Bangor council advances homelessness committee, delays immigration ordinance

[0:56] Susan Hawes: Good evening. It is 7 p.m. and we are about to start the regular meeting of the Bangor City Council. Thank you all for being here. We start all of our meetings with the Pledge of Allegiance, and I've asked Skip if he will lead us in that. We say goodbye to the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, [1:25] Michael Beck: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Skip. [1:41] Susan Hawes: Now for the novel. This is the portion of the meeting set aside for general public comment directly related to city business for matters that do not appear on this evening's agenda. Public comment requires a person to state your name and whether you are a resident of Bangor. The City Council has adopted a public comment policy that we will adhere to. Statements during public comment should respect the dignity and seriousness of the proceeding and individuals will be restricted to speaking once. Obscene, truly threatening, or overly repetitive comments will be deemed out of order and will be interrupted and removed. Topics that are considered out of order also include matters that are in litigation, individual employees or employee groups discussing matters for which complaint or grievance procedures are in place, personal disputes between the speaker and another resident not germane to city business, support for or opposition to any candidate for political office, and personal complaints pertaining to individual city employees. There is a time limit of three minutes per speaker, and the total time allowed for general public comment regarding city business will be limited to no more than one hour. The public comment period is for City Council members to listen and not to respond or debate with persons. If you do not live in Bangor or own property in Bangor, please allow those who do to have the opportunity to speak first. If you'd like to offer comment on any item directly related to city business not appearing on the regular agenda, you may approach the podium. Individuals who have appropriately pre-registered to give public comment via remote means will be given the opportunity to participate remotely. Alternatively, councillors may be reached via email at councillors at BangorMaine.gov. A link to the adopted public comment policy can be found on the city's website, and just for information, it would be much appreciated if people in the audience do not do a lot of talking when the speakers are up there. It is disruptive and we can't always hear up here what's going on, so please, if someone else is speaking, please be respectful of that and hold down the comments. And I do have to apologize, there was one evening that someone, I didn't even see them the first time, the next thing I know they're really getting at it. We can't do that, it's not appropriate, so just we'll enjoy the evening of public comments. Thank you. So with that, who would like to speak? Oh [4:39] Public commenter (Nadeed Makov): My, hi. [4:49] Public commenter (Paul Mador): i'm paul mador from the fairmount neighborhood let's talk about the disparity in quality and cost of living between a bangor homeowner and a k-part resident as a homeowner i first of all pay about 2100 per month on my mortgage which includes about 300 per month in property taxes i pay an additional 250 or so each month for electricity the bigger portion of which is fees, which are fully within the control of Augusta Democrats. In the winter, I pay about $300 per month for natural gas, which heats my home, to Bangor Natural Gas. My water and sewer bills are separate for some reason, but together total another $200 per month. To get my family of five around, I pay $500 per month in car payments. To stay connected to the world, we pay $100 for internet. To stay connected to each other, we pay another $260 in cell phone bills. We spend about $200 per week to feed our three children. That's about $4,500 per month for a half decent life in Bangor. Meanwhile, due to a criminal background, which is nowhere near as bad as some in your body, the best I can do is work in minimum wage job pumping gas. Fortunately, I'm a disabled veteran and that compensation covers a portion of our bills. According to Zillow, your policies have allowed the average rent for a two bedroom apartment in Bangor to climb to sixteen hundred dollars, which does not generally include utilities. Your property taxes also impact the rental market, as landlords really have no other choice but to pass on the cost of tenants. While more public and affordable housing is needed, there is plenty you can do to attract builders and incentivize landlords to lower the barrier entry, but you knew that. Now on to Cape Heart Residents there have told me the maximum rent is roughly 925. Some of them pay close to nothing in real terms, the rent figure, this rent figure includes their lights and heat. They do not pay for repairs on their townhomes, and you can earn up to ninety five thousand dollars in living k part by nature of disqual, by nature of qualifying for housing. Many of them also qualify for a lot of other assistance to include free cell phones, and did you know the Bangor Housing Authority also offers for free car repairs all at taxpayer expense. Certainly not every k-parter is paying maximum rent. Erstwhile when I drive there to visit my niece, I can't help but notice a lot of nicer newer vehicles parked in the driveways. I know for a fact there are people living there that the government has no idea about, working good jobs but not reporting their income as part of the household income. I'm told that a woman for example will sign up for as a single mother with no income, then move in her boyfriend who has an income and never report that change. There is significant criminal activity there that goes on as well under the radar somehow, despite dedicated police officers, which is a shame. While I do not begrudge anything to anyone myself coming from extreme poverty all my life, I must call for a summary audit of all k-part leases. All details must be verified, particularly who is living there and where [7:52] Susan Hawes: or if people are working. Similar, that is your time. Okay, thank you. I'm [8:09] Public commenter (Katie Ko): Katie Ko, I'm a Bangor resident. I would like to discuss 99 Farm Road and the fact that is being built out as an ice facility. I would really appreciate it if the code enforcement and city manager rather than approving a detention center as an office space would push back on that as much as they can. It is home to a child care facility and fields for kids, and the fact that they are saying that there might be storing explosives and incarcerating our friends and neighbors in this space is just appalling. Thank you. Thank you. [9:03] Public commenter (Nadeed Makov): I chased them all away. Way. Hi, my name is Nadeed Makov. I'm a Bangor resident. I don't expect my name to get right up there. I'm also here to speak about 99 Farm Road. A lease has recently been signed to establish a federal Customs and Border Patrol and Immigration and Custom Enforcement facility there. While the federal government is to be the tenant, it's leased by a private individual. And the actual architectural blueprint is showing something completely different from an administrative building. It's going to be having a detainee room, an interview room, supply with one-way members, dedicated weapons storage and weapons cleaning facilities, and a specific structural wall blocking built specifically to secure handcuff bars. As Ms. Koh mentioned, there's child care facilities, the fields for kids, also Beale University there. And this simply is also not zoned for the Bangor's urban service district does not permit detention facilities. So this is kind of like a bait and switch. We're like saying it's going to be administrative building, but really going to put something else in there. So I would really like to see zoning enforced on that, and really a serious review on that. Now I've got plenty of time. Hi. [10:28] Public commenter (Mitchell Cooper): My name is Mitchell Cooper. I am a homeowner here in Bangor. I also want to have an investigation into 99 Farm Road. I don't think I have any more details in addition to what Katie and Andre have already presented, but I would like to call out that last year when we were discussing the resolution that there were comments made that ice was not operating here in Bangor. This facility shows explicitly otherwise. So I think it's time that we do something about it. I would like to see an investigation into that building and so the permits to ensure you know that everything is working on the up and up and that this is you know not something more nefarious than what it appears, which is already pretty nefarious. That's it. Thank you. Good [11:25] Public commenter (Yashka Winterling): evening council. My name is Yashka Winterling. I'm a resident of Birch Hill Estates here in Bangor. I would also like to just quickly address 99 Farm Road. Andre and Katie and Mitchell have talked about the details. I would encourage code enforcement to just please look at the way it is zoned, whether that actually fits with the intended purpose of the facility that the applicant is proposing to build. Some of the plans from a layman's point of view, it does not seem to match the way that this building is zoned. So I just strongly encourage anyone that could do some further investigation into that. [12:42] Public commenter (Larry Danziger): I'm, excuse me. Sorry. I hope my voice will hold. My name is Larry Danziger. I live on Mount Desert Drive in Bangor, and I despise ice as well, but that's not why I'm here. I'm here to talk about something called the Urban Garden Tour. And that's something that we've had for three years now and going on a fourth year this coming July. And it's something where people can go around, see different gardens and get excited about growing their own. So, and I want all of you here to get excited as well. So you can try and show your excitement in any way you possible, okay? And the gardens that we have here are big ones, they're small ones, there's flowers, there's vegetables, there's fruits, there's herbs, there's a mix, a mishmash and a mix of all these different kinds of things. And we have about six gardens, six or seven in the morning, six or seven in the afternoon, and we encourage people to go around, check out as many of the gardens as possible. It's all free and go be this year hopefully July 18th with a backup date, rain date or snow date of July 19th. So and I'd like to ask a quick question of all of you, which is better, to grow grass that tastes horrible and you have to keep cutting it all the time, or to grow vegetables or fruits or flowers that are beautiful and tasty, even some of the flowers are, so you know, maybe you can have a discussion about that afterwards. So and I have a several asks of the council here, and we have been working with Bangor Beautiful by the way, and the tour is sponsored by Food and Medicine, and they have a number of gardens around Bangor and Brewer as well. But the asks are for you to endorse the Urban Garden Tour, which is just gardens in the cities of Bangor and Brewer, so an endorsement, a statement of support would be really nice. Another would be to announce the events perhaps in a one of the mailings about from the water district or something like that would be great, we could supply that little quarter page or some small announcement. Third request would be possibly to have Bangor is the Bee City, although I'm not sure if there are any beekeepers in the whole city, but there certainly are lots of gardens, and I hope the gardens would be another endorsement to support that. And by the way, there's, although it's owned by the county, the county office building has a lot of grass in front of that building, and there's a big white elephant right across the street from that would be an incredible opportunity for the city to demonstrate that Mr Danziger, your time is up. Okay, I just want to, you went over already. Okay, just want to say there are seeds that the city uses. When you're done with them, we give away seeds. You could give us seeds, we'll give it to people in the garden tour. Thank you. My [16:37] Susan Hawes: name is Barbara Mann. I'm a resident of Bangor Gardens, and I'm here to kind of talk a little bit about out the new parks and recreation building that is being considered at a cost of 78 million dollars. I'm, I'm not against having a new parks and rec building. I can't do this now, Arbor. It's already on the agenda, so it would be better, are you staying for the meeting? Yeah, okay, it would be better if you talk about it when that item comes up. Perfect, thank you. Thank you, sorry. Don't apologize, it can be confusing if nobody from Bangor is stepping up and you want to come up. [17:35] Public commenter (Nathan McCarthy): Okay, good evening Bangor Council and City. My name is Nathan McCarthy, and I represent a company called Solar on Earth, who's talking tonight just