Lewiston Council Tables Zoning Change, Confirms No Layoff Consensus

[0:00] Speaker A (unidentified): Go, you'll see this scenario which seems to be where we landed at the last, at the end of the last meeting. A house currently valued 100,000, we'll see an increase of about 358 dollars to their tax bill for FY 27. 150,000 valuation of 531 dollars, and a house that, to a property at 250,000 valuation, 876 dollars. So that's with the city moving to tier three and our overall increase. But obviously, as everyone knows, we still have the county at a 20% increase and the schools at approximate 11% increase also. So that's kind of a recap for the numbers. Bill Healy will be joining us shortly also, he's finishing up a public session to talk more about the current valuation and where it stands this year versus last year, since we basically decided, or I think there was consensus, to do a one-year delay with the revaluation process and go with this year's current numbers, though I think there may still be some discussion on that point also. As far as what we've also been doing internally since the last meeting, we did meet today with our legal counsel, or Employment Council, to discuss the process if we are moving with tier three and sticking with that, the process for notification of those employees. That also does involve a number of collecting collective bargaining agreements and the process lay out there for notification. So we're working through that. I do just want to caution again before this moves too far down the road, we need to make sure, I think there is adequate support, firm support on the council before any employees are notified that their positions publicly are being discussed for elimination. I think that's very important for us in city administration. I think it's very important for the morale of everyone that works across the city, that we are absolutely sure and are supportive of moving forward with layoffs, with tier three cuts, before those employees are notified. So the other, I think, small wrinkle in this, and maybe Director Roy can talk about it more, is depending on where the budget numbers come out, it may take five votes to pass this budget, a super majority. And if that's the case, I'm not certain of the numbers, if there are five votes to go with tier three cuts. So I think again, we need to be very sure about where we are before we have to go forward and actually meet with these people to tell them that they're going to be publicly discussed for elimination. That's a significant step. I don't want to minimize that at all before we have firm support here to go ahead and do that so director roy do you want to talk [2:47] Bryan Kaenrath: about the five votes in the supermajority so the cpi on the sheets that you have you have tier three the very first one is the original 367 000 added for the police vehicles that brings us at 8.5. The CPI as of December was 3.3. So that means we will be 5.2 over the CPI, which will require, as he mentioned, five votes. Your second tier sheet that you have is with the 439,836 added back in for the police vehicles. That will bring us to 8.6 which is 5.3 over the CPI and then your last sheet your tier 3 with the take-home vehicles will be 8.8 which will be 5.5 over the CPI index. Thank [3:55] David B. Chittim: You Director Roy, Administrator Kane. [3:57] Scott A. Harriman: Russ, Counselor Harriman, thank you. Can you remind me what the difference is between the two amounts added back for the police vehicles so [4:08] Bryan Kaenrath: The original, the first one, the first sheet you have is what we originally had for the ten SUVs with the take home PD then had changed and sent another memo out to you stating that they would need the four hundred thirty nine thousand eight thirty six so you have both options there. Okay. [4:30] Scott A. Harriman: Thanks. Other [4:35] David B. Chittim: Questions? Director Kainrath, I'd like to go back to the potential cuts. I want to make certain that we all understand that we are not discussing individual people here on the council, that if the council decides as a body that it does want to go with tear through three resulting in eight layoffs, I understand that decision would be entirely administration's decision. We may want to know what departments those cuts are coming from, but it's certainly not our purview to talk about individual people or Even individual positions. Am I mistaken in that? We've had different [5:21] Speaker A (unidentified): requests from different counselors and we want to make sure that we're able to honor all those requests so in order to produce a list you know even just by position without names but it's obviously fairly easy to figure out what name is attached to that position we would need to notify these individuals before they're going to be discussed in this setting