Bangor committee approves ethics code updates and housing grants

[0:50] Michael Beck: Hey, all right. Good evening. It's 5:53 p.m. This is government operations committee. It's Monday, June 7th. And the committee chair Michael Beck also on the committee with me or counselors Malheur counselors fish I'm 13 as well as council Walker also joining me at the table councillor Leonard councillor Haas councillor Carson councillor Falloon and city manager Lear here. First item on our agenda tonight is the Advisory Committee on Racial Equity Inclusion human rights update. And I believe team boys by share of the committee will be joined at the table to provide that update. [1:30] Carollynn Lear: Good evening, everyone. So Katie wanted me to pass along her regrets that she could not be here today. She had a prior engagement and thought she'd be back in time didn't make it so I'm filling in. So you have all received our quarterly report. And there are just a couple of things that we wanted to highlight on here. Those are really our three main areas of focus for the past quarter. First was the language access plan and just working in general on public accessibility. This is something that we have been looking at for months, if not a year, at least at this point, developing or potentially eventually developing a language access plan that would help ensure that our residents have access to municipal services, regardless of their primary language. So we had been kind of stewing on this for a while and then we decided, well, we should probably collect some data to see if this is even something that really would be impactful and worth writing up a whole plan. plan. So Courtney facilitated some surveys and solicited some feedback for us from different departments in the city and it was determined that yes, this probably would be worthwhile to have. So we are currently working on what that is going to look like. We're beginning to work with the Bangor Police Department's language line interpretation service. So it's It's a new service that they are using to help improve communication in situations involving law enforcement. We are also beginning to flesh out a plan for what this could look like long term and where we could go, how we can expand, looking at what languages would be most impactful for the residents of the city and just gathering that data. We also focused on public communication and community engagement, and this was, we've kind of joked about the ACRE website for our committee being a big old nothing burger because there's really nothing on there. So we have talked about increasing opportunities for sharing information with the community through that website. It exists, it's not a whole lot of time or effort to throw a couple of things on there. So we have been working on that, expanding information about the community's work, what we do, when we meet, various meeting updates. And also we've begun highlighting different heritage and cultural observances throughout the year. And that is just to increase community awareness of all of the cultural, for all things happening in our community. The website also now contains a public contact form, which gives residents a direct way of reaching out to us as a committee to share their thoughts and feedback. We don't get City of Bangor email addresses like you do, so if someone asks our email address, we have to give them a personal email address or direct them through city manager or somebody else. This is just a quick form where literally anyone can go on, share their comments, hit send, and it gets passed on to us to consider as a committee. So it's really great, it's been very helpful. I think there are some people that unfortunately want to participate but haven't been able to make the meetings because of the time, and so they can still share their feedback this way. Looking forward to seeing that expand. We are also, I mean, a big focus of doing this is to try to make our committee's work more visible to the community. I think a decent number of people in the community know that our committee exists, but they don't really know what we do, or how we do what we do, or why we do what we do. So we've tried to put out some more information, and obviously we'll continue to evaluate and add new information as we have it. And then the third pillar for this past quarter was community outreach. This was the third consecutive year that we have hosted an informational table at Bangor Pride, and we have a short survey, nine questions, that folks could fill out, just asking in general, how do you feel about the inclusiveness of Bangor, what could be improved, where do we already have strengths. So this, we've included some of our main findings from that, and certainly this is not meant to be a representative sampling of the residents of the City of Bangor, right, because it's very highly selective. I Don't know off the top of my head how many people participated in a survey, but it is certainly not representative sample. But it does give us a little bit of insight into what some people are thinking. I think the main finding here was a lot of people said Bangor is already a really inclusive community and a great place to be. They did, I don't know if it was a majority, but a decent number of our participants did say that only applies sometimes, but it is not always so. I think obviously work to be done there, but we do, we have inferred that people, residents are recognizing the positive efforts of all of us at the table to help make Bangor a more welcoming community, but also recognizing there's always room for improvement. They also identified some practical barriers to participating in and community events in general. And these are pretty much the same as last year's. And that would be the lack of accessible transportation, limited awareness of community events. They just don't know what's happening in the community. And of course, financial costs, which we're all feeling right now. Other ideas that came up were affordable housing. We typically get the same responses from year to year when we've done this. Housing, accessible public spaces, accessibility in general, like walkability of sidewalks and for folks who use wheelchairs or other like accessibility tools, there are sometimes some concern that the sidewalk, the sidewalks are not always smooth. And then the last thing that we wanted to share with you is just looking ahead what our plans are in the next quarter. We are obviously going to continue to look at our language access plan. We are also going to try to expand the number of departments that we've interfaced with for that plan, just so that we can make it as useful as possible to the city, right? Something that works really well for the city clerk's office might not work as well for, you know, a different office, so we want to try to give as much feedback as possible for that, so we can make something that's really actually useful. We also plan to support the new legislative committee as needed with identifying appropriate ways to inform council and residents of the city of upcoming state legislation or proposed state legislation that might impact Bangor. We also are going to actively try to increase our opportunities for listening this year. This is something that we've talked about for a long time, and it's just been really hard to get the momentum to start showing up to more events. We go every year to Pride, but we would also like to attend other community events. We have talked about attending the Friday Art Walks and other community activities, just so that we are out visible, collecting more data, having conversations with folks, and just making sure that people know everybody's welcome at our committee. If you have something to share, we want to hear it, and if you can't make a meeting now, you can go on our website, put in a little note. But we also do plan to work on identifying some partnerships with local organizations that can support various city departments through training, cultural competency, just in general connections to more resources when appropriate. So if any of you have any ideas on that front, or if there's anything you think that you would like a bridge to connect the city with another resource, please feel free to let us know. We're happy to have those meetings on your behalf or