briefly about some solar farm projects that we represent with a company called Nexamp. I'm not sure if anyone, If anyone has heard that name before about four years ago, I had a awesome privilege to work with a gentleman named Jerry Heyman, who passed away, who really put a lot of work into working with the Bangor School District. And we were able to get the school district connected to one of our solar farm projects that we ended up building over in Bar Harbor. It took a little bit of time to build that project because it was kind of a lot going on in Bar Harbor at that point. But the school district is finally getting credits from these solar farms that we represented on all the school district's electric bills. And we have about 15 projects that half of them are operational and half of them are near completion that are, you know, between Penobscot, Hancock and Washington County. And we have old electric bills that we got from the city right after 23 when we had completed that project with the school district. Right now, at a minimum, the city is spending around $2.3 million per year on electricity, which is a significant amount to spend on electricity, regardless of what kind of entity you are. The solar farms that were interconnecting into the Banglore hydro district have the eligibility to credit about 966,000 of that 2.3 million dollars per year that the city spends on electricity, and at a minimum, the city would save a little over two hundred and two thousand dollars per year by getting onto the same program that the school district is on. Part of the meters would get a 25 percent discount, and then another portion of those meters would get a 20 percent discount. It's a pretty open-ended agreement we already have because the city has a great credit rating. The city qualified to get a one-year agreement, so it's a one-year agreement to get these credits on your bill. If the city says, hey, we'd like to continue saving two hundred thousand dollars a year, it would just auto renew. So the city would be looking at saving a little over six hundred thousand dollars in the course of three years, which the city could allocate those funds plenty of other places. Then back to the utilities who made plenty of money over the course of the agreement that we have with the utility company. Over 20 years, the city would say between four and 5.7 million dollars per year. I don't want to just come and talk about the financial benefits if the city did opt into to this program. If you go on the city's website, the city was looking. I appreciate your time. Is [20:53] Susan Hawes: there anyone else wishing to speak from Bangor? We have a gentleman who would like to speak. If not, come on up, sir. Hello. [21:11] Public commenter (Neil Erickson): My name is Neil Erickson. I am not from Bangor, as has been established. I'm from Hancock, drove over today for your fine meeting to also talk about 99 Farm Road. Regardless of your position on ICE or your political stance, it is a matter of due diligence, legality, and following the laws established by your counsel. The USD zone does not permit detention facilities. 99 Farm Road falls within a USD zone. The USD zone that 99 Farm Road is in, excuse me, the blueprint for it has reinforcements for handcuff bars and a detainee room. A detainee room means detention facilities are not allowed in USD zones. From this, I call upon and others here in the room, the council, to please instead of rubber stamping these permits as they come through, immediately halt the permits and review them, as well as hold the landlord word accountable, as though the federal government may be the tenant, a private local property Owner is the one who pulled the permit. They must comply with the exclusionary zoning laws just like any other developer in Bangor. Thank you. Thank you. Is [22:31] Susan Faloon: there anyone else seeing [22:38] Susan Hawes: no one else approach we will my [22:45] Public commenter (Patrick): name is Patrick. I'm a resident of the Bangor Historic District and I'm also here to object to the ICE facility at 99 Farm Road. Let it be known that in the last five months at least 23 people have died in ICE custody. The Associated Press has published credible reports that staff at the nation's largest ICE detention center are placing bets on which detainee will next kill themselves. A detention officer in Louisiana pleaded guilty to abusing a woman in detention. Prosecutors stated the officer abused his position to facilitate contact with her daughter in order to secure sexual abuse over several months. Many of these detention centers fit the definition of a concentration camp to a T. Let us be clear. ICE is a paramilitary force being warped and weaponized by a fascist regime. We cannot afford to go about business as usual. It shouldn't matter if they followed every process to a T. We are morally obliged to do everything in our power to prevent human rights violations from taking place in our city. Thank you. Anyone [24:07] Susan Hawes: else? Okay, seeing no one approach, we will move into public comment. Public comment? Yeah, we just did the consent agenda. Madam Clerk? [24:19] Carolyn Fish: I just wanted to note, we did have one individual registered for general public comment, but they do not appear to be signed on. [24:26] Susan Hawes: I don't see their name on there. Okay. [24:30] Lisa Goodwin: Minutes of Bangor City Council regular meeting of March 9th, 2026, and infrastructure committee meetings of January 21st, 2026, and February 18th, 2026, and business and economic development committee meetings of December 15th, 2025, January 5th, 2026, and January 21st, 2026. 26-111 Order Authorizing the Execution of a Municipal Quick Claim Deed for Real Estate Located at 50 Sydney Street. 26-112 Order Authorizing the Execution of a Municipal Bill of Sale for Real Estate Located at 317 Cedar Falls Mobile Home Park. 26-113 Order Authorizing the Execution of a Municipal Quick Claim Deed for Real Estate Located at 1973 Ohio Street. 26-114 Order Authorizing the Sale of Property at 240 Grove Street in the Amount of $57,000 to High Xavier Nguyen. 26-115 Order Authorizing The city manager to accept $9,530 in funds in one firearm as a result of a state criminal forfeiture, Rains, Sawyer, and Ventimiglia, 26-116 order authorizing the execution of a contract with CNC Lynch Excavation LLC for sewer system maintenance and repair, 26-117 order authorizing the city manager's appointment of Richard Cromwell as human resources director in the execution of an employment agreement. I [26:03] Susan Hawes: move approval of the consent agenda. Second. It has been moved and seconded for approval of the [26:11] Susan Hawes: consent agenda. Is there any discussion? Any objections? Seeing none, the consent agenda will have passage. Referrals [26:26] Lisa Goodwin: to committee and first reading. 26-118 ordinance amending chapter 165 land development code to comply with new state laws LD 1829, LD 427, and LD 997, first reading in referral to planning board on April 7th, 2026. 26-119 resolve authorizing the city manager to accept and appropriate 426,533 dollars for the rural health transformation program nutrition education program from the University of New England, first reading and referral to government operations committee on April 6, 2026. I [27:06] Susan Hawes: move these items be referred. Second. It has been moved and seconded that these items be referred to committee. Is there any further discussion? Objections? Seeing none, the items will be referred. [27:23] Lisa Goodwin: Unfinished business. 26-094 ordinance amending chapter 165 land development code district map to rezone a property located at 26 Walter Street from urban service district [27:36] Susan Faloon: to urban residence 2 district. Council of the Loon. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Madam Chair, I move passage of item number 26-094. This ordinance would amend the land development code district map to rezone the property at map lot 025-143 located on 26 Walter Street from urban service district to urban residents to district. The total area requested to be changed is approximately 0.11 acres. The applicant and owner of record is Naha LLC. This area is in within the growth boundaries shown in the 2022 comprehensive plan and the future land use map in the plan shows this property in the urban neighborhood area, which consists of medium to high density residential neighborhoods surrounding the downtown and encompassing most of the city's historic residential areas, with limited commercial institution institutional uses that are complementary to the surrounding residential uses. This item was reviewed and unanimously recommended for passage at the planning board meeting on March 17th, 2026. Second. [28:51] Susan Hawes: Okay. Ordinance 26-094 has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, it is an ordinance. We'll have a roll call vote. And clerk. Councillor Beck? Yes. Councillor Carson? Yes. Councillor Deane? Yes. Councillor Faloon? Yes. [29:12] Lisa Goodwin: Councillor Fish? Yes. Councillor Leonard? Yes. Councillor Malheur? Yes. Councillor Walker? Yes. Councillor Haas? Yes. 9 yes, 0 no. [29:23] Susan Hawes: Ordinance 26-094 has passage. 9 yes, 0 no. [29:31] Lisa Goodwin: Next item. 26-095, Ordinance Amending the Code of the City of Bangor to Establish Chapter 46, Employee Authority in Immigration Matters. Councilor Beck. [29:41] Michael Beck: Thank you, Madam Clerk. This ordinance establishes clear limits on the City of Bangor's involvement in federal immigration enforcement, consistent with federal and state law, in order to prioritize public safety, community trust, and the responsible use of municipal resources. sources. The ordinance makes explicit that Bangor does not operate its departments, programs or public safety services for the purpose of enforcing federal civil immigration laws. It affirms that city employees will continue to comply with all valid federal and state laws, judicial warrants, subpoenas and court orders and will continue to cooperate fully in the investigation and prosecution of criminal activity. What this ordinance does is draw a firm line between local public safety responsibilities and federal civil immigration enforcement. The ordinance is grounded in a public safety rationale. When residents are afraid that routine interactions with local government could expose them or their family members to immigration enforcement, they are less likely to report crimes, seek emergency assistance,, cooperate with investigations, or access basic city services. This ordinance is intended to preserve trust between the city and the people it serves, which is essential to effective policing, emergency response, and community well-being. Furthermore, this policy ensures that Bangor's limited tax dollars are reserved for local safety priorities rather than being diverted to unfunded federal enforcement mandates. This ordinance affirms that Bangor's role is to keep its residents safe, uphold the law, and ensure transparency and accountability in the use of public resources, not to serve as an extension of federal civil immigration enforcement. This item was reviewed and recommended for passage at the Government Operations Committee on March 2nd. The Government Operations Committee discussed this draft ordinance at March 2nd meeting. After discussion, the committee voted not recommended passage of this draft ordinance due to the legal concerns and administrative challenges with the city implementing a distinct local framework governing employee engagement with immigration enforcement officials when a new similar state law is expected to take effect in July 2026. Instead, the committee recommended council pass an order directing the city to begin complying with the state law immediately and to formalize a written procedure to assist staff that recommend order appeared on the previous agenda. Actually sorry, just real time at it. Madam Chair. I move that we postpone this item until the April thirteenth city council meeting. Second, it has been moved and seconded. [32:33] Susan Hawes: that this item be postponed to the April 3rd 13th meeting. Is there any discussion? Any objections? Council Beck. [32:48] Michael Beck: Just saying sure just to clarify my position on postponement, I do have some amendments that address some of the legal concerns that were alluded to in the executive summary that I'd like to provide this week and give everyone a chance to look it over before we take up this item again on April 13th. Okay. We have people. [33:16] Susan Hawes: I see you, sir. Yeah. If you're gonna speak, please come up here. [33:30] Public commenter (Joe Garcia): It's Joe Garcia. My wife and I are taxpayers in this town. I've asked repeatedly if you pass this thing, are my tax dollars going to be given out an aid to illegal aliens? It's a simple question no one seems to be able to answer. That you've already passed the state version of it, why are you wasting more time or postponing things when you're going with the state version already? Seems to me with so many other issues in Bangor you