for possible layoffs so that 's the issue we're having is in order in order to produce that information and produce a list to you we first Have to notify these individuals, and as I said a moment ago, we also want to make sure for these employees and for them as people that before they were discussed in a setting like this for elimination, that we make sure that we have adequate support here to move forward with that rather than notify them and then walk it back later that we weren't really serious. This is again not something that's great for [6:17] David B. Chittim: employee morale. Thank you. Comments or questions from the council on layoffs or on the budget? The tiers, Counselor Martel. Thank you, Director Kane Rath [6:33] Bret Martel: or Roy, excuse me, Administrator Kane Rath, can you explain the direct cause and effect? Is there, I've received some emails, people feel like take home cruisers for the PD is going. If we were to approve that, will directly have an impact on layoffs? What I believe it was 400,000 is going on top of the budget if we don't do them, so it's gonna go up by 400, or can you help me understand just literally with and without, and if that impacts layoffs or not? So originally, if you [7:12] Bryan Kaenrath: remember when we first started the budget, we had removed all capital, so that meant we removed all of the police vehicles that they normally buy out of the budget. So when we started this process, and if you decide not to do the take home, they would need vehicles. So that's when we had to add that back in so that they would have that in the budget. So if you look at your sheet that I had originally given you back at the last meeting, it has the breakdown of the different tiers. Years so [7:48] Bret Martel: let me, let me make it real simple. Is the budget going up or down if we approve take-home vehicles, if we don't approve them, and we have to do the 10 or 14 cars, doesn't that actually increase the budget for this year as far as capital and general fund is concerned for taxpayers? So if it's not approved, it [8:07] Bryan Kaenrath: will increase the budget for the vehicles that needed. If it is approved, the items are already in there for their gas, their maintenance, all that is already in there. And again, we won't be bonding that, so that the principal and the interest payment will not be in for another two years. [8:29] Bret Martel: Correct. So if we approve the take home, the budget goes up this year for the taxpayer. Payer, so it would be a difficult stretch to if we do have to make layoffs I would they be it wouldn't be because that we approve the take-home cars. The budget will be less if we approve the take-home cars and more if we don't. So if we don't approve them it might reasonably indicate that we might even have to make more cuts to make up for that 400 000 if we wanted to get to [9:01] Bryan Kaenrath: zero. So the take-home vehicles as I mentioned have 490 000 in the actual budget currently right now on your sheets you with the without the take-home vehicles that's a credit because you're removing that. So that 490 000 is in there if you add back the vehicles that they're going to need it's 439. So you're reducing the budget by 60 000 basically for the ad and the removal I'm [9:38] Bret Martel: just trying to i've gotten several emails that are associating the take-home vehicles with the need to make layoffs and i just want to make it clear to the public that at least in my opinion that 's not how i see it i believe these cuts are due to spending and tax increases and I just wouldn't want to see a false correlation made between these to the take-home cruiser program as presented and a potential layoffs that may need to happen from the council so thank you I appreciate that and helping me work [10:08] Speaker A (unidentified): through that with you the larger impacts of the future death service I understand [10:13] Scott A. Harriman: gossip Harriman thank you I would just point out that of the three scenarios that we've gotten here the one with the take-home vehicles is the most expensive of the three budgets cousin [10:25] Joshua L. Nagine: AG thank you council chair the reason why would the tier 3 would take home vehicles we're seeing an increase is because of the fuel and maintenance or why are we not seeing the reduction of 439 836 from [10:48] Bryan Kaenrath: the total for fiscal year 2027 because if they if you agree on the take-home vehicles that 490 000 has to stay in the budget to cover the gas the maintenance of those vehicles the insurance so that needs to stay in the budget if you approve the take-home vehicles if you don't then that can come out of the budget and save 490 000. [11:14] Joshua L. Nagine: Okay thank you [11:19] Susan G. Longchamps: Counselor Longchamp you've just made that really confusing director sorry