with you, whatever you need. We're here to help. Okay, [10:09] Michael Beck: questions regarding the update? [10:12] Carolyn Fish: Counterfish, is there software for the language, the different languages? There are some easy software that can be adapted, and then that's kind of solves, I think you just have to put in the priority of the languages or how many languages, and it takes care of the whole [10:31] Carollynn Lear: website, doesn't it? Yeah, we have talked about a lot of different types of software like that, even like AI tools that can be used for on-the-spot language translation services. There are some good ones out there. They're typically very expensive. So we're just trying to start at bare bones, what are some of the little things we can do. But yes, that is definitely a tool that's available. Oh, sure. [10:55] Carolyn Fish: And when you're looking for more outreach and to identify more partnerships, if you did identify with those, would you first bring them to council for discussion to see how the council, you know, would agree that they're good partnerships or [11:08] Carollynn Lear: are add to sure? Yeah, we will not pursue, like we will enter into a contract or anything with anyone, we can't, we don't have the ability to. But it does sometimes happen that representatives from an organization might reach out to us first. We typically would have a conversation as a committee and then bring that to you so that we have the information to share with you. Thank you. [11:27] Michael Beck: Any other questions? Okay, well, we appreciate the update. Thank you so much. Have a lovely evening. All right, and that brings us to the next item. It's a public health update from our public health public health director Jen Gunderman will be joining us at the table here. [11:49] Jen Gunderman: Welcome. Thank you Laura George. Thank you. Good evening everybody. I have a number of agenda items here, so I will go through them with you. So I provided a memo update. I won't read through everything, but highlight a few things, and then welcome to any questions or comments. So the HIV outbreak is ongoing. We haven't had a new reported case in about a month, technically an outbreak, and the end to an outbreak is really designated by Maine CDC. They have sort of projected that maybe going six months. Without a new diagnosis could start to designate the end of the outbreak. However, what we know with at least 44 newly diagnosed individuals that we have a long term system building process in place to support people for the rest of their lives and to also know that ongoing transmission risk can occur. And I listed you a number of strategies that we are employing both at the department and with our community partners. I it's hard to believe at 85 degrees out that I have an update on the warming centers, but I thought it'd be important to kind of circle back to this on a couple different reasons. First of all, to just provide you just a couple pieces of data that came out of the final reports for both the Brick Church and Together Place, and their data was pretty evident that they were a really. Important resource for the city of Bangor over the winter. So I did receive final reports from both those organizations, as we can see here, that they collectively both shelters provide about 10,708 bed stays between November and April, representing at least 425 unique individuals. It was pretty amazing that each center remained open every single day during that time period except one for each of them and for two very different and real reasons. reasons. So that was pretty much a heroic, feat. So if you take the $120,000, I'm now looking at this, I'm wondering if I did this correctly. I may have to re-look at this number, but even if you double that, it would be $420,000 divided by the 10,708 eight beds. I'm double guessing my math right now. But it was less than $25 per bed per bed stay. Currently, the hub seven coordinator along with was I correct with $11? Okay, it was correct with $11. Thank you. After hours, my math, it sort of a skilled start to question. Currently, there is ongoing conversations on planning for this next coming year. What happened over the year, the winter, that isn't represented in any quantitative data is the really strong collaboration that happened between the three warming centers in terms of Brick Church, the Mansion, and Together Place. They worked so well together that when one of the places had to close for one of those nights, the other warming shelters were ready. They welcomed people in when one person was sort of needed to leave one shelter for behavioral reasons for a short period of time. Another warming shelter picked up. They just worked really well together and that sort of collaborative ongoing communication continues as they plan for next year. They're looking at many different models, you know, do they stay three distinct warming centers? Do they sort of collaborate to have one major center and then those other ones are satellites. Lights so they're really trying to think through thoughtfully what will meet the needs of the community and also not burn them out and strain the system by the end of the winter people were crispy in terms of like burnt out from just the high demands and Together Place relied on so many volunteers during that time. Main Housing is about to release their RFP to support warming Center throughout the state of Maine. This collaborative group is trying to make decisions on if they're going to apply individually, if they're going to apply as a group, but there will be applications going in. And traditionally, the city of Bangor provides letter supports for all the applications that go in. We don't choose one. So there's a lot of conversation happening there. I know one of the questions that came up last fall was, why wasn't this starting to plan earlier? I can attest to the fact that these conversations are very active and ongoing and then I just sort of put a quote there about these warming shelters. This came from the reports of one of the fundies. The warming shelter became more than a place to stay for many guests. It was one of the few constant consistent places where they could come inside be safe for the night and interact with people who Treated them with respect. We heard that time and time again. This was not just a place to lay ahead, but a safe place, a welcoming space, and a space that brought resources to people and have connections made for housing, for recovery, for primary care. So pretty amazing work there. As you recall, we put out an RFP for a day space to get ideas on what that could look like, what it would cost, what are the possibilities, and to sort of explore lower that avenue. RFPs applications were due last week on July 1. Received one application from Together Place. And we'll be taking a look and digging into what that application looks like, what the costs are, and understand where what funding sources could be available, and definitely bring that in front of the advisory committee for their feedback. So that's an update on that strategy. We also have an, I know this isn't exciting, but it's really exciting for us, we also have an electronic medical record RFP that was put out that was also applications due on July 1st. This is one of our biggest most significant strategies on diversifying our funding sources so that we can start billing in a way that our department has not built in the past. So those applications were due on July 1st as well. I receive, we received about 12 to 13 applications. And so we are excited to dig through those and kind of narrow down the HRs that look the most affordable and really what is meeting our needs. So some of the things that we're looking to bill for is for case management, for lactation services, for immunizations, for STIs, for some other services that we might want to expand into to that the community is not able to access easily. This is the season for mosquitoes. Just another update, we are about a week away from setting our mosquito traps in conjunction with Parks and Rec. We've been working with the main vector born lab out of Portland to be part of the statewide surveillance so we have those traps, we'll be setting them, we'll be collecting mosquitoes, sending them out for identification and for testing. As you may recall, over the