got better things to do than putting this, you know what, if push comes to shove and the federal government says hey you're not our friends, you could always say look it's the state law we're following so talk to them. When you pass this you just set a target on yourselves saying that oh no this is a local thing. Okay so keep that in mind when if you keep postponing this you simply I'll simply keep showing up and keep reminding you that this doesn't make sense and that you cannot guarantee that my hard-earned tax dollars is not going to be going to someone who's here illegally. Plain and simple I've told you I'm a member immigrant we waited two and a half years to leave Cuba after the government gave us permission to leave Cuba. Why? Because they told us, hey, yeah, you can come here, but it's not your turn yet. So all these people who jumped the fence or were flown in by Biden or whoever, they have no reason to be here collecting money, especially hard-earned taxpayer dollars. Thank you. Thank you. [35:05] Public commenter (Katie Ko): Hi, I'm Katie Ko. I'm a homeowner and a resident of Bangor and I already spoke to this but I really look forward to seeing this ordinance come back up on April 13th and I really hope that it's editing keeps it effective and keeps our neighbors safe thank you I'm [35:36] Public commenter (Paul Mador): Paul Mador and I object to any ordinance with flouch federal law or it obstructs justice bottom line we're not here to legislate things that are on the national stage like the gentleman said you place a target on this city you've noticed that this administration is not above retribution to sanctuary cities there's no need of it our legal problem here in Bangor is relatively small should be dealt with by the local police as far as that's all I got to say thank you okay [36:12] Susan Hawes: So oh one more my [36:19] Public commenter (Nadeed Makov): name is still in the day in macaw i'm still a banger resident and you're still not going to be able to get my name right on that thing i'm also speaking in support of council beck's council beck's ordinance i have lived in many municipalities be they cities town villages mountains and law enforcement was always looked at kind of a skew you would see a police car drive by and you and you step back i have not experienced that at all in bangor the police drives by in bangor people wave they the officers wave back nobody gives the officers a one-finger salute it's like that so what I'm seeing in Bangor is that the local law enforcement is very much respected all of Maine happens to lie within custom border patrol jurisdiction so we don't so they're going to be doing what they're going to be doing anyway way. All that the audience is asking is that we don't do their job. We focus on what's going on in Bangor. My parents moved to this country as legal immigrants. They moved to this country because they did not want to deal with police states. I have a very good friend who is married to a woman from South America. She is here as a legal immigrant. She is working with children. She's an education. She molds the future of Bangor. She's terrified to leave her home because her skin's a little dark in the mind. That's not what Bangor should be about. Thank you. [37:52] Public commenter (Mitchell Cooper): Mitchell Cooper, resident of Bangor, once again. I have now spoken a few times on matters regarding ICE, and there have been a few points that have come up. One, and I think the most prominent, is that the police are already not working with ICE, and so that I say, great, let's codify those actions, right? Nothing has proven to us that laws don't matter if they're not enforced, and if we don't have them in writing, then it's just a gentleman's agreement, and I think we can all see how many of those agreements have been broken. I think Patrick earlier made some very salient points about all the damage that ICE has done. Last time I stood at this podium talking about the resolution, I had described the recent activity of ICE in Chicago, and at that time, they repelled out of Black Hawk helicopters and sent women and children naked into the night and then arrested them all. We've also now seen multiple detainees die in custody, as Patrick mentioned, and we've seen a mother and a VA nurse murdered in the streets in Minnesota. They're building a facility here, ICE is here, We need to ensure that we are protecting our community. This isn't just a matter of national politics. It's here in our community. That is our local politics. City government, national government does not matter. It serves to function to keep us safe. And time and time again, they have proven that if ICE is in your community, you're not safe. The overwhelming majority of people that ICE has taken off of the streets have been shown to not have a violent background or any criminal background at all. There is a rising number in U.S. citizens that are being taken, arrested, detained. It really doesn't matter. They shouldn't have been there in the first place. So much so that the number of habeas corpus lawsuits that have been filed against ICE is mounting every single day, and all of those are winning in the courts because they are trained, as we have heard from a whistleblower, to not respect our Fourth Amendment rights. They have been told to be violent, to escalate. We've heard this, is fact. Someone within the government has told us all of these things. For somebody to say that we shouldn't be protecting ourselves, I think, is living in denial. And if we don't act to ensure that we can keep ourselves safe, nobody else will. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. [40:38] Susan Hawes: We'll do one more and then we're going to move on with the dispensing of this ordinance. Go ahead, short. Neil Erickson. [40:45] Public commenter (Neil Erickson): Back up. Hi everyone. I, one of our nation's greatest founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, said, "Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither." And on the same note, those that would trade, or those that would not do the right thing for fear of retribution, or cowards. Thank you. [41:08] Susan Hawes: Thank you. All right, so it has been moved and seconded. Yes, okay. Ordinance 26-095 has been moved and seconded. It is an ordinance, so we'll be doing a roll call vote. [41:26] Michael Beck: Point of order. I just want to clarify that the motion was to postpone to April 13th. [41:30] Susan Hawes: To April 13th. Okay. Correct. [41:32] Lisa Goodwin: Councillor Beck? Yes. Councillor Carson? Yes. Councillor Deane? No. Councillor Faloon? Yes. Councillor Fish? No. Councillor Leonard? Yes. Councillor Mallar? No. Councillor Walker? Yes. Councillor Haas? No. Five yes, four no. Okay. [42:02] Susan Hawes: Ordinance 26-095 has passage to be moved to April 13th. Five yes, four no. [42:12] Lisa Goodwin: next item madam clerk 26-107 order amending the code of the city of bangor to create a standing committee on homelessness counselor fish and that should be ordinance not order thank you madam Chair, [42:28] Carolyn Fish: Madam Clerk, Madam Chair, I move for passage of 26-107. Second. This order would amend the Code of the City of Bangor by creating a standing committee on homelessness. During the City Council's annual priority setting session in December, the City Council selected addressing homelessness as its top priority for the coming year. In subsequent discussions, Council coalesced around the creation of Standing Committee to help advise Council on its approach to addressing homelessness. The Standing Committee would include a mix of experts in homelessness, individuals with lived experience with homelessness or housing instability, peer municipalities, and community members impacted by homelessness issues. Supplemental expertise would be provided by the city's Homeless Response Coordinator and other experts from the City Department of Public Health and Community Services, Community and Economic Development, School Departments, and Public Safety. The committee's initial charge is to create a strategic plan for the city's response to homelessness that is data-driven, evidence-informed, and that considers regional and structural coordination. Following completion of this initial charge, the committee's mission is broadened to more expansively consider issues impacting homelessness, including better regional and structural coordination, identifying and quantifying gaps, recommending substantial sustainable funding strategies, reviewing state legislative proposals, reviewing and providing feedback on items coming before the council and community stakeholders engaged. This item was reviewed and recommended for approval by the Government Operations Committee meeting on March 2nd, 2026. [44:32] Susan Hawes: Ordinance 26, that's 107, has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? [44:44] Michael Beck: And so back, I just want to say, I am in favor of this. I am. Grateful to this body for making this possible and bringing this forward. This is something I feel the city is needed for some time. 1 of the things that I know that during discussions, we mentioned lived experience and how we didn't want to handcuff ourselves by coding it that there would be 30 or 45% or whatever percentage lived experience in it. But it would be a goal of 30% during the interview process. So should this item pass, which I hope it does, I believe that it's incumbent upon our community out there that when the application process begins, please help us spread the word far and wide that we want experts to come forward, especially those with lived experience, to help us get ahead of this problem. So I really am counting on the community to step up and help us communicate that to everyone far and wide. Mr. Pardee? [45:43] Public commenter (Scott Pardee): Good evening. My name is Scott Pardee and I'm a resident of Bangor and I'm here tonight to speak on the creation of the Standing Committee on Homelessness. First, I want to be clear I'm absolutely in favor of this move. It is a necessary step forward to addressing the crisis on our streets. However, if this committee is going to be anything more than a bureaucratic gesture, it needs to be built for speed and accountability. I urge you to keep this committee small, all no more than three to five voting members we all know the reality of municipal government the larger the group the harder it is to even agree on a day of the week to me let alone make any hard decisions we do not have the luxury of an analysis paralysis i like that we need a lean team that can move quickly cut through red tape and produce results secondly, this cannot be a monthly check-in group. This committee must be mandated to meet every single week. The clock is ticking. In just six months, it will be fall again. We have already heard the promises made in this chamber that we won't be in the same position next winter. Well, winter doesn't wait for the city subcommittees to find a convenient time to talk. If you aren't meeting weekly, you aren't treating this like the emergency that it really is. You have a prime objective to take care of your citizens. Both those who are unhoused and those who are struggling to stay in their homes as rents climb. A small weekly high intensity committee is the only way to ensure that when the first frost hits in six months, we aren't standing here giving the same excuses we gave last year. Let's get to work, keep it small, keep it frequent and let's actually solve this. [47:29] Public commenter (Richard Chaucer): My name is Richard Chaucer. I'm very, my name is Richard Chaucer. I've experienced and been on many, boards in Cleveland, Ohio, Salvation Army, High Point, North Carolina, and I'm very, astute and very familiar with different housing organizations and players in resolving this. I respect our gentlemen here, but we need a large, more than two or three people. We're talking about home ownership, we're talking about people moving out of their homes, we're talking about women and children, women getting away from abusive husbands, sexual abuse. We're also dealing with addiction. We have funds and money coming in. Now we need to utilize this properly, and how do we utilize this properly? We use department heads. We can get help from electric companies. I've spoke to a couple of counselors before, one of my mentors, Colonel Bo Hill of the Salvation Army. We have the highest, the highest success rate than any private, any public entity. We take people out of incarceration, help them get jobs. I hardly ever hear that amongst these councils or any of these ad groups about creating workforce, recreating people back into jobs. I don't hear much about from the, from the, from the mental health or behavior health. Like,, in Cleveland, Ohio, we have Cleveland clinic. I was on that board at Cleveland clinic. I was on that board with,. Admiral,, whatever health plan it was. And what we did was people get stigmatized. A lot of people become stigmatized and homelessness. What do you mean by that? Mr Chaucer? When I'm talking about people to all you can't