walks the door, or how is that survey disseminated? [36:55] Unidentified speaker (Venue/Event Manager): Jake, you want to answer that? So I can speak from an event standpoint. We do stuff, we use surveys to any client, every client that comes in our building and to patrons, so public facing and private facing, if you will, and we kind of gather all that information. It's anonymous. It's patient facing. It's anonymous to the client. Obviously, it's more anonymous or talking to them directly. But yeah, we do send out surveys for every event. [37:27] Michael Beck: Okay. My thinking on it is that your group is the expert on hospitality. And I'm thinking along the lines of 80% is the baseline. That's where it should already be. And we would just expect that, you know, and I would say there'd almost be a performance issue if it falls below 80, but it sounds like it's never, we would hurt if there were never felt before, so that's not really a starter, but at the same time too, the, you know, 10 on top for hitting 90 percent just through this system, you know, I don't know how comfortable I am with that, and I don't have other, you know, bids to compare to like that, maybe state, you know, industry standard for all I know, you know, so forgive my ignorance on that, I just don't have anything to compare to, so that's kind of where [38:17] Susan Deane: I'm, I'm at with this, and have, I think you'll know that off the top of your head, how frequently year to year had you been compensated based on four did [38:36] Wayne Mallar: Carolyn, you broke up a little bit, but I think, yeah, asked how often were compensated based on the scores, and it's an, it's an annual review, a compilation of all the surveys that have been done for the, for that fiscal year [38:51] Susan Deane: but over the course of the life of the contract, which is now 13 years, have you received compensation based on customer service for most years, every year since we opened [39:07] Wayne Mallar: and we've been over 90 each year, again, we inserted this in the original agreement with the city at the city's request, again, just so that we're all aligned as far as customer service and our standards are the same. So, Councilor Beck, your question about the 80%, again, we've been above 90 since we've opened, and again, would be happy to have some additional contractual language about that to satisfy. [39:34] Michael Beck: Sure. The other contractual language I'd be interested too is about data. You know, all of the ticket sales, and, you know, Councilor, who owns that information? Is that proprietary to just your company, or does the city also own that data? [39:50] Wayne Mallar: No, sir, you own all the data, all the financial information, all the ticket sales information, that all is city of Bangor. [40:04] Michael Beck: Any other questions from the committee? I don't want to take up all the time here. The other concern I had too was about the $500,000. The way it's set up is, you know, it's upfront, which is great, but it also kind of locks us in. In because if we say hey, for two years this isn't working the way it's written right now, you know, we owe you 300 000 back and you know, and also it gives us 30 days to pay us back and I'm, I guess I'm raised to the committee the issue of kind of with that high exit cost, does it block a future RFP? You know, if we're feeling that maybe we could go in a different direction, you're just as it has been so many years and again I like to the party on this and you know it's the council's pleasure to just move forward. I'm not gonna waste everyone's time, but with an executive session I just, you know, want to make sure that you know we're doing the best for taxpayers here because the last question I'll ask tonight is about the way that works with the, you know, the bottom line, you know, and again, you know, I'm not as versus I probably should be in the Cross Insurance Center, so it was kind of shocking to see it operate at such a loss. You know, I didn't know that. Yeah, you know, I had an idea there was always budgeted to kind of break even, you know, so it's just kind of weird to see the incentive like hey, as long as you don't lose as much money, you know, this is, and that's not a reflection on the company at all. This is what the city asked for, this is what it is, but I'm just wondering if there's any kind of, you know, regarding services [Susan Deane: Yeah.] Like a, yeah, there any service level protections in the words don't as far as you, if it comes down to an end of the year, the suddenly you cut cost by letting people go to the last quarter or something, you know, is there any kind of a service level of protections against that, you know, just to make sure that doesn't, yeah, get artificially well [42:25] Susan Deane: i 'll i'll start by saying i 'm with you when i joined i was surprised as well and i think part of that relates to you know sort of like what ann was saying about the central kitchen is it to make revenue or is it a community asset that we maintain for the overall bank or ecosystem and i think my perspective is that the approach to the cross center has been more in the vein of that this is a