past couple of years we've seen an increase in the number of mosquito-borne diseases right here in Bangor, which is sometimes surprising for such an urban setting with a hint of rural. I don't know if we can totally neglect the idea that we do have morality to this geography. We are, our infectious disease specialist has been working to develop a Bangor Infectious Disease Committee, which is just a smaller committee of infectious disease folks in the Bangor area. What we're hoping that committee will do is help us walk through what is the protocol when we have a positive pool of mosquitoes or mammal or human in the area. What do we do for messaging? What do we do for protocols? What are the recommendations that we want to make? So more to come there. And one of the things that's nice about us having sort of control over those traps is that we can move them. So if we find like we want to put one near the school system, or we need to want to put them near one of our fields, that's accurate, we have that flexibility to do so. Tick-borne disease, following up from our last conversation to do a little bit more about tick borne education. One of the things you may have heard in the news a few weeks ago is that there was a positive human case of Powassan disease in Penobscot County. That is a tick-borne disease that's a little bit more rare than anaplasmosis or Lyme disease, but very serious. So we did some social media messaging right away, and we are right now have ordered a bunch of materials from Maine CDC, and they actually offer community education like a session for a Maine CDC to do with the community. So we're looking into how to make that possible for Banger, whether that's in person or virtually. I leave tomorrow to attend the National Association to End Homelessness conference. There is a significant contingency from the state of Maine that's going. I'm excited to be there. We will be meeting with Senator Collins and Congresswoman Pingree's office while we're there on Thursday. An update on the learning and listening sessions that I talked to you about the last time that I was here about offering sessions to the public to learn about what the current homeless response system looks like, sort of a basic overview, and then to have a facilitated conversation about people's thoughts and ideas. I shared this with the community health leadership board, who said that they actually want to participate in this as well. So working with the community health leadership board, Laura Mitchell oversees that, talking with how we can do that collaboratively and leverage maybe some statewide resources to help with that conversation. And then I just want to go back to syringe waste. I've been thinking a lot about syringe waste in many different ways, so I will be scheduling a meeting to talk with the local organizations department that are directly involved with syringe waste, the SSPs, Parks and Rec, Public Works, to talk about spring wage syringe waste. From a very big picture, we often talk about syringe waste in terms of what we see on our streets, but there's actually another problem that we don't talk about, and that's syringe waste in people's homes. There are people who are on medications that require an injection, and they have no way to get rid of those needles, and they're being stored in their homes for years. And so we want to make sure that is also part of the conversation, to be talking about the picture and what are possible solutions, talk about what a redemption program would look like and how much it would cost, what would a needle take back day look like. But we want to make sure that we're talking about the whole community, not just particular populations. And then the last thing that I just want to mention is Maine Housing approached me about a week ago to possibly explore some funding that they might have available to support working with people who are living outside and moving them on the continuum to housing. I'll have more details to share probably within a couple of weeks, but more to come on some programs that are on the forefront. We will also be applying for a SAMHSA federal government grant called the Streets Program, which is, again, another program that looks to move people from homelessness to housing, particularly those that struggle with addiction. That is my overall update. Welcome. Any questions, comments, concerns? Questions. Dr. Fish. [23:49] Carolyn Fish: Are you concerned that we only had one RFP for a shelter? I'm kind of surprised. [23:56] Jen Gunderman: that i'm not, i'm not concerned because the application that we got was pretty robust. i think it's something that we can work with. i think this application was a way for us to start thinking through what a day space would look like. there'll be ongoing conversations that may welcome other collaborative partners to the table, but i think this one application provides us a really great starting point to talk about what a day center would look like. Comfortable. [24:36] Angela Walker: I'm not exactly sure this question should go to, but I will just throw it out there. So we, there was some conversation about like some public meetings to kind of update people on what's been going on with kind of like the homeless issue and you know you know kind of just like all of those combined issues and i don't know where we're at with that if that's [25:04] Jen Gunderman: Still something that's kind of being planned, or yeah, so that is the learning and listening. Okay, the Community Health Leadership Board wants to have more of a partnership around, which is great because the organizations that are part of the Community Health Leadership are part of the response. CHCS, our health care systems, Penquist CAP. So I think it will be something even stronger than what was first on our minds. [25:31] Angela Walker: Sorry, follow up. Any timelines, or is she? [25:35] Jen Gunderman: No, I've got to get back to figure out what that was. Dr. Fish. [25:41] Carolyn Fish: Is there any, and I don't know who to address this question to, the influx in the last two or three months? I know the Pathway came in a month or so ago, and just from what they were able to identify, which I'm sure wasn't a lot, I'm sure it was short, but when I think March it was 40, April it was 41 new faces in town, they were homeless, and I'm sure now with the weather warmer, I'm sure that I've heard from some people that are somehow connected to resources available and working, that those numbers are likely, our population now could be pushing 700, and also that daily there are people getting off the bus being dropped off, and I don't hear any conversation from anybody. I don't know how we can, if you have any ideas, or if there's anything we can do, you know, we have problems to take care of our own, and I and our of our sister communities, but this problem is shocking, and there's just no conversation about any, reason, anything we can do about it to try to, you know, stop this. It's human trafficking. When they get here, we're overwhelmed, we can't take care of them all, and I just wondered if there's any conversations in your arena of any ideas of [27:14] Jen Gunderman: what we can do. Yes, this is absolutely a conversation that's happening among the community organizations and the direct service providers. This is a significant challenge with no clear answers. I do know that BCAT and other organizations do a very good job that when they come across somebody that was sort of recommended to come here by another organization, they call that organization to say, you know, this is what you have done to send somebody into an area that is not resource rich, and so there are Some direct contact in general assistance, we really work through to understand where someone is coming from, how they got here, and be able to trace that back and have conversations. And then there are people who come here because they had a job lined up and it didn't work out, or they came here to use, you know, to come to one of the facilities for care and they're not in that facility anymore. They come because they had a relationship that ended. It's hard because people are coming for all these different reasons that it's hard to figure out like how to address that core root issue. It's absolutely part of the conversations, and it's part of the