work, you're homeless, you can't work, you have disability. When we find out we can retool that and people feel better when you have a job, they have a sense of purpose, they have something to do. I mean, Scott 's right on the right track. But I think we need a larger board with more people which we love life experiences aren't we tired of paying tax dollars going through the same stuff getting the same results let's open up our minds and see what's out there thank you thank you okay [50:02] Susan Hawes: This ordinance has been moved and seconded. There is no further discussion apparently. [50:09] Carolyn Fish: Anybody on the council have anything left? I would like to add something please. I'm glad to see this committee put together. I think it's been obvious over the years and decades probably that the city trying to govern it our job is to govern. We're a governor's body. We look at the budgets and we try to make fiscal decisions and take care of codes and rules and ordinances and this is beyond us. We're not experts in homelessness in substance use addiction and all the other complicated critical components that result in people beyond the street. So I'm glad to see this committee so we can become partners so that we can have experts and the city can now be a partner with other experts coming to us and giving us hopefully some good guidance and we so we can change things up with limits and so we can focus on doing the job of city governance. So I'm excited about this I do like to see the number of I think we have 13 all right Council 13 members we thoughtfully wanted to make sure we had a full scoop a scope of different types of expertise so I'm very excited about this I 'm hopeful it'll improve I'm not so sure I'm hopeful that will cure homelessness but I certainly hope it's a good direction for the city of Bangor to be good partners to help make an improvement with this issue thank you thank you seeing no other [51:46] Lisa Goodwin: Madam Clerk we'll do a roll call please. Councillor Beck? Yes. That's the Carson? Yes. Absolutely. Dean? Yes. That's the balloon? Yes. That's the fish? Yes. That's the Leonard? Yes. That's the Mallor? Yes. Councilor Walker? Yes. Councilor Haas? Yes. Nine yes, zero no. [52:06] Susan Hawes: Ordinance 26-107 does have passage. Nine yes, zero no. Next item. [52:16] Lisa Goodwin: Public hearing 26-108, order authorizing issuance of $75 million of the city's general obligation bonds for consolidated parks and recreation facility and a tax levy. Therefore subject to approval of the voters of the city of Bangor. Council of Faloon, thank you. [52:34] Susan Faloon: Madam Clerk, this order would authorize the issuance of up to 75 million dollars in general obligation bonds for a new parks and recreation facility. In 2012, voters approved a charter amendment, article 8, section 19a, which requires all single capital improvement projects in excess of the established threshold that do not meet one of the eligible exceptions of the charter be approved by the voters. As the estimated project cost is in excess of the current threshold of approximately $2 million, this borrowing will require voter approval. If this order is approved by the City Council today, March 23, 2026, there will be a separate order introduced under new business directing the question be placed on the June 2026 municipal ballot. The item was reviewed and recommended at the finance committee on March 16th, 2026. Madam Chair, I move that we open the public hearing on this matter. Second. Okay, it's [53:40] Susan Hawes: been moved and seconded. The public hearing is open. Gretchen [53:51] Public commenter (Schaefer): Schaefer, resident of Bangor, and I was actually the chair of the special committee to discuss this facility, so I'm here to support this going on the ballot. The primary thing I want to say is that doing nothing isn't free. Anyone who's been in our city facilities knows that they are in desperate need of repairs and upgrades. I've also seen a lot of comments talking about it being a hockey facility. It's a community recreation facility. Yes, there would be hockey rinks for hockey, ice skating, and all of that, but the committee that I chaired had a broad base of residents of all ages, and one of the main things that we really wanted was to make a building that is more accessible than the armory currently is, and for that matter than the rink currently is, for family members who do want to go and watch their kids or grandkids play hockey, having a facility that would be accessible to all members of our community, from little kids to Not little kids and to older folks where they could enter use those spaces during the day would be a huge benefit for the residents of Bangor. I would really like to see this put on the ballot, and the committee that I served with also had made the recommendation back in July to have this put on the ballot. That is all. Thank you for all that you do. Have a great night. Good [55:20] Public commenter (Kimberly Boucher): evening. My name is Kimberly Boucher. I'm a Bangor resident. I'm a youth hockey coach. I am a parent of a Maine Junior Black Bear and also a former member of the Bangor Parks Recreation and Harbor Advisory Committee. I've been part of this master planning and feasibility process from the very beginning, and I'm here to strongly support putting this proposed parks and recreation facility bond on the ballot. My family has benefited from Bangor Parks and Rec for many years through camps and sports and community events, but the scope of these programs to serve people of all ages is truly incredible, and the recent special committee report makes it very clear parks and rec is operating in facilities that no longer meet the needs of our community. And if you take a look at some of the reports, you can see that it also is one of the only city departments that is currently recovering nearly all of their costs through fee-for-service revenue. And I know, Councillor Fish, you would appreciate that. This project is about so much more than an ice rink, though that is where we see some of the most crumbling infrastructure. The boards there, the building, The boards are leaning so much right now that you can barely open the doors at times. At this point, we're not maintaining a long-term asset. We're just patching together something that is no longer sustainable, and it's getting more and more expensive every year. The special committee's recommendations are very clear. Bangor needs a new, modern, multi-purpose facility with additional year-round ice to support the growing demand, expand their current programming and also allow us to host regional tournaments that will bring significant economic activity into the region for hotels, restaurants, ice time and shopping. But it's about so much more than recreation. The proposal creates an opportunity to bring multiple city services together under one roof by combining parks and rec, the current parks and rec building, the Sawyer Arena, maintenance garage, and planning for a future where there could be a relocation for the health and human services building. The city would reduce the number, the current number of aging buildings that it currently operates. It would be consolidating four or five facilities into one efficient building, which would lower long-term firm operating and maintenance costs while improving service delivery. This is a smart and forward-looking investment for the City, and most important, it is a community decision. A project of this scale deserves to be put before the voters. Let the Bangor citizens decide how we invest in our future. Authorizing this bond does not mean that funds cannot be raised at a later date to offset the loan. Councillor Constant Carson, you mentioned CDs funding. Kimberly, your time is up. Thank you very much. Fundraising takes time. Loans can be paid back. Thank you. Go [58:43] Susan Deane: ahead. I'm Barbara Mann. As I [58:49] Susan Hawes: missed the stepped before and I'm here again, okay, and I am not in total opposition to a new Bangor Parks and Rec building. My biggest concern is how it impacts the taxpayers. Okay. I know this lady just mentioned the fundraising. Okay. Have we explored all the options for funding for this project before we're biting off this $75 million that we're going to pass on to the taxpayers? Payers. We're looking at hundreds of dollars in raised property taxes for this. We just underwent a huge property re-evaluation, which all of us know it's going to result in more property taxes for us. I know they said some will go down, but what are the odds really of a lot going down? Very slim and next to none. Then we've got Penobscot County that is looking at trying to get a new jail, okay, which we're going to be on the hook for that, okay. We're pricing our, some of our citizens right out of our neighborhoods, okay. I had mentioned I live in Bangor Gardens. I live in a little 750 square foot house and pay more than two thousand dollars a year in property taxes for this little hovel that I live in, okay, and now with this Parks and Rec building I'm looking at potentially another $200 to $300 per year property taxes on that. And heaven knows how many more hundreds when my re-evaluation comes through. Landlords are going to have to pass this on to their tenants and we're already pricing our renters out of our markets. Can we look at all of the options first before we bite off this 75 million dollars? It's just, I don't know, I'm just terribly nervous. I'm retired, I'm on a fixed budget, but probably a lot of people are in this room, and I bought a very small house hoping that I could afford to stay in it, knowing that I was going to have a reduced income when I retired. But now that's almost looking like it's going to be very difficult for me to do so, and so I'm, I'm just, I don't want to deny the children or even adults the activities that this parks and rec building can bring to them, and yes, console, I've been in the old parks and rec building, I know what it looks like, I know they need a new building, but does it have to be as grand as they're looking at right now? Could that be another option that we look at, a smaller footprint, okay, and then look at perhaps in the future adding on? I just, throw, spitballing things out there from my perspective in trying to maintain my cost of living and my ability to pay my property taxes. Thank you much, people. Thank you. My [1:02:02] Public commenter (Scott Pardee): name is Scott Party, and I'm a resident of Bangor, and I'm going to repeat a lot of what this lady said, and I agree with her wholeheartedly. I'm here tonight to speak on behalf of the people who keep Bangor running but are increasingly being priced out of it. I urge you to vote no on the proposed parks and recreation bond tonight. While we all appreciate parks and rec, we have to look at the math of survival in the city. 60 of Bangor's population are renters, that is, that is the majority of your constituents. When you increase property taxes to fund a bond, those costs don't just disappear into a ledger. They are passed directly down to the tenants. For a family living paycheck to paycheck, a modest, and it isn't even modest, it's an incredibly high tax increase on their landlords translates to rent increases they cannot afford. In the current housing market, we aren't just talking about a minor inconvenience, we are talking about displacement. These tax increases alone will push some of our most vulnerable neighbors into homelessness, and we don't need the homeless committee taking on more. You have stated that a prime objective of this council is to attract new residents, talent, and housing to Bangor, but look at what we are doing, making home ownership a distant dream for young professionals, making basic living unsustainable for the service workers and families already here. By adding to the tax burden, you are working against your own goals. You cannot attract people to a city that is too expensive to live in. A shiny new rec center or a manicured trail means very little to a family that's just lost their apartment because their rent went up a hundred or two hundred dollars more a month to cover the city's debt. I'm asking you to prioritize stability over amenities. Before we invest in nice to haves, we must protect the must haves like a roof over our citizens head. Please do not balance, do not put this on the backs of Bangor's renters and homeowners. Take care of the people who are already here. Please vote no to advancing this to bond. And you know, well, I don't have any time left, but I appreciate it. [1:04:46] Public commenter (Jonathan Sprague): Good evening. I'm Jonathan Sprague, 134 Norway Road in Bangor. I served on this council from November of 2020 until November of 2023. Tonight, given the time and complexity of the issues, I'm going to start with some specific recommendations and then fill in some details. His comments are supplemental to the assessment of recommendations I sent the Council last week and the summary that I just handed out. I'm happy to answer any questions as we go along. I would