so if your answer is correct that you just shared with us you're saying that the we would save 400 and I'll wait till she's done could [11:46] Bryan Kaenrath: You repeat that again, sorry. Okay, so if you look at the sheet that you got last week with the breakout, the take-home vehicles have less things to remove out of the budget. If you do the take-home, that's why it's higher. If you look at the tax rate, because there's less items that are removed, so the comparisons that we did on that sheet, you'll see without the take-home, you see that additional four hundred and ninety thousand. With the take-home, that's removed. Our so we had to adjust and take level Two tier two and move it up to tier one to get to [12:24] Susan G. Longchamps: That million dollar number. So basically the 400 plus dollars is basically for maintenance that has to stay in the budget and gas that has to stay in the budget for vehicles that are not brand new. If we are to accept this and allow the take homes, we're basically getting all brand new vehicles. Whether we accept this deal or not, we still need new vehicles. And how many is that again? [12:54] Bryan Kaenrath: They are requesting ten. [12:57] Susan G. Longchamps: So they're requesting ten, which would roughly about be how much? It's four hundred and thirty nine thousand eight thirty six. [13:03] Bryan Kaenrath: That's your option to sheet. Okay. [13:07] Susan G. Longchamps: So either we have to have 400 plus dollars to maintain vehicles. We're going to need, They've requested ten more vehicles, which if they're requesting them, clearly they need them. So again, I've been a big supporter on the take-home vehicles mainly for recruitment, but hearing this again, either way we have to spend money on vehicles. So it seems like the better deal would be the take-home. Is that [13:43] Bryan Kaenrath: correct dollar wise? It's it comes out that you have your tax rate is 3 39 with the take-homes. Sorry, mine are mixed up. It's okay. 3 45 with the take-homes, and then if you're gonna do the 439 836 option, it's an increase of 342. So it is more with the take-home because there's less reductions with the take-home. So [14:23] Susan G. Longchamps: now that now it's more. [14:25] Speaker H (unidentified): Three cents difference, three cents to take home vehicles. It's read all in 45 cent increase. If you do without the take-home vehicles, it's three dollars and 42 cents. So you're talking three cent difference, a three cent difference. That's you look realistically what the director Roy has done is the total tax rate without the take-home vehicles is a ten point four foot total with everybody involved, and with the take-home it's ten point five. So it's three cents, it's a three cent difference guys. And we do have several members of the police command staff here if you'd like to ask them any questions concerning the [15:00] Susan G. Longchamps: Take-home vehicles, I think if Sergeant Brown wouldn't mind coming up and just giving us a very quick rundown on the benefits of it and, you know, why you guys have really are trying to push for this, would be greatly appreciated. Once again, yeah, so when it comes [15:18] Bryan Kaenrath: to the tax rate and percentages, I don't have those numbers. What I can tell you is that the numbers that I gave you guys last meeting that I was here, so it was two meetings ago, the 526 000 is the actual number that we need to get the 10 vehicles. I believe, I'm not sure who did this, but somebody took out 86 500 from the changeovers and moved it from, I believe, the line item in here to our drug forfeiture, but it's still going to cost us eighty six thousand five hundred dollars, correct, to do the 10 cars so I think that's another number that isn't being factored into all this that 's a huge chunk of our asset forfeiture that again we use whenever we need you know new guns or something comes up unexpected that we don't get into our budget that's we use drug forfeitures for it's supposed to be kind of like emergency funds that are above and beyond like typical budget items which upfitting a vehicle is a typical budget item that's something we've always had in the budget ever since I've been doing this. I believe this has always been in there. This is the first time I've seen it taken out. So the number of four hundred and thirty nine thousand is actually five hundred twenty six thousand three hundred thirty six dollars is what we would actually need to get the ten vehicles if we did not do the [16:52] David B. Chittim: take-home program and the benefit to the city, well, the benefit to the city is the [16:59] Bryan Kaenrath: said before, we have officers from other areas that are inquiring and looking into this program. If we get this, there's at least three or four that have been pretty over about their wanting to come over here