conversations across the state, across the nation. People are moving constantly in different locations. I'm hoping at this conference that I go to that I can start to understand what some of those solutions might be, or at least a way to understand how other communities may have addressed it. Thank you. And I can just take a note to get you updated [28:41] Susan Deane: statistics from the media about the new contacts that they've had. A lot of other questions. This sort of is a follow-up to that. There's a reporting method that you said you don't have access to that lets you know numbers and perhaps last zip codes. What [29:03] Jen Gunderman: what is that called? So that is the HMIS data, and I had been in communication about getting regular data. That's kind of fallen off the priority list in the recent moments with some other things, and it will get back on my priority list to get that data regularly and share with you. It is a question that's asked [29:22] Susan Deane: quite a bit. If we had some answers, I think it would be helpful. A [29:29] Angela Walker: couple questions about the RFP. Was it created by your department? By your department? And where would one find the [29:39] Jen Gunderman: website? On the city's website where RFPs are. [29:43] Angela Walker: And how was it announced that it was available? Jen Lawler, the Hub 7 coordinator, shared it with [29:50] Jen Gunderman: her LISERB, as well as we sent it out to a number of the organizations that we work with. [29:56] Angela Walker: I have another question. I don't know if it's directed specifically to you, but I'm wondering, I don't know if we've ever even discussed it, but it feels like we have. It appears that we have a homeless shelter in the city, and so I'm wondering with the day space that we're looking at, why we can't focus on that organization to make it bigger so that organization can house more people, which would include the day space, which would include overnight, increasing the beds, because the space that it's in now It's like you can't just keep going up because of where it's located, but if we moved it to a vacant building that we have here in Bangor, you could increase the bed, increase the amount of services that could go into there. But I'm just asking, I have not heard it since I've been on council. So I don't know if this is the appropriate place to bring it up or if it was something that you could answer. [31:01] Jen Gunderman: I could provide a first comment is just to so currently right now, Preble Street over the Hopo shelter is expanding their beds that are available. One of the things to keep in mind is that the two shelters that are currently available well, outside side of Shaw House, Bangor Area Homeless Shelter and Hope House, there are a few differences in terms of one being a low barrier shelter and one just having a little bit of higher barrier. So right now, Hope House is known as the low barrier shelter where people who are in active addiction are able to go. There are different rules for Bangor Area Homeless Shelter. Both facilities serve very important needs and services because there are some people who are in active recovery that want to go to a place where there's different policies in place. So I think in thinking about overall overnight shelter space, that would be a bigger conversation that we want to bring those shelters into the conversation. In terms of the day space RFP, the RFP was built for low barrier situations because we have a number of people who struggle in different ways and really need that low barrier place to be able to have a safe space to be, thank [32:26] Angela Walker: you for that, I appreciate that. I just feel like that the more beds that we have and I did, thank you for reminding me that I did know that Preble Street is adding on to that to there and that they are really lower barrier there, substance use and whatnot, but I'm more concerned about having the beds available. It feels like that maybe if people got, if we had the beds they that were available, that it could be offered and it would, we would be doing something about it. Does that make sense? That's how It feels that we have these vacant properties, we have Pebble Street, we have Bangor Area Homeless Shelter environment, specifically talking about building, making it bigger. Yes, it is, I do work, you know, I do see that it's some people don't want to be at this particular shelter because they can't do this, is that, well, sometimes we have to go there, we have to put ourselves there and not do this and this for one night, two nights, these nights that they are willing to do that if we had more beds, it seems like it wouldn't work out for there for our community. I'm not laughing because I think, oh, I know anyone, I just feel that we have that shelter in place, it is downtown, you cannot expand on that, but we can expand it somewhere in the city, and I am in favor of looking into it or helping or assisting and having that happen, but it just makes sense because I do know that Pebble Street is expanding and that's great, I saw the construction over there, I see it, and that's needed too, but I think the more bags the better but [34:09] Susan Deane: sorry, other questions, I [34:14] Michael Beck: just had a couple questions regarding the day center, a warming center, the warmers center RFPs, they go out, I noticed that, you know, like the City of Portland will apply themselves, or I think Lewiston also applied to the city, is there any advantage to us rather than doing a lot of recommendations, or any advantage to us, you know, trying to go for the lion's share, maybe try to get more dollars per bed and then turn around and do the RFP like we did last year for the individuals, that's an interesting question, I do [34:47] Jen Gunderman: want to point out, I know if you've seen, I haven't talked to my counterparts yet in Portland, but I did see in the news that Portland was actually looking to have another organization take over their stay space. One of the things that we need to keep in mind is how to maximize the dollars as much as possible. If we did do a larger RFP and then subcontracted out, that means we're using some of our administrative time to then do that work, which is a pretty big lift, so it would then take away the dollars that could be going into the organizations, so it's something that we often keep in mind. I think once the RFP is released, it'll be a good conversation to have on who are the right entities. And then we can only make recommendations. What the organizations want to do on their own, they'll end up doing what they think is best. But that is a helpful strategy to think about as well. [35:41] Michael Beck: JOSHUA SHARFSTEIN JR.: And then the other question I had was regarding the syringe waste conversation. You mentioned that people get the options and the costs brought back. Or is it going to come to this committee or just a workshop? Yeah, I would bring it back to whatever was appropriate. Okay, and then the last thing I was going to say too is, you know, at the conference on it, I'm sure it'll be a hot topic is, you know, we're not the only service center out there, and hearing from other service centers about how are they getting their sister communities to step up a little bit and take a little responsibility for their own residents. I understand that they don't have the infrastructure to help, you know, still to pick up the phone, call ahead, make arrangements, something, and also, you know, shoulder some of the costs involved because that was an eye opener for me. Just to share with the committee, I think it was about a year and a half ago, I went to a hearing in Orono, and it was for a zoning appeal for a restaurant. And part of that hearing this board says we don't have the infrastructure to deal with substance restorer and we don't want it, and then to hear that and yet you know still put people on the bus send them our way or drop them off here, that's just, these are your residents you know, and we do what we can but they're not bingo residents and it just, it breaks my heart to hear other communities think that they can just shirk their responsibility again if they don't have the infrastructure but, and then Please, this is directed towards the other communities and no one else. I just take care of your people, you