recommend that the Council table the discussions of the bond authorization, re-scope the project and provide more distinctive descriptions of construction pricing, bonding, operating costs and fee structures for each component with particular attention to removing the non-justifiable duplications of programs and revenues with the Y and validating the need for the ice center. Develop a tighter plan for the essentials of parks and recreation including the childcare components. Proceed with a limit on the city's financial contribution to any regional ice center to a maximum amount, for example, three to five million, and require any further investment to be through alternative funding, including public-private partnerships, sponsorships, and fundraising. Clearly state the annual estimates and tax implications for taxpayers in the context of alternative ice center size and funding, as well as future tax increases for existing programs. And if it is decided that a smaller publicly funded complex is still warranted, or if a privately developed larger ice center is more appropriate, consider relocating the project to more accessible locations that may be walkable to Bangor residents such as Bass Park or Hayford Park. For general comments, this project is too large, too expensive, still too duplicative with other community programs, specifically the new Y, and it is a long consultant-assembled wish list that will be an albatross around the necks of taxpayers. To date, no groups have discussed the tax implications of a finely tuned project. The council has commented on the accessible price of the overall project and asked for it to be trimmed. This has not been provided. In fact, the costs have escalated. The proposed bond is 75 million dollars. However, taxpayers should recognize that the proposed cost with interest over the period of the bond replacement is 137 million dollars, 83 percent more than the bond issue, 83 percent more than the bond issue. The principal total for the first five years is $15,276,000. One projection of tax increases is estimated to be approximately $300 for a house currently valued at $250,000. This is significant. Not only will this project increase taxes on homeowners, but rent increases will ripple across the community. Thank you very [1:08:00] Susan Hawes: much. Thank you. Hello. [1:08:10] Public commenter (Rich Trot): My name is Rich Trot. I live and work here in Bangor and I've worked and lived here my entire life. I think it's a community issue as well as a financial issue, and the more time we wait and the more money it will take. Speaking in terms of the kids, I've, I've got two kids that are older and one that's younger and starting over again through the parks and rec, and my kids have enjoyed all of the services of the parks and rec department, and it's amazing the abilities that they've been able to accomplish with the facilities that they have. So from a financial standpoint, the longer we wait, the more money it's going to take. And from an investment standpoint, from a return on investment, is it worth investing in the kids, right? We talk about all of the funds that are needed for homelessness and drug abuse and screen time and physical activity, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. If you make that investment now, maybe those future expenses will be less. So community involvement is imperative for the kids. And if they're not worth investing in, then what is really, right? We've all know that the facilities now are not adequate, right? So from a financial standpoint, does it make sense? We can spend some money on it now or hundreds of millions. If we get active and the community, I think that's an important part, you know, from the financial standpoint, you know, I volunteered thousands of hours and we've had to take our kids, whether it's lacrosse or hockey or soccer to other communities to use their facilities. We can't get in on fields. We've played on muddy fields in a corner of the park that's flooded that. So it's completely inadequate, you know, for all of the services. And I think at the end of the day, the environment of youth sports has become travel and expensive and what have you. If you make the facilities available, those programs will come and there'll be better enrollment especially for those that need it the most, right? You've got this movement of paid for play. And I've personally been involved with other community and youth organizations that, if they have the facilities, can fund entire tournaments that fund their entire annual budgets, meaning there is little to no cost for enrollment for these kids to join. If you don't have the facilities, that can't happen. So the kids that need it the most often are the ones that are excluded. If you have facilities, they're the ones that can be enrolled at very little cost, have the facilities to grow a community, be a part of the community, and maybe help alleviate all these other problems that we've talked about tonight over and over and over again. I think it's a critical part, and I think it's the body's position to put it to the public vote. [1:11:23] Wayne Mallar: Skip Black, resident of Bangor. In 1954, they built... The main auditorium they put ice in there three feet too short for hockey. 2013 we opened up the Cross Center they wanted to put ice in there cost one million dollars but ice in there oh we can't afford it the building was 65 million I think it ended up 68 million couldn't afford it. 13 years later they want two ice sheets I can see one and I can't see two. You've got Sawyer Arena it's got ice cheese on it 's got sand it doesn't have concrete floor I know I put the bill I put the building up I Know that building was given to the city by Tom Sawyer, and I think Stephen King helped out a little bit, and then youth hockey helped out. You could take and spend probably a million and a half, add on to one side of that, put a new chiller in, pour a concrete floor. You could use that year round for something else. Right now that building, you can't use it but just in the wintertime because you got a sand floor, so you can't use it. You can pour a concrete floor, you can buy new boards. I went online, you can go online, see what it costs you for new boards, 75 to 90,000 for a 200 by 85 boards and stuff. The Cross Center, that million dollars, they could have put the pipes in there, 13 years down the road all you have to do is buy a chiller. No, nobody wants to think ahead. Now how do you think you can spend 75 million dollars and Hollywood Casino is paying for that building? But it's money that they're not giving to the taxpayer, that it actually is a passionate money because they're paying the, paying the bill. Who's going to pay the bill out there? You've got a lot of elderly people in the city of Bangor. The population isn't going up, yet all the young people are moving out of town, there's no work, all kinds of people in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, southern Maine. 65,000 people in Portland, you got 32 here, 31. Hasn't gone up since I was that high. Yeah, I could see one rink and you don't need a big building like that. They want to build a maintenance garage, this and that, you got space out to the base. You could add on to the public works building, a couple bays out there, you can fix all that stuff, they get their gas out there and everything else. They could build a rec center on the base, you won't land out there, they got a gym out there that the Augusta uses, all kinds of land right there. You could build a daycare center and rec center and stuff right there. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Mitchell. [1:14:37] Public commenter (Mitchell Cooper): Cooper, resident of Bangor. I'll be honest, I don't have a dog in this fight, but I figured I'm here, so I might as well come up for the hat trick. Personally, I don't have any issues with the taxes that will be increased for me. I recognize that is a heavier burden for a lot more people. I think that there have been a lot of valid concerns from both sides of this argument. I have not seen all of the planning and investigation for funding that has gone into this. Generally, I support this type of project, I have seen in other cities a lack of growth that is caused by some of these things. I think a lot of the concerns here are not necessarily about the complex or the rink. I think it's a lot larger issues that we seem to have some issues actually tackling. I agree with the gentleman that spoke earlier about you know trying to foster the youth. Maybe we can keep them here. Like I said, there's a lot of really good arguments to be made, but most importantly I decided to come up here because there were a few months ago there was a woman and unfortunately I don't forget I don't remember her name, but she stood up here and I think pleaded towards this and encouraged the council to support women's hockey specifically. And I think that this complex will help to accomplish that goal. So I wanted to make sure that her concerns were once again voiced here tonight with the issue at hand. Thank you. Hi [1:16:22] Public commenter (Katie Ko): I'm Katie Ko, I'm a resident of Vanguard. This is much more fun than the other things I talked about. I just wanted to say our parks department is absolutely amazing. They do amazing work in a terrible building. They have a excellent child care that they do that helps our low-income residents. They do all these sports things that's a bit it's amazing what they get done in that building because I'm pretty sure that's the old armory from the base and it's somewhat of a disaster and they deserve better I regularly go skating at the rink. I think it's the best, it's great ice, but the boards are ridiculous and the fact that I have to go over to Brewer in the summer stinks. I would love it if we had a rink here that was worthy of this town and I think we should invest money in it. And I think we should put it to the voters so they can decide whether or not this is something that we want to invest in. Thank you. [1:17:31] Public commenter (Paul Mador): Palomador homeowner, Pierce Street, Fairmount. I've listened to a few of the elderly talking about it, and I definitely hear their concerns. Although I agree with this gentleman as well, that we, you know, we should do more for the kids and maybe less for the people that are getting shipped in from Brewer Herman Hamden and elsewhere by the police departments there and that's how we're not addressing the homeless issue is by placing some of the responsibility on other localities. But anyway I think that the thing I want to Echo is that maybe a simpler project maybe something a little less expensive we could afford you know a 500 Increase is what I'd be looking at. I did the quick math. If his numbers on a 250,000 house were right, that's doable. And if it was for this, I would be in favor. But then we've got the lady over here that says she's about to be homeless because of taxes already. So we've really got to consider that people here in Bangor living on the edge. This is a working-class city. We're not even a middle-class city. The median income in Maine is $76,000. And I actually don't know anyone that's making that. Thank you. Thank you. [1:18:50] Susan Hawes: Is there anyone that came here to speak on this that has not spoken? [1:18:57] Public commenter (John Barron): Oops. My name is John Barron, and I am a resident of Bangor. In fact, I'm on the Griffin Road. It'll affect me. A number of years ago when they rebuilt the, excuse me, I had two strokes, so I stutter. The Bullseye Bridge, I lost five feet in front of my house. I didn't pay for it. The guy across the street is a bank. He got a thousand dollars for his what he lost. Anyway, I can't afford to pay taxes now, can't I? Have I've proposed an idea that set up a committee that those are low-income residents that own their own home and are retired get to pay a certain minimum fee of taxes. I'll just soon be on that. I'll be on the board for the homeless if you want. I have homeless people at the back of my house, the rest of you don't. I oppose that homeless people should be required to live in your house. I leave the homeless alone, they leave me alone, they leave the trash behind, they leave me alone. So I'm against spending $75 million on that arena. I was against the arena that they built down here, the cross center. I was told that was crazy. To not go for it. I wanted ice in it. He said, oh, we can't afford it. Same with the previous auditorium. I skated on that right down there. It was back in the 50s. It should have been in there. It's too bad. It should have been ice in it. It wouldn't be sitting around now. That's it. Thank you. Thank you. [1:20:36] Public commenter (Alex Cray): Hello. Alex Cray, Waterfront Concerts. I employ a number of people in the region, 25 full-time, about 1050 in the summer part-time, that's a hundred people full-time equivalent. When Tracy first started talking about this project, started pulling my employees, several people here, few investments that I think this community can make is in