if the take-home cars happen. State Police has no openings, they have take-home cars. Interstate County Sheriff's Office have take-home cars, also have no openings. Louison Police, we do not have take-home cars and we have a lot of openings. So I think it's tried and true across the state, across New England, and even across the country that take-home vehicles do add to recruitment. That's one of the things that officers look for. It's quality of life. It's easier. Lower maintenance costs. Obviously a huge recruitment for the younger guys. [17:53] Joshua L. Nagine: House of energy, so what I'm looking at between Tier three with the take-home cars at 439. Without the take-home cars it at the 439,836 increase. Yes, versus the take-home cars with the additional cost for fuel. It's actually sixty thousand dollars of the difference between the two. Is that correct? Okay, there's a few things I'll just, I didn't think we're gonna start with the take-home cars, but there's a few things I'll just comment real quick one. [18:25] Bryan Kaenrath: And just really quickly, how many, how many vehicles that we have operational right now, patrol vehicles or police cars, total patrol vehicles? There are 17 cars actors right now. Okay, and they're all able to be taken on the road. Yep, they're all, they're all I'd say patrol ready. Okay. [18:41] Joshua L. Nagine: One of the things that comes up often is operational readiness, being able to respond to an emergency, being able to respond to situations that we see in our community, that I know that in the past we've waited for cars to get returned to the station, so that's one piece. I think also when we talk about the take-home model versus the continual five hundred and fifty to six hundred fifty thousand dollars per budget, we're extending the life of these vehicles from two to three. [19:17] Bryan Kaenrath: Years to between five and seven, is that correct, seven and upwards of ten years, plus some of the admin cars, some of the detective vehicles, mileages are usually pretty low on those, wear and tear is usually very low on those, there's no reason why 10 years, I mean they're probably going to rust out because of Maine weather before they're actually going to need to be traded in for mechanical issues. [19:43] Joshua L. Nagine: Okay, you know, just as a note, obviously the police department is our largest municipal expenditure and it can, as far as the department's concerned, and it continues, used to be, but we were also not man, how many people do we have right now on duty, like in the. [20:06] Bryan Kaenrath: Department, in patrol or just in general, in the, in the department, yeah. Right now for patrol officers there should be seven minimum and sometimes there's eight, but there's probably seven on most nights, seven beats, seven officers, and how many patrol officers do we have total right now, yeah. [20:31] Joshua L. Nagine: Maybe 42 ish. Okay, yeah, those are my questions, thank you. Council Martell, thank you. [20:41] Bret Martel: Sergeant Brown, how many applicants do we have right now for the academy? [20:49] Bryan Kaenrath: We have, we have one person that's in the police academy that right now, that's correct. [20:53] Bret Martel: And depending on when they get into the next academy, best case scenario. [20:57] Bryan Kaenrath: Is 24 months and we have one person that we have that's gonna be ready to go to the police academy in August and that's it, so they won't even hit the Academy. [21:08] Bret Martel: Till August and that's the one person we've got right now. Yes, and we can bring three to four pretty much instantly. Well, that's what the hope is and that's what. [21:16] Bryan Kaenrath: The, that these people are saying that they're kind of waiting to see and then if we get blue pins we can stop them right away. They go through a very short FTO PROGRAM TO LEARN THE CITY AND OUR POLICIES AND SUCH AND THEN BE ON THE ROAD IN WEEKS AND THEN. [21:30] Bret Martel: THEY'RE DISPATCHED YEP RESPONDING TO CALLS CORRECT AND THE ONE APPLICANT YOU SAID BEST CASE SCENARIO. [21:38] Bryan Kaenrath: WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT? WELL ACADEMY'S 18 WEEKS IN THE THREE MONTHS SO IT'S ALMOST A YEAR FROM THE TIME THEY GO TO THE ACADEMY THE TIME THEY'RE ON THE ROAD BY THEMSELVES. [21:48] Bret Martel: I WOULD JUST UH FOR THE PUBLIC SAKE LIKE I GET MESSAGES UH WE'D LIKE TO SEE BETTER MORE POLICE response moving violations stuff like that, some of the lower level things, and the only thing i'm left with is that i imagine you guys must be in a situation where you're triaging calls to a certain degree like correct, you've got shooters and dealers and stuff like that, it makes it a lot harder to run down someone on bad tags or without an inspection sticker, correct, our proactive policing. [22:14] Bryan Kaenrath: IS DEFINITELY GOING TO