community asset that we really try to break even almost, as opposed to generate revenue. But when economic factors hit us because we're trying to break even, like the pandemic, and I think we continue to try to recover from that, it winds up being a loss. That being said, I do think, and Jake and I have discussed this before, and I think sort of this proposal to start compensating as a percentage of food and beverage reflects this, I do think there is space to be a bit more thoughtful towards the potential upside, or at least being a bit more forceful in our desire to break even and not have the cross center operate as a loss. I think there's there's space for that for sure but I just don't think that has historically you know coming in fresh and hearing from folks then the approach that the [44:10] Daniel Carson: city has taken to that asset thank you to that point and the line of thinking which I agree with I also sort of look at this that way would it be accurate however to also suggest that we miss out on a lot of opportunities with the cross center because we as a city lack other types of space for example somebody who wants to bring a convention or a large event to van gogh but we lack the hotel space to house them and so then we lose that opportunity right so i mean like i like in yes loving that we operate that as a service but there would it would still be accurate to suggest that there's plenty of space to grow if we start answering some of the other challenges that sort of hold us back from. Yeah. Okay. [45:03] Susan Deane: Dr. Flu. I'm not on this committee, but is there a, and this may be something to answer when we [45:11] Jen Gunderman (Director of Public Health and Community Services): have that RP conversation, but this is a general question, so you might be able to answer it. [45:16] Carolyn Fish: Is there a limit to the number of times a contract can be extended or can it just happen [45:24] Susan Deane: like that is council's decision so theoretically if you wanted to extend it over and over and over again that would be within your perfect your [45:37] Michael Beck: questions i mean i guess i'd like to see a motion to go forward to see because there may be support i don't want to hold this up because of just one concerns and maybe this is the conversation we have towards the next time you know so I would entertain a motion on this item actually [45:57] Carolyn Fish: maybe we could take a consensus I think there's some important questions in some answers we're still sort of waiting for so I don't want to say let's you know just move forward with the contract with those missing the answers because I think we brought up some pretty significant questions and I want to make sure I understand [46:21] Susan Deane: Seeing the questions, or questions, so I have as a takeaway, we want to have a conversation about the RFP and why we aren't going to RFP, and I think that's a good question, happy to answer it. Are [46:38] Carolyn Fish: there other questions? I think there were, there was a question about, I believe, the percentage on the sales net versus gross and council back. I think there was one. I will use that, you know, I should have been writing them down, but I thought there was one [47:02] Michael Beck: other significant. So I had questions, do you examining the 500,000, how that works, the survey, that was, you know, that was it, thank you, yeah, the survey piece as well, and then also service level protections as far as, you know, how do we get to that line, you know, just making sure [47:23] Susan Deane: On the $500,000, I mean, the $500,000 is for the life of the contract. And so yes, I think you're correct that if in year three, we wanted to exit the contract, act the concern about paying two hundred thousand dollars back to Oakview would certainly be a component of the discussion that we would have to have. I think probably the reverse is also true, you know, for Oakview, which is if we were in breach of contract and they wanted to exit the relationship in year one, they was feel not great about not being asap for their capital, so in my mind that one sort of operates in both directions, in both directions. [48:26] Carolyn Fish: So should we make a motion to table this but for a short time until we can, it sounds like these answers, yeah, or maybe with further conversations with you, may be able to come back to us with some answers. So I guess that I would propose we table this until a short, not too long, next we've got to have the contract, the lease is done by what was the date, June 30th, June 30th, June 30th, so the next, the next meeting I'll probably what I'll do is have a special [49:08] Susan Deane: on the next meeting and we can schedule an executive session to answer these questions. [49:23] Michael Beck: Monday the 11th, okay. [49:34] Carolyn Fish: I make a motion that we table this item of the lease with your group until May 18th. [49:44] Michael Beck: Working table, yeah, we have a second, we'll do a roll call vote. Councillor Mallar, yes. Councillor Fish, yes. Councillor Deane, yes. Councillor Walker, yes, and I'll be a yes, so that's five yes or no for tabling. Well, thank you for