its young people. Tracy Deb, they run a fantastic facility. I've been working with them since I came to Bangor and started the concert series. I understand the tax ramifications. I totally get investing. I also understand construction costs. I do believe that this is a fantastic investment in the youth and old alike in the city of Bangor. And I will hardly support it when my tax bill increases. [1:21:33] Public commenter (Amy Baldwin): Hi, I'm Amy Baldwin. I'm a homeowner and resident of Bangor. As so many people have said, we've got two slides to this issue here. There are a lot of great things about bringing in a new parks and rec building. There are certainly improvements that need to be made. However, there are some very serious costs on the table which have also been expressed. I can repeat them again. We, I am a local real estate agent throughout the greater Bangor region. I get to sell people on what's amazing about Bangor when they want to relocate and move to our area. And I'm also talking with people about why they need to move away when they can't afford their taxes or why they're choosing to live in Brewer or Holden or some other place because they say, oh, I don't know about that. I have older people or young families who are saying, you know, my numbers don't make sense, like somebody who spoke earlier. So I implore you, if you push this forward, it has to go with very clear communication about the cost benefits and the cost cons so that the voters can make a very informed choice about what they're voting on. [1:23:06] Public commenter (Quinn Parity): Good evening, my name is Quinn Parity, lifelong Bengal resident, business owner in Bangor, also the Twin City hockey coach which serves Bangor and Brewer which utilizes Sawyer Arena. I have two kids, one that utilizes Soy Arena almost every day as well as myself and my daughter that uses direct facility. Both facilities are in desperate need of repair or really replacement. We can go over costs and everything, but realistically what we really need today is the vote of Yask going forward to taxpayers. Let the taxpayers decide if we get the building or not. Just a few people in the room here, we do understand the costs are going up and each year the building will cost more and more. The every year we put off of it, we did spend a lot of money as tax dollars on the study of these facilities and by all means just by the eye you can tell that they need to be replaced. Both locations do not have enough parking for tournaments and everything that we run during the days. As a business owner I hear more People talk about child care and after school programs. We definitely need more programs for kids after school so parents can work later in the afternoons and evenings when school gets done. The question is, if it doesn't pass, what are we going to do to fix our facilities? Because safety has got to be number one concern of kids and athletes today. Sawyer Arena is in desperate need of repair. It's beyond playing some games, if you ask me. My personal opinion as a hockey coach, you would never want to see a kid get hurt from the boards or neglect of something that you know should be fixed going forward. But in the end, it's a wrecked facility that's going to benefit everyone in our town and hopefully will bring people to our area that will want to live here in Bangor and work in Bangor and support Bangor. Going forward, we could do a lot of things, but let's do something right, let's do something good instead of all the negative that's going around. Like I said, I fully support it. If anyone has any questions on the hockey side, I'd be more than willing to answer any questions. Questions, but please let the taxpayers have a say in June about this. Thank you. Hi [1:25:37] Public commenter (Katie Ko): there, my name is Devin St Louis. I am a Holden resident but I am a Bangor before and after school care counselor and I have been for the past six years. Our current recreation building has served this community for many years and as much as we are grateful for that role that it's played, the reality is that the building is outdated and is no longer meets the needs of the growing number of family and children's in our community. Limited space and aging equipment as well as the outdated facilities make it difficult to provide the safe modern and engaging environment that our youth deserve. A new recreation building would give our children opportunities that the current facility simply cannot provide. With updated gym space, multi-purpose rooms and modern equipment, we could expand our youth sports offer after-school care programs, host community events and create a welcoming space for families year-round. It would also allow us to better support the children of all ages, disabilities, and abilities. Investing in recreation is really investing in prevention and opportunity. Communities with strong recreation programs often see improvements in young health, academic engagement, and overall well-being. When children have positive places to go, they are more likely to stay active as well as build friendships and develop skills that benefit at them throughout their entire lives. A new recreation center would not only serve children today but generations to come. It would become a hub for our community, a place where families gather, friendships are built, and young people grow into strong healthy members of our city. [1:27:06] Public commenter (Rick Fournier): Thank you evening counselors. My name is Rick Fournier, president of Bangor. It's hard to follow her, but I'll try. I'm absolutely in favor of a new facility. However, when council met last August to discuss this project, it was my understanding that staff would come back with a revised proposal, a proposal that with sources of repayment, a scaled back facility, realistic operating revenue and expenses and the effect on the Bangor taxpayer. I'm not going to repeat what Jonathan has said or what Scott has said or the woman out back here. They kind of hit a lot of my notes I had emailed you all earlier today. So I well I support a facility I think this it needs to be scaled back to some degree agree and I urge you not to support the proposal. Thank you good [1:28:36] Public commenter (Doug Farnham): evening Doug Farnham. I'm a resident of Bangor as well. I also have serious concerns about moving forward with this proposal for the new parks and rec facility as it is currently scoped and planned for the financing. I'm going to put it out there in my opinion Barry Dunn was tone deaf when they came up with this proposal and what they did they didn't understand the whole scope of what was going on. I really believe do not believe that they fully understood the expanded capability of the boys and girls club that just opened the new Bango YMCA that they're building down on Main Street or the new Panquis child care center that's opening this year. They simply combined a wish list into generic product. Actually, I think if you would just use Jonathan's work, you could have saved a lot of money instead of giving it to Barry Dunn. That's just my opinion. I'd like to, first of all, I'm shocked that I'm standing up here opposed to a project like this. I had three kids that played hockey at Sawyer Arena. I would love to see Sawyer Arena continue to be a great facility. It always has been. We've always was proud of our ice here in Bangor and I understand that it needs a lot of work and I understand that the you know the gift of the old armory has probably it passed its time but I want everybody to remember that current Sawyer Arena was built by the generosity of Tom Sawyer Stephen King and the Bangor Youth Hockey community and then gave it to the city of Bangor when they ran into some financial things you know financial issues and then Bangor the city went on and added you know improvements to the boards and locker rooms etc so there's a big different that's a big difference than funding a two-sheet taxpayer-funded complex there has to be a strategy that isn't dependent solely on the banker taxpayer in general I just don't think the city should be duplicating and competing with the private sector what the private sector can do and what the private sector should do in the case of the new Banger why we're excited that so many people and businesses including the city and the county step forward to raise an incredible amount of money to build a facility that's going to be a main street that we can be proud of and again I mentioned Panquis and I mentioned Boys and Girls Club private sector in city bank are stepping forward doing what needs to be done so that the taxpayer doesn't have to do it but biggest thing I'm afraid if we go forward without taking the proper steps the taxpayer is going to look at it and they're going to reject it when all this stuff comes to light and then we're not going to get the things done that absolutely need to be done as Sawyer and for the parks and rec admin facility so thank you thank you madam [1:31:43] Susan Faloon: chair I move that we close the public hearing on 26-108 second [1:31:51] Susan Hawes: okay it's been moved and seconded that we close the public hearing for order 26-108 is there any further discussion ready for the vote yes ma'am I do [1:32:09] Susan Faloon: just want to make a couple comments that we've heard from so many people both email and in here tonight and appreciate it. In my mind, there's no question that we needed a new facility that we know they're beyond repair. I am just really concerned about putting it entirely on taxpayers. And a lot of people have spoken out about that. And personally, I want the effort to be successful when we put it forward. So I'm, I'm not going to be in favor of it tonight. But that doesn't mean that I'm not in favor of this overall. We talked earlier tonight about immediately going back and putting together some concrete actions that we'd like to see and then bringing this back. I think that's what we need to do. I think there were, there were different understandings about the expectation when this came up to Council before, and that was before my time on the Council. But a lot of people were expecting to see a revised plan. Some didn't have that expectation. So I don't think there was a clear guideline, and I think that's what we need to do as a Council is set those clear actions and then come back and discuss it. So thank you. [1:33:20] Michael Beck: Councilback. Well, first I'd like to say thanks to all of the staff, all the volunteers who worked on this, because they were acting on the direction they were given at the time and they brought us back a recommendation. I want to go back to the original feasibility study. And the very first recommendation when it came to funding was to do a private-public partnership. And so I guess when this came before us last year, I was a little shocked that it immediately went to 100% bonded, that it didn't come with a funding stack, that it didn't come with those partnerships in place. So when it came before us again this time, we heard from so many more people, and I'm so glad that so many people reached out. That's important. Regardless of any organizing that went on, your voice deserves to be heard, and I appreciate people took the time. I responded to about 40 of the emails that came in, mostly to the folks from the hockey community, and what I was astounded by was just how open to the idea of whether it be a 501c3 or a booster club or something to make the ice arena a reality, how open they were to it. And to me that says we don't have to do this 100 bond paid for. We don't have to put this all on the taxpayers. And in my mind, if we can work as a city with organizations to get an organization like that created, to see to it that we get a new ice arena. Who better to oversee this ice arena than the people who will use it, who know how it needs to be, and will also plan for its future, so we don't end up in another situation like this where, hey, we're six years or however many years past its useful life. They've already worked on that next campaign, that next upgrade or whatever it is it needs. So I am not in favor of sending this to the voters, not because I don't want them to have a say, but I don't see it as, hey, what do you guys think? We're making the decision here, and then we're asking for permission to spend that money. And just the project as I see it, knowing that there's so much more work that can be done to make those partnerships, to make that funding stack, I would love to have this proposal come back. And better yet, have it be two separate parts, the ice arena and all the other needs, and to say, hey, here's the piece we need your help with. That's a whole different conversation when we're saying, yeah, we maybe will bond five million or six million, as opposed to trying to come up with, you know, 136 million over the life of the project according to some of the figures. So this is not a vote to kill it. I agree with everyone, we need new facilities. This is a vote for an evolution of the project that we go right back to work, we go ahead and we talk