know, we'll do what we can, we're a service center, but pick up the phones, talk, you know, and figure it out, you know, stop shirking responsibility, you know, for your own residents, and that's all I have. [37:33] Angela Walker: Dr. Thank you. Regarding the RFP, so I know that we talked about, and I think it was included and they were sorry it's been a while since I looked at it, but like preference would be given to an agency that could also do a warming center. So what would that look like when we get to the point where we're looking for these warming centers? Would they still [37:59] Jen Gunderman: Need to submit a separate RFP, so I think we're waiting to see how the main housing kind of shakes out first before we start to think about how the city could potentially continue support in the proposal that was in the application proposal that was submitted. We made sure that there was, how would you, would you be able to do a warming center in this space and what would that look like? [38:27] Carolyn Fish: Dr. Fish. To piggyback on Councilor Beck's comment about other municipalities, last fall I made about 30 calls to different communities near our size, a little smaller, a little larger, and what their homeless issues were, what they were doing, what they thought was succeeding, or if they were still looking for solutions. And I think it was Washington State of Oregon. I had spoken with a community about our size, but in fact, they were not the service center, but they were a beneficiary of a town nearby. And they had a clearinghouse agreement with this, with this service community, where they could opt in, different smaller communities could opt in or out, and there was a phone and a clearing house, and they could make a call if they had a resident who had either a mental health or an addiction issue or homeless issue, and the coordinator that would take the call, like a 24-hour call center, would connect with the right service provider, and there was a fee, and those that opted in had less of a fee. They had the advantage of having their residents being able to be served, and the communities that opted out were actually charged by the municipality, so in the end, and if they just sent them and they were discovered to be sent there and dropped off without coordinating, they were then the municipality had to pay, they were charged a fee, and so the municipality that I talked to thought it was great because they were getting their residents help and they knew they didn't have the services and they. Had a good working relationship with the community, it was a service center, so you know, I thought that I was really excited, I think I put it in a report and it might have been the right manager, but maybe we can continue that idea. We have to get the other communities to respond, right, to opt in or opt out, but it would be a good, I thought it was a great idea and. [40:34] Susan Hawes: I just wanted to also state that in addition to working with our municipalities, yeah, I think it's also important to keep in mind that we have to have a very robust and more effective relationship with our leaders in Augusta as well. I mean, it's I don't know what the number is right now, but like I know Portland in the past received over 90% of general assistance funding in the state in total. And I'm not trying to say that they should not receive that amount of money, but it's very clear that if one municipality is receiving that much general Assistance. That to me tells me that there is a missed opportunity to work with our state delegation and whoever is going to be in the governor's office to work with us because I know we all know this at this table, but a lot of people don't seem to really understand that Bangor is the service center for Central and Northern Maine. We do a lot of heavy lifting that goes unthanked and we flip the bill for that and we can't keep this up anymore and so it's one thing to work with our municipalities which we should do but also on the other end we have to let Augusta know that they also need a step up as well and that's a partner that I know they understand the problem but it's very clear to me after all these years their eyes seem to be going more southward than they are northward so that's something to also take into consideration thank you I've done on this committee I appreciate being recognized though but I'll just contribute to this whole conversation that I think that's definitely a great question for the legislative committee to take up with the piece that you know it could be responsible for I think that they're in terms of like thinking through fees or a relationship that way and probably that's a legislative question but the relationship question is important for sort of that old phrase that when a job hasn't been assigned it's nobody's job and you'd have to put yourself in I appreciate sister communities that do not have resources but we'd also at the same time that we can look out it's like you know what the heck are you doing sending people here I have to sort of put ourselves in their shoes and if right we don't have that relationship built they don't actually know the answer right they don't know what our resources are where we're strapped or where our capacity is and so they're just Operating on the assumption that because we are a service center, whatever the person in their community needs is available here. So we have to build those relationships, and I think that's one way to solve that. [43:22] Michael Beck: Any other questions? Just so just let the committee know, also I know staff is working on getting HOP 7 to come in and give us an update on Bill for Zero, so that's still being coordinated. And then also just to say, I know the director gave credit to the warming centers for the 425 unique individuals we serve, but also public health deserves a lot of credit for pulling together at last minute. That's live saved, so thank you for making this happen. In this update we're just so comprehensive, thank you. For that, and as always public health is busy. So anything else on this before we no? Thank you. Okay, that moves us on to a resolve ratifying staff action to apply for the John T. Gorman Foundation direct service grant program for up to three thirty thousand dollars of funding housing stability activity stabilization activities. Yes. [44:18] Jen Gunderman: Yes, so this is John T. Gorman Foundation. It gives out grant money for many years. They're an amazing organization. Typically, they would provide funding for a host of different topics or issues. This year, they decided to directly fund people working in the area of housing, homelessness, and food insecurity for direct services and no new programs. So we, after talking with someone at John T. Gorman, and realized that our sort of the main housing grant that we have on right now around providing people with support that are at risk for eviction with some of that money came discretionary funds for cleaning, for moving, for a whole bunch of services, and that money goes away in December. So we wanted to, so what we did, we applied to this fund to keep some of those discretionary funds available to support people who are new to housing or at risk for eviction. So we put in the application, it was a tight timeline, so therefore it was the ratifying the action for the application. My sense is that this is going to be a very competitive process. Questions? I would [45:33] Susan Deane: just know this is probably the last Grant application that should come to you as ratifying in staff action because of the ordinance that you passed in the last council meeting. You've been gaining the authority to approve the grant applications, and then the actual acceptance will still come to you. [45:54] Michael Beck: Can they gonna miss this process? Do you need a motion on this? Yes, okay, I'll entertain a motion. I [46:08] Carolyn Fish: Move that we give staff permission to ratify the John and T Gorman Foundation direct grant program up to thirty thousand dollars. [46:19] Michael Beck: Okay, we have a motion of a second, any objection? Okay, that looks like that has passage. Okay, that moves down to resolve accepting appropriating one million eight hundred sixty nine thousand seven hundred thirty three dollars from the Department of Health and Human Services for the Main