coming. Thank you. Thank you. All right, and then that leads us to the last item of the night. The ordinance amending the code of the city of Bangor to create a standing committee on housing. [50:17] Susan Deane: So this was a feature of our discussions this last fall and winter when we were considering a combined committee, advisory committee to address homelessness and affordable housing. The pleasure of council was to ultimately bifurcate those two concepts and to prioritize the conversation about an advisory committee on homelessness. You are now well into the depths of interviewing for, before, but we still have hanging out the opposite side of that coin, which was the advisory committee on housing. This is the draft of that advisory committee that we had discussed way back then. It hasn't changed at all, although I expect that similar to the homeless advisory committee who have thoughts and input on it but the structure is largely the same as that advisory committee just to address housing and I'm sorry looking for your direction and feedback on whether this is something you're ready to move on and then if yes. What is your response to me reading [51:42] Carolyn Fish: again through this ordinance in the chapter is in my mind, really clear this up separating the two, because even though housing is part of the our homeless, there's so many other complex issues around homes. And with housing, there are different set of complexities around funding and the missing middle. So I think there's a piece of each one that will be integrated with the other. But separating them, this seems much clearer. I think our goals can be much more precision for each one. So I read this. Nothing's really stood out. I like it the way it's written. It was much more clear to me. I felt much more comfortable. Yes, that's [52:46] Michael Beck: comments I had a couple I Really like the same flexibility we gave to this committee as far as you know listing out positions But also say not limited to so, you know, we don't have to come up with this exact nine Set, you know, we may find some different expertises that work together so it really gives the council some flexibility they're kind of like what we have with the homelessness committee on the ex-officio positions i'm just a question for the committee is you know does it make sense to also have a fourth ex-officio for planning officer or you know because it'll be a lot of zoning or is that are we comfortable leaving it off and just have it be a call them in as needed kind of thing [53:34] Daniel Carson: council what i think call this needed is appropriate i think that gets i mean please correct me if i'm wrong i think that just gets way too to the needs for this okay [53:45] Michael Beck: I agree, okay, all right. And then on the section for meetings, quarterly report, quorum, and then cause for removal is, I don't think we have the actual cause for removal in the paragraph out there, so you might like it, you may need to slip a d in with you have to have to do with you know whatever says the charter about removal, you point to that part of the charter or something. And then I do appreciate the fact that under the mission we've got the door for referring things to this committee, the other question would be is does the committee feel any need to insert any deadlines for any of this work or just are we going to trust it to this committee to work at a pace that works for them. [54:38] Carolyn Fish: Councilor Fish. I think it'd be hard for us to set a deadline without knowing what the project issue is. So I think as those projects and things we refer to them or that they come up with to bring to us, we should maybe leave it open because we can go to them as we can come something up with something we want them to have input, put or they might want to come to us so I think us inserting a deadline without knowing what the project is going to be at the time would be might be you know be more of a detriment than [55:15] Michael Beck: an asset well that's then yeah the only thing I would have to point out then is just the cause for removal piece anything else I'm happy with any other questions comments so how do you want us to proceed with that do we want to take a just wait till you bring it back again with one [55:35] Susan Deane: more draft or then or I would say I would defer to you on your level of trust in my ability to fix the d issue if you're if you're confident that my draft will be appropriate then I would say let's take a vote on it and we can get it on the agenda for monday okay yeah I'll entertain a [55:56] Carolyn Fish: motion I make motion that we amend the code of the city of bangor to create an advisory committee on [56:03] Michael Beck: health second we're going to have a second see no more discussion let's do a roll call vote counselor mallor yes counterfish yes that's our dean yes counselor walker yes and I'll be a yes that's five yes zero no so that'll move on and I just want to say to this committee I'm very thankful for all of the work it has done on both the homelessness committee and now the housing committee I hope you're all very proud I'm very proud of what we've done here