to staff, we give the clear direction, because I think that was also a misstep. We had some assumptions last time, but we never gave a full order to staff to say, okay, do this instead. So again, my hats off to the staff for as hard as they worked on this. They did what they were directed to do. It's just I'm, I'm disagreeing, and I know that there's a better way to get this done. We will get a nice arena, we will get the facilities we need, there's just another way, and we'll find it. Thank you. Thank you. Any [1:36:51] Carolyn Fish: other comments on this? That's official. I too was surprised to see this come back at the full fund, the full 75 million, and the plans almost exact. And again, maybe it was our errors, council, that we didn't make it clear, but I was expecting this to come back with like a phase one where we could get some of the essential things we needed, child care and ice, and start smaller. And so I would like to go back to that again, this day and time, to put the risk of its future success. Yes, I'm all for investing in the children in the future and trying to keep our kids here in Bangor and growing our population. But we have to really be smart about it. And the numbers and the statistics and the demographics just don't give me the information that I need to feel comfortable with this decision. I'd like to see something come back that can address the needs we need today, something we can expand on as we have a better fiscal economy in general. But I can't really approve sending this out at $75 million, 136 million at this time. But I also don't want us to drag our heels. I really like to see us to come up with a date, a time to really dig our heels in, even if it means more meetings, to try to make an action plan, but a little bit more strategically planned. Thank you. Any other comments? [1:38:31] Susan Deane: I want to thank the committee that worked so hard to make this proposal and try to do the best for our kids and our seniors and everyone that plays hockey. I mean, it's a wonderful facility. Wish we could afford $75 million price tag. But I also feel I need to defend a little bit the phased approach. Approach we did ask for phased approach and they gave us phased approach, but the phased approach still has a 75 million dollar price tag. So over the next few years it is phased, but it's very expensive, and it's a very difficult decision one way or the other, because I think we all agree we need this, but maybe we can't afford it. But I'm also under the assumption that perhaps we can't afford not to do it. So I do want to defend the phased approach that keeps coming up, because it is phased, it's just Not feasible, and I probably will be voting against this just because of that high price tag. Okay, no [1:39:43] Susan Hawes: Other comments. Order 26108 was moved and seconded. Could we do a roll [1:39:49] Lisa Goodwin: Call vote on that? Yes, I don't think you had a motion. You had a motion to close, but not for [1:39:54] Susan Hawes: Capacity. That's right, we did. You move to close it. Do we have a second? It was seconded. It was seconded. So the public hearing has closed with no objections. Yes, yeah. So now can we do the roll call? So there's a motion, there's a motion to pass. If it was, she made the motion when she read it. I don't know, we can do it again. Do you move this item? [1:40:32] Susan Faloon: Madam Chair, I move item 26-108. [1:40:39] Susan Hawes: Second. Okay, Sven moved and seconded order 26-108, and we are going to do our roll. [1:40:48] Lisa Goodwin: Call vote. Councillor Beck? No. Council Carson? No. Councillor Deane? No. Councillor Faloon? No. Councillor Fish? No. Tesla Leonard? No. Tesla Mallor? No. Muscle Walker? No. That's the Haas? No. Zero yes, nine no. [1:41:10] Susan Hawes: Order 26108 has failed. It was zero yes, nine no. [1:41:16] Lisa Goodwin: Next item, please. 26-120, order submitting consolidated parks and recreation facility. [1:41:25] Susan Faloon: Order 26-108 to referendum. Thank you, Madam Clerk. This order would submit order 26-108, entitled order authorizing issuance of 75 million dollars of the city's general obligations bond for a consolidated parks and recreation facility and a tax levy therefore, subject to approval of the voters of the city of Bangor, adopted contemporaneously here with the city council, the consolidated parks and rec facility order, to a referendum vote as required by article 8, section 19, a 1 of the city charter. The charter of the city of Bangor, article 8, section 19, requires the city council to submit to voter referendum orders or resolves authorizing the issue of bond of general obligation securities of the city in a principal amount of five one hundredth of one percent of the last certified state valuation of the city for a single capital improvement or item of capital equipment. Based on the city's twenty six state valuation, state valuation, the limit is any principal amount of two million dollars or more unless determined to be emergence, an emergency, by the city council. If approved, the city clerk shall make notice of election to the citizens of Bangor and prepare the ballots for the June 9th, 2026 election. Madam Chair, I move item number 26-120. Second. Okay, order number 26-120 [1:43:04] Susan Hawes: to zero has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? [1:43:11] Michael Beck: Any questions? Councilor Beck? Other to say then this item then pretty much becomes moot because of the other one. So should be no surprise that I'll be voting no on this one as well. [1:43:26] Susan Hawes: There's no other comments. Any other one? Councilor Beck? No. Councilor Carson? No. Councilor Deane? No. Councilor Faloon? No. No. Councilor Fish? No. Councilor Leonard? No. Councilor Malheur? No. Councilor Walker? No. Councilor Haas? No. 0, yes. 9, no. Order 26-120 has failed, had 0, yes. 9, no. Did I say that right? It sounded backwards. It's getting late, folks. Okay. [1:44:06] Lisa Goodwin: Next order. Order 26-121, order referring the issue of the city councillor Susan Haas's actions during the February 2nd, 2026 government operations committee meeting to the city's board of ethics for advisory [1:44:20] Daniel Carson: Opinion, Councillor Carson. Thank you, Madam Clerk. This order would refer to the City's Board of Ethics for an advisory opinion the issue of whether one or more provisions of the City's Code of Ethics was violated when a Councilor made certain statements regarding disbanding the Advisory Committee on Racial Equity, Inclusion, and Human Rights during the February 2, 2026 Government Operations Committee meeting. The City's Code of Ethics allows for a member of the City's Board of Ethics to submit a written statement in the form of a Council order to the City Council seeking referral of matters to the Board of Ethics for an advisory opinion. Mr. Mark Eastman, member of the City of Bangor's Board of Ethics, has submitted this referral. Upon referral of the question, the Board of Ethics may conduct fact-finding, deliberate, and issue findings and an advisory opinion with respect to the question referred. Madam Chair, I move Council Order 26-121. [1:45:23] Angela Walker: One second. [1:45:29] Carolyn Fish: Okay. [1:45:33] Susan Hawes: Order 26, just one two one, has been moved and seconded. One second, hold your thought. Am I allowed to speak on this? Okay, Mr. Party, after you. [1:45:52] Public commenter (Scott Pardee): My name is Scott Party. I'm a citizen of Bangor, and I'm here tonight to strongly oppose 26, 126-121. This referral to the Board of Ethics is not an act of oversight. It is a weaponization of city procedure that serves no purpose other than to manufacture hate and discontentment in our community. We've been here before. Last year, we sat through the same nonsense with two other councillors. It was a circus then, and it will be a circus again. Instead of focusing on the crushing utility rates, the 75 million dollar bond, things and of the facts that 60 percent of our residents are rent, our renters one tax hide away from the streets, the council is once again choosing to retreat into petty internal policy. This, there is a deep irony in the Board of Ethics members submitting this order when the Board of Ethics is used to target a counselor for expressing a policy position. Regardless of whether you agree with that position, the board itself becomes unethical. Councillor Hawes spoke during a Government Operations Committee meeting, that is the venue for debate, to suggest that a councillor's opinion on the future of an advisory committee is an ethics violation is a dangerous overreach. It is designed to chill free speech and ensure that no one dares to question the status quo. The people of Bangor are tired. They constant referrals that lead to nothing but higher legal bills and deeper divisions. We have six months until winter hits and we have people living in tents. We have a housing crisis that is pricing out our workforce. That is where the focus should be. This order is a distraction from the primary, from the prime objective of this body, taking care of your citizens. Do not drag the city through another year of ethics theater. Reject this order and stop the infighting. Let's get back to business of running the city and it really is it is an irony. I'll get off script here for a minute. It is it is ironic that perhaps we should talk about disbanding the ethics committee. They're unethical. Thank you. Thank you. [1:48:10] Angela Walker: Hillary [1:48:14] Public commenter (Simmons): Simmons resident Bangor. We need to have an honest conversation about accountability, what accountability really means and what it does not. Ethics boards exist for a reason. They are meant to address serious misconduct, abuse of power, corruption, discrimination, and actions that genuinely harm people or undermine trust. Those are real issues. Those deserve real attention. But when ethics complaints start being used as a reaction to hurt feelings alone without evidence of wrongdoing, we begin to weaken the very system that is supposed to protect us. Not every disagreement is unethical. Not every uncomfortable moment is a violation. And not every personal offense rises to the level of formal action. If we treat every conflict as an ethics crisis, two things happen. First, we overwhelm the system, making it harder to address real serious cases that actually matter. Second, we create a culture where people are afraid to speak honestly, challenge ideas, or make tough decisions because they fear being reported simply for upsetting someone. That's not accountability. That's avoidance. Growth, progress, and fairness requires open dialogue, even when it's uncomfortable. They require resilience, the ability to handle disagreement, and the understanding that not all harm is intentional or unethical. This doesn't mean dismissing people's feelings. Feelings matter, but feelings alone cannot be the standard of ethical violations. If they were, we would lose the ability to distinguish between the true injustice and everyday human conflict. So let's refocus. Let's protect the integrity of ethics system by using them for what they were designed for, serious evidence-based concerns. And let's handle everyday disagreements with conversation, understanding, and maturity. Because if everything is treated like a violation, then nothing truly gets the attention it deserves. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. [1:50:16] Public commenter (Joshua Faye): my name is joshua faye i've been here before i won't say anything about ice you've heard that about that enough from me but speaking specifically to this particular issue i just wanted to first say full disclosure i have submitted an foa request regarding that particular meeting and regarding any communications within the council outside of the council both official and unofficial regarding to that meeting because i personally was quite concerned by both the proposition of the of the order or rather the ordinance, or the change in the ordinance that would have disbanded the committee, and especially given the case that the vast majority of those individuals on the council seemed to have no idea that it was happening, which tells me that not everyone talked about it, and that I think everyone should be concerned about out. I wanted to just enter in officially the letter, which is at the end of the agenda, that anyone can have access to. This is online. You can see this. You can read this for yourself. I read it before I came. This is the I think the referral letter, and apologies if I if I butchered a little bit. I'll do my best here. Referring the issue of City Councilor Susan Hawes actions during the February 2nd, 2026 Government Operations Committee meeting to the city's Board of Ethics for advisory opinion. Whereas it has been alleged that the City Councilor Susan Haas at the February 2nd, 2026 government operations meeting said, quote, the way the advisory committee is set up, it can be set up or taken away by the council chair. It does not have to go to a full meeting. That isn't what we wanted. We wanted a discussion. Now I'm going to pause just for a second. I don't know what you meant by we, Councilor Haas, because again, during that discussion, it was very apparent that the vast majority of the councilor wasn't even aware that you were bringing this to attention. So I'm just, I don't know who we was, and quote, there might be some revamping, and maybe at the end of the day it might go away, but if it doesn't, it has to be in a better form than it is right now, end quote. I just wanted again commentary, and I have not that much time. I think it that was Concerning for a lot of us, because we weren't aware that the mayor had such power as to make that decision without either council vote or without the input of the public or residents of Bangor. Whereas the Advisory Committee on Racial Equity, Inclusion and Human Rights is established in 2338. And whereas 9-1 affords the council chair no such power to establish or disband committees. Again, you were making a statement of power that was invested in the mayor and the states of the chair of the council that did not exist. Be it ordered by the city of Bangor that the city council refers this matter to the board of ethics for investigation and an advisory opinion regarding running Councilor Susan Hall's actions at the February 2nd, 2026 Government Operations Committee meeting. Now the rest of it's there to see, and I know I'm about to run out of time, but I think there were, speak to other information. I think we either have ethics where we do not. I think when people have concerns, I don't think any of the concerns here had anything to do with feelings, that everything to do with, in this case, process, and also the powers that are invested in the chair, as well as how government businesses is run. And I think that's the concern. Concern, so thank you for your time. Okay. [1:53:25] Susan Hawes: I don't want to debate this topic here. It is gonna most likely go to ethics as it should. It was sent for that purpose. I will say, and if you had been around for the two meetings after that, you would have heard me say that was a misspeak. I was referring in my mind to something that we did the year before where we did have this. However, was set up under an ordinance which can only be taken down by a full council. The council was aware that was coming up. That was not secretive. It was a mistake when I said, well, the chair could have just repealed it. We didn't want to do that. I wouldn't, I didn't want to repeal it. The committee has some issues we wanted to meet. I had, I talked to the chair of that committee after. I apologize for the misspeak twice. I'm apologizing now. I don't know if you notice, but when you're up here or down there, a lot is happening at the time. People are talking, asking questions, things come to your head quickly. It might be later in the evening or not, you know. People make mistakes. I admitted to it. I don't have a problem with it going to ethics. I believe we need ethics. So that's what the crux of this is. I don't want to all sit around and wonder from now until, oh, four months from now when we hear back from ethics what the deal was. That's the deal. So, you know, if you were disappointed, I'm sorry. But sometimes we can say things that come out different, and then we find out, oh no, that's not right. And I immediately went back to that next meeting and said that was not right. The chair did not have that authority. So just for your edification, speaking down to him Are you allowed to ask a question, follow-up question, because you had made a statement and I was, you can go to the podium and ask a follow-up, and then that's going to be the end, because this has to go to ethics. We're not doing that. So I definitely understand [1:55:59] Public commenter (Joshua Faye): So one of the things that I had concerns about was that it was, it was said many times around that meeting, and I was in the, I was in the room. So I just want to make sure, you know, I understand what you're saying. I've been in your position. I know how that is. Absolutely, there are many times by many individuals that are on the council specifically, and we can look back at anyone can do this. I just want to make sure that they don't think that I'm putting words in people's mouths. You can go back and watch the meeting, because it's on YouTube. Search it, February 2nd government operations meeting. There were many counselors on the council that specifically said that they were not aware that this particular, whatever the measure was, being brought, they were not aware that there was a discussion regarding disbanding the committee, and that they were, they wanted to table the discussion until such time as there could be more, I guess, discovery about why it is that we want to do this, who wants to do it And in what way we want to do it. And so I think you had said earlier that the council was aware that this was is coming. And so I'm confused and I just wanted to get a better understanding of why so many people weren't expressed that they weren't aware. Where did were they aware and they just didn't know they were aware until afterward? And you made it seem that you cleared that up. It was on the agenda. [1:57:14] Susan Hawes: So that's where I say they were aware. We all get there whether they all were at the meeting or not, I can't attest to that. I mean, I don't remember what happened for faces that day, but we have since talked multiple times with the chair of that committee and she is in agreement that we're going to meet again because there's some things that we would like to see different and she's of the same opinion. So it's an ongoing, you'll hear more about that committee. It didn't go anywhere. I mean, the committee's not gone, nothing happened with that, but it's you know it's fine. We'll have the discussions and things will move on. Not a problem. Is there anything else? Yes. [1:58:03] Carolyn Fish: I won't be voting in favor of this because you made an error. We make errors and I don't want to stop the president that we're all human. I've made errors, we all make errors, especially our first year. I think we do a few more after that, hopefully we get the hang of it, but I don't know if you ever get it down pat perfectly. You made an apology and I don't see reasons to send this to ethics and I really don't want to give ethics committee or start presidents where if you make an error or someone doesn't like how you said something or even if you apologize it goes to ethics. I think we've had enough of that going on, so I am not going to be voting in favor of sending this to ethics. Council Fluke, I'll just say [1:58:56] Susan Faloon: to clarify, like I was surprised to see it on the agenda. We found out about it on Friday and we had that meeting on Monday, so I was a little blindsided going into that meeting, I will confirm that. But that said, and I did question whether or not the chair could disband a committee like that and I know a few others did too and got an answer to that question, and I just think that she misspoke and has since cleared that up. And so I don't see the need to, like I don't think it's an ethics thing, I think she misspoke, that was clarified, and so I honestly don't see that it's worth sending to ethics because I think it's been cleared up at this point in my opinion. Okay, [1:59:45] Michael Beck: That's okay. I'll just say for my part in the meeting that, you know, I can see it as a misspeak as well. It was questioned at the time of the meeting. I believe in the way Robert's rules work that you, know, there's an actual problem you deal with it in that meeting, and we did so by saying hey we'd like a second opinion from the city solicitor, which we got which clear up the matter. So I, while I agree that there is absolutely a role for ethics to play in this case here I was satisfied that we addressed it by the chair said it was a mistake, the city solicitor confirmed that no the chair does not have the power to unilaterally disband a committee and I think that we it's been satisfied and no, need to send this on to ethics in this case, because I certainly don't think it's going to happen again. I think we all fully understand the how it works now with the spanning committees. [2:00:50] Susan Hawes: Any other comments? Okay. Order to six dash one to one has been moved and seconded. Doesn't require a roll call it was doubted okay we're gonna do a roll call [2:01:12] Lisa Goodwin: Councillor Beck no councillor Carson no councillor Dean no councillor Flume no councillor Fish no councillor Leonard no councillor Maller no councillor Walker no zero yes eight no. [2:01:33] Susan Hawes: Okay, order 26-121 has failed. It was zero yes, eight no. That brings us to the end of our regular business. Do we have any staff left in the room that would like to make closing comments? No, blue head shakes, no. Council Carson. [2:02:04] Daniel Carson: Thank you Madam Chair. In thinking more about us, you know, we're not going to be able to move that parks question forward and I think I know that everybody here supports parks and recs supports our children and believes investing believes in investing in this community in fact we know that if we're going to grow, we have to do that we have to invest in our children we have to invest in our seniors we need to invest in housing. Thing but I am I am glad that this body made the decision that it did in thinking about the economic uncertainty energy markets right now are a big question supply side issues I think we really made the right decision tonight but encourage us to get right back to answering that question about how do we then go and invest in this city in our children in our seniors and in the future of our really awesome parks and recs department good night Bangor okay pencil back [2:03:09] Michael Beck: I would absolutely echo those sentiments, and I would just say this, that while I voted no, I'm absolutely excited to begin the work to figuring this out, because I know we can, I know this community can, and I think that we're going to come up with something that's going to work with almost everybody but the most people. And again, I'm excited to begin that work. Good night. I [2:03:36] Susan Deane: think there's a common theme tonight i could echo both of your statements i too am very excited to move forward with the parks and rec and the arena we certainly need something for our citizens and i was very close to actually allowing the citizens to vote but i think that would have been a huge disservice to allow a 75 million dollar bond issue to become part of our tax burden so i look forward to bringing this down to a more feasible amount and i hope that we can do that in a very short time and move forward and enjoy a new Parks and Rec facility. And good night, Bangor Council Leonard. [2:04:21] Joseph Leonard: I just want to echo all three of your comments. Additionally, we are actually planning to get right back into the discussion and planning process for a Sawyer Arena plan and for more recreational usages for our Parks and Rec Department. That should be at a future government operations special committee meeting in April, I believe. And I also just wanted to thank the citizens who came in here tonight regarding 99 Farm Road. That's a massive concern to me. And not only do I share your concerns on the code violations, I am going to also support your wants of making sure that we see if there are actual code violations to this property. So I commend you for coming in tonight, and thank you for your words. Good night, Bangor. Council Fish. [2:05:22] Carolyn Fish: Well, I think we all stand united on the rec park. We all want it. We just got to figure out how to make it work with our budgets. And with that, I'm just going to say good night. [2:05:35] Wayne Mallar: Councilor Mallar. Good night, Bangor. Councilor Walker. [2:05:40] Angela Walker: I just want to say that I really appreciate people that come in and take time out of their Monday evening to come in and speak to us. I listen to everything that is being said on Zoom or on in person. I appreciate that. It definitely opens broadens my mind and my thinking on different topics, and I deeply appreciate that. And thank Bangor. Good night, Council Flume. [2:06:07] Susan Faloon: What they all said, it's not no on the rec center, it's a not tonight but soon hopefully. And then I also want to add that I too have concerns about I setting up shop on the farm road. We've heard the argument that they don't have a major presence in Bangor and that these things aren't happening here when we've been discussing the various ordinances, and this is just more proof that they are here and they're setting up shop and they're probably not going away anytime soon, and that's a major concern. And in my mind, all the more reason why we do need to have such an ordinance, and good night Bangor. Thank you all for coming, for participating. [2:06:58] Susan Hawes: This is how we get the business of the city done, is by you all coming and talking to us, sharing of ideas, we take it back to our committees, and that's much appreciated. So with that.