Prevention Network for fiscal years 2027 and 2028. So this funding [46:43] Jen Gunderman: funding supports most of our health promotion program that works on substance use disorder, tobacco treatment, healthy eating, active living. This is actually, I would say it's a contract, but this is a program that sort of expands over 10 years. We're at in the middle of those 10 years, our funding ebbs and flows on what's available at the state level, which is also where it is also sort of that pot is filled by some federal money as well, so this is the next two years of that funding for that work. [47:18] Michael Beck: Questions and I need a motion on this one as well, I'll entertain that motion. I [47:33] Carolyn Fish: make a motion that we I give staff permission to accept and appropriate one million eight hundred sixty nine thousand seven hundred thirty dollars from the services the Main Profession Network for fiscal year 2027 2020 [47:50] Michael Beck: second. Okay, motion second, any objection? Okay, that will have passage as well, which takes us to a resolve accepting and appropriating grant funds from United States Housing and Urban Development for the purpose of funding the Bangor Rental Assistance Program in the amount of one million one hundred forty four thousand hundred seventy nine dollars. That was a referral with the, if we approve this second reading will be on July 13th. [48:18] Jen Gunderman: So this is the funding to support our shelter, what formerly was known as Shelter Plus Care. It's the rental assistance program that provides housing vouchers to people to get housing. Most of the people who receive these vouchers are people who are homeless, who are living on streets, who have a history of being homeless and also have a history of having a disability that are prioritized for these vouchers. This is a program that the City of Bangor has had for decades as part of the overall Maine Continuum of Care work, and this is for the last contract of our current two-year contract with HUD. This is the one where the notice of funding opportunity has been released and we'll be working with the Maine Continuum of Care to put in our application. I am part of the board for Maine CoC and it is very clear that we will be experiencing a significant cut in this funding, but we will go into not providing voucher mode, but how do we keep people housed mode and how do we help people successfully exit the program into self-sufficiency and financial sustainability. [49:38] Michael Beck: I misspoke there. Let's go with the second reading regardless of what we do, which is whether or not we have a recommendation. Questions? [49:46] Wayne Mallar: Councillor Miller. The question I would have is this is covering all of Penobscot County and what portion of these 73 households are from Bangor? [49:59] Jen Gunderman: So the household where people get housed are predominantly in Bangor up to about 87 percent. Some of the other places where people get housed are in nearby Hamden, Old Town, Brewer. The people who receive the vouchers come through the coordinated entry system. So those are people, that's the system that once people are assessed where they're at in their homeless journey, a voucher is given to people who are at sort of the highest end of that assessment. People who are chronically homeless and experiencing a disability that get these vouchers are predominantly from the Bangor area, if not from the Penobscot area. These are most often people that we have known for a while. [50:56] Wayne Mallar: Shelter plus care is that also provided by another agency in the Bangor area? [51:03] Jen Gunderman: So shelter the rental assistance program Maine DHHS receives the other large proportion of the funds for this program they then subcontract with other agencies I'm sorry they subcontract to Preble Street, who implements the program, who then subcontracts with three other agencies throughout the state. One of them is CHCS. CHCS covers bigger than Penobscot and Piscataquist County. [51:32] Wayne Mallar: So we wouldn't have any, I mean, they wouldn't have any input into putting [51:38] Jen Gunderman: bank or citizens into housing? They do. They also, vouchers can go to people who then reside in bangor as well the [51:51] Carolyn Fish: other questions counselor fish the continuing of care funding that's more or less being extinguished do you think part of the new program that was kind of rolled out june 1st the 4.3 million i think with the new strategy it's it's still but it's instead of housing first which has been sort of the continuing of care now is it's rehabilitation first do you see part of this program being transitioned so that we will get some of the funding because i know mania is earmarked for part of that 4.3 Billion, so do you see already some of that opportunity coming to Bangor? So you're right that there was a shift. [52:39] Jen Gunderman: Shift in some of the language in the latest NOFO, which is requiring programs to shift how they do some of their work, and we're building an application that will be competitive. So it's interesting about the continuum of care application as they, we have what's called tier one and tier two. Tier one is, I wouldn't say a guarantee, but is whatever programs are in tier one are very likely to be funded if Maine gets funding. Tier two is competitive additive nationally. So this NOFO is prioritizing programs like transitional housing and what's called support services only, which is like outreach and other programs that aren't tied to housing. And for permanent supportive housing, what this is a part of, there are some new language around requiring people to be accessing certain services. And so that is part of the changes that will be happening to Maine's proposal. Thank you in [53:40] Michael Beck: regards to this and I'll describe it as a cliff coming with the funding cut. Would it behoove our legislative committee to make some noise and Augusta about this of, hey, you know, if the federal government is, you know, shortness [53:53] Jen Gunderman: funding, you know, what can the state do to pick that up? Yes, and I will let you know that Maine Housing is a part of the Maine Continuum Care Board. Dan Brennan is a member and is very vocal and has advocacy to figure out what will happen. So the application is due to HUD, I believe it's August 24 or around that time period. We'll know at that point where things could potentially stand and we'll need to start planning the next day on what we're going to do about the people who are going to lose their vouchers, how to prioritize, has what's the criteria, what is the path, how would we work with them? Sure, if there's anything we can [54:33] Michael Beck: do, you know, send a letter, whatever, let us know, we're happy to do it. Definitely keep you informed. All right, any other questions on this? Right, I'll entertain a motion [54:51] Carolyn Fish: to apply for to accept inappropriate grant funds from U.S. Housing and Urban Development for purpose of funding the Bengal Rental Assistance Program in the amount of one million one hundred forty four dollars and forty four thousand eight hundred seventy nine dollars. Second. [55:08] Michael Beck: Motion of the second. Any objection? Okay, well, that's got passage. And that brings us to order authorizing the city manager to execute a lease agreement with Bangor Nursing Rehabilitation Center for rented space at 103 Texas Avenue for Bangor Public Health and Community Services. [55:28] Jen Gunderman: Yeah. So we, as you may not know, we are in a lease space. The other side of the building is the Van Gord nursing home. They own the building. Otherwise Covenant Health owns that building and we need to go into a lease agreement every so many years. So we this is where our new lease agreement is up. They have added an increase to our rent. I've tried to negotiate that a little bit because it was actually quite a shock to get a 20% increase in our rent. We had not experienced an increase in a while. They do pay for our utilities but we are responsible for everything that is between the roof and the foundation and we maintain. We also now need to take care of our grounds work and they have shortened the amount of time that they or we could give them for vacating the building from 24 months to 12 months. I am suspecting that there might be some changes coming to our building that may at this point where we want to start kind of looking to see what other options could be for our facility. Our department was part of the parks and rec blueprint. And so we're just trying to figure out why we might need a new home and where that could be and what that could look like. [56:54] Wayne Mallar: Questions all. [57:00] Michael Beck: Right we need a motion on this I'm. [57:05] Carolyn Fish: Going to offer as a city manager to execute the agreement with Bangor Nursing Education Center for the office and clinic space for Banker Bank or Public Health and Community Services that kind of motion we have a second. [57:20] Michael Beck: Any doubt right that has passage thank you all right so that brings us to the next item on this proposed ethics ordinance amendment that I believe that Council of Flu is working on it's a chance of fluently presenting or will it be city major league actually all right all good options welcome to the table hi Dave Stepshik's a solicitor yeah so the. [57:50] David Szewczyk: The in your packet tonight is Counselor Faloon drafted additions to the code of ethics, so these would be new sections. Those that initial draft was reviewed by legal and we made suggestions, suggested revisions, and worked with Counselor Falloon to create a revised draft that is before you today. So legal's opinion on what is in the in the ear packet, the revised draft, is that this would be a helpful amendment to the ethics code in two different areas. The additions actually have two parts. First part is it's a section that puts a 120 day deadline for the ethics board to perform its work after receiving a referral from the council requesting an advisory opinion on an ethics issue. This time period we believe is sufficient for most matters. There is an ability built in for the ethics board to request an extension of time from the council, which preserves the council's oversight of the pace of the process. The second part is something that wasn't in the ethics code at all, that is a process for the council to use upon receipt of the ethics board's advisory opinion. The council it has needs to place the matter on an agenda within 30 days of receipt, see conduct any investigation or deliberation that may be needed to be in executive session pursuant to one MRS section 4056a, which requires in some instances that some things be conducting executive session. With respect to everything else conduct investigation, deliberation, and vote in open session. In instances where the ethics board has, ethics board's finding was that there was no violation, there are three options that the draft contemplates. The first option being the council could vote to take no further action on the matter, so in other words if the ethics board investigated the findings that there was no violation, the council has done this already and that is don't want to take up any more time but would vote to take no further action on the matter. The other thing would be for the council to deliberate and vote on whether the council finds a violation or violations because the these advisory opinions and the ethics board's investigation and work are not binding on the council. So and the other thing that the council would do or could do is deliberate voting with The council which is to conduct its own investigation of the matter and the prim the parameters of any such investigation are spelled out in the draft. So if the for matters where the ethics board concluded that there was a violation or violations, it's the same two options with the first option not there. In other words, everything except the vote to take no further action. If there's a finding of a violation that the council needs to take some kind of action, and that the same type of action you deliberate vote on whether the council finds a violation or vote on whether the council wishes to conduct its own investigation, and if so, you know, determine the parameters of that investigation. So if the council finds that a violation occurred, the council votes the violation occurred, it must then report on this and what's before you, it would, it would then need to deliberate and vote on the issue of an appropriate penalty, which may include one of six things in this draft, the first of which would be impose no penalty. But if the council chooses to do that on a time when it founds a violation, the council has to include a written statement of the council's reasoning. And this is an accountability mechanism. If the council decides they're not going to impose a penalty, the public would need to know in written form, you know what, 's the council's reasoning. Another option would be a formal censure. A third option would be removal from a committee or committees or board assignments that include liaison assignments. Fourth option civil fine, it's already authorized under section 33 dash three, and section nine dash 26 of our code. Fifth option require an individual to complete a specified training as a condition of continued service in an assigned role. And then there's a catch all and other lawful action that says any other lawful action the council teams appropriate. So the draft also spells out the participation of the counselor or counselors, who was the subject of the ethics sports investigation and findings. And that would be to not participate in the council's investigation or the deliberation of vote, but to have the ability to provide a defense, including if we're talking about an investigation, doing its own investigation and present, having the ability to present witnesses or documentary evidence. evidence. So one last thing is that this draft hasn't been reviewed by the Board of Ethics. The procedure the Council uses does not really involve the Ethics Board's work. And the 120 day deadline is, in legal opinion, sufficient time for the Ethics Board to do its work. So I don't know that you want to direct us to send it to the Ethics Board before it goes to full council, but I just wanted to make sure you do what hasn't been reviewed by the ethics board. [1:04:14] Angela Walker: Thank you. Well, I guess I don't have to describe what's involved in this, but I'll just say like a couple of reasons for me submitting this, which was a few months ago, that we seem to be having more ethics referrals in the big questions. Like people would say to me, well now what, you know, now this is gone or you've got a decision, so what's the next step? And that was a really good question. So I wanted that to be a lot more clear, like what, you know, this is the process for, you know, if we get a recommendation either way. So I thought that would just really make it a lot easier for us to answer that question or to make our decisions. But the other thing was that it seemed like it took a really long time, and I know that there were some reasons for that. I was originally proposing 60 days rather than 120, but after some back and forth that wasn't feasible because of what the ethics committee has to do. So that was changed to 120 days, but the idea was to kind of tighten up that timeline because after so much time goes on, people just assume that we're not doing anything. So if nothing else, it brings it back to the conversation, if they need to ask for an extension, and then we can communicate that, okay, that work is still ongoing. So I think it sort of builds trust with the community too, that we can let people know that, yeah, this still is being worked on, it's going through that process. And then when we get that decision, [1:05:51] Jen Gunderman: here are the next steps. [1:05:57] Susan Deane: I just want to thank you for doing this because I think it provides us with a little more clarity. You know, before nine of us were trying to decide what to do, we could have nine different opinions, but at least now we have something we can go by. And I think it's a much more precise way to look after whatever decision comes our way. So I appreciate it. [1:06:22] Susan Hawes: The same thing. Thank you for putting the work in. When a committee hasn't met for well over a decade, something like that, you're going to have kinks that are going to be found. It wouldn't shock me if we have to do another amendment at some point in the future. This but this is how the process works, and again, thank you for putting work and effort into this, because I know a lot of constituents were a bit agitated, and I think we were all confused as to like how the process was taking that long as well, and I think also the FS committee was also confused as well, so lesson learned all around I think, and yeah, I think we're on [1:07:09] Michael Beck: a good track here. Other questions, comments, Counterfish? I agree, I mean this is pretty [1:07:18] Carolyn Fish: straight forward. I think we both come from professions, we have standards and we have ethics and articles, and I liked a lot of what I saw in here. I did wonder if we had submitted this to the ethics boards just for input, in case they did think of something that, you know, maybe we're so close to it they might come up with an idea, and have they looked at this or had [1:07:41] Angela Walker: any contribution to it they have not tons of flint thank you yeah i 'd be completely open to that and i think it would be a really good like courtesy as well i mean whether or not we need approval from them even if we don't it would be good to get their important i agree any [1:08:03] Michael Beck: other questions or comments? So something, there's two ways we can go with it. We could take a motion to send this to the board of ethics for them to look at it, or we can motion it to go to full council. So I'll let the committee decide. I'll entertain a motion on that. I [1:08:25] Angela Walker: was just wondering that time frame for sending this to ethics and how long that would take before we can get it back and then have it to the council. [1:08:41] David Szewczyk: If it doesn't go to the board of ethics, we could have it on your next agenda, but it's an ordinance that would require two readings. If it does go to the board of ethics, we they would have to have one of their meetings and get it onto their agenda, and so we would not be able to get [1:08:56] Michael Beck: it on your next council fish and then council rods. So if we sent it just for their input, [1:09:04] Carolyn Fish: just in case, you know, they have something to add, we're talking to two more council meetings, so about a month, or unless we gave them a deadline like can you review this and get back. [1:09:16] David Szewczyk: To us, they would probably have to call a meeting because I don't know that they could get it on their next upcoming meeting, because that's just to approve the decision of the last decision they made. So, but they, we just have to get a quorum and a, and a time when the room's available. So it would be about a month. I think you're right. [1:09:40] Carolyn Fish: Does it have to be that formal code? We could, they circulate it by email and just give us input where they don't really have to vote on if they're going to circulate it to the chair that might be faster because [1:09:58] David Szewczyk: Like I said the part about the council's procedure after it returns doesn't really have anything to do with the ethics board it's just the first part the 120 day deadline which is a small portion [1:10:15] Angela Walker: This is mainly going to be informational for the Board of Ethics, and it gives them some added knowledge that right now they don't really have access to. So I see no reason why we can't send it to council, send them a copy and let them do with it as they will. I mean, they'll talk about it with their attorney and they'll go through some question process, but it is added benefit for them to have it so I don't know why we'd want to wait [1:10:51] David Szewczyk: Right just so you know that the solicitor's office is the liaison to the to the ethics board so they could talk about it with me the matter of the solicitor's office reviewing or guiding both the ethics board when they when there's a man referred to them and then guiding the city council is it is another issue that requires referral to outside counsel but as far as reviewing this there's no reason why the solicitor's office can't just review this with him or just with the chair perhaps or just Giving them a copy whatever you want to do well [1:11:31] Michael Beck: I'm just gonna say that outside of that 120 day window I just see this as informational for council is the way I chunk it you know so I would be in favor of just us approving it at council I know that the ethics board you know is it yearly they have to do a report if they have any revisions or suggestions they have to get over support also there's there's public [1:11:52] David Szewczyk: Input at the second reading yeah so the ethics board or the chair or more than the just could [1:11:59] Michael Beck: Could provide input at that second reading any other questions or comments Dr Fish so [1:12:09] Carolyn Fish: I'm in favor with to moving this to council keeping in mind that the ethics committee will at least be able to look at it and if they come up with something we can always do [1:12:18] Susan Hawes: An amendment, so I'm in favor moving it along. Yeah, the solicitor's office can distribute it to the [1:12:27] Angela Walker: to the members what comes to flu. Thank you. I'm not on this committee so I can't vote, but I would agree with that. All [1:12:38] Michael Beck: right, well I'll let her know. I'll come for another, I [1:12:41] Susan Deane: would be in favor of just sending it to the chair so that we don't get involved in everyone trying to get together with the quorum and holding things [1:12:50] David Szewczyk: right. Either way it would just be for the purpose of if they want to have input at the second reading as opposed as opposed to them having a meeting on it. All [1:13:02] Michael Beck: right, I'll entertain a motion. Move that we [1:13:07] Carolyn Fish: approve and move the proposed ethics ordinance to the next council second. Okay, motion of the second [1:13:16] Michael Beck: any objections? All right, look at this, we'll go to full council then. Thank you city solicitor. Right, that takes us to the MMA legislative policy committee ballot. Yes city manager [1:13:31] Susan Deane: earlier so Bangor appoints one member to the LC. Counselor Carson as chair of the legislative committee, but some of the other members are voted upon and this is the ballot for those additional members. Unfortunately you will see from this ballot that there are no additional members to vote on. The only option is to write. And I would suggest that you do that because numerically, that is how the votes work and so there would certainly be a benefit to writing someone in so that our interests are represented by two votes instead of one vote. That could be any of you, or it could be me if you would like me to do that. I did it last year, but I would recommend that you write someone in. [1:14:31] Susan Hawes: Questions, comments? I was just going to recommend that since city manager Lear offered maybe we proposed to write her name was [1:14:48] Michael Beck: that an offer? Yeah, absolutely. [Susan Deane: You're my boss.] All right, well I will entertain a motion for that nomination. [1:14:59] Susan Deane: I would move to nominate city manager Lear for the committee, the MMA committee for the next fiscal year. Yes, [1:15:11] Michael Beck: second. Any objections? I [1:15:19] Susan Deane: see two, sorry, two fiscal years longer. [1:15:22] Michael Beck: Yes, sorry, the next two fiscal years. Lucky you. Okay, well then with motion second, no doubts, so it looks like we're voting for our city manager and so I will, this is one where you actually the [1:15:34] Susan Deane: committee that's voting on us has to sign the ballot so I'll circulate that while we move on. [1:15:39] Michael Beck: Okay, and this is our last item coming up, post slate for 2014 MMA vice president and executive. [1:15:49] Susan Deane: Committee members, and so this is what we just voted on, specifically the contributors to the legislative policy committee. This next ballot is the executive committee that advises MMA on all of their operations, so certainly much more expensive than just policy. You will see that it is a not competitive ballot, so there is not a huge benefit to voting unless you wanted to write someone in. I am NOT volunteering for that, and if not interested, then any questions? [1:16:45] Michael Beck: Comments on that? Any objection to just the slate as is? Okay, looks like that's it. Any other update or anything else for the? Okay, then we are adjourned.