BE DOWN WITH SHORE DEMAND POWER THANK YOU VERY MUCH THANK YOU ANY OTHER. [22:20] Joshua L. Nagine: COMMENTS COUNCILOR NAJIN UM JUST ON THE 65 CARS TOTAL WE WOULDN'T BE PURCHASING CARS FOR UNFILLED POSITIONS OR WOULD WE NO I DON'T I DON'T BELIEVE SO NO I CAN SPEAK TO THE NUMBERS IF YOU WANT. [22:34] Bryan Kaenrath: HE HAS THE NUMBERS THE BEST YEAH SO THE 65 CARS PLUS OUR CURRENT FLEET RIGHT NOW WOULD PUT US WITH seven spare cars so we'd have seven extra cars for guys that came in so those four that came in because the upfitting process is so long on these cars even if we do it in-house it's about a month per car upfitting outsourcing it if you can get in i mean they can turn a car over in about three to four days but there's agencies all across the new england that need vehicles upfitted so having seven. On hand, car breaks down, a guy can take another car. Having extra guys, you know, having guys apply that we end up hiring that can be ready in a month, perfect. There's a car for them. So we would have seven with the 65 plus what our current fleet is ready to go. [23:25] David B. Chittim: Yep. Other questions for concerning take-home vehicles for the police? Okay, let's go back to Tier 3. Director Healey has joined us, our tax assessor. Do you have anything to share with us, Director Haley? You just had a open house on the new assessment in the revaluation. Can you talk about that program? Yes, it went quite [23:49] Bryan Kaenrath: Well, we had about 40 people that joined the Facebook live event, a lot of good questions, a lot of unknown, you know, a lot of people wanting to know the tax rate, and as I mentioned, until we know how we're moving forward, also budgets and taxable valuation, we won't know the [24:08] David B. Chittim: mill rate until then. Thank you, and just to confirm, letters to all taxpayers are going out on Friday advising them of the temporary or the new assessed value that [24:21] Bryan Kaenrath: is correct. Valuation notices are going out Friday. The taxpayers of property owners should receive them early next week. It's going to have their old value and the new value on there, and it's also outlines the process if a property owner disagrees with the assessment that they can reach out to Tyler, and I also encourage people even if you don't disagree with your assessment, you can still reach out to Tyler and talk to them about the evaluation, the process. [24:46] David B. Chittim: Okay, they've, we've paid for that service already. They're not charging us by the phone call, are they? Are not, that's part of the process. That's good to know. So any questions about your new assessment for folks out there, the information on how to reach Tyler Technologies is in that letter. That's correct. That letter does not have any information about mill rates and tax rates because that's yet to be determined by the folks [25:11] Bryan Kaenrath: sitting up here. That is also correct. The one caveat that it does have is please do not multiply [25:16] David B. Chittim: your new value by the current tax rate. I would hope not. That could develop some real shocks. Absolutely. Are there any other questions or comments? [25:29] Susan G. Longchamps: counselor longchamp not about the revouch right now but I think it's important that we as our city administrator mentioned at the beginning of our meeting to make sure that we have a majority vote for this tier three you know so we can either continue discussing super majorities but we do need to confirm i think we have five votes yes i didn't realize that until he mentioned it so i 'm not exactly sure where we left off so i think it might be a good idea to maybe go down the line and make sure we have a super majority vote. If I could, I'll get to you in a second. [26:12] David B. Chittim: Council Martel, we're going to need a super majority anyway if the mill rate, I mean, I'm sorry, if the increase in tax levy exceeds 3.1, 3.3.3. None of the scenarios that we've seen so far get anywhere near that value, so I'm not certain what happens if the council can't, if five members of the council can't come together and agree on a mill rate or a tax increase that's greater than [26:43] Susan G. Longchamps: the 3.3 percent CPI, counselor. So I guess the concern that I have now is our administrator needs to move forward with advising the folks whether they're going to lose their jobs or not, so I think it is pretty pressing that we make sure that we have the votes for that, just for that reason alone, if [27:14] David B. Chittim: I could push back a little on that, there is no scenario that's been presented to us, any of these budgets, that will allow us to pass it with a for a simple for vote majority. Every single budget we've seen requires five counselors. I'm not sure what happens if we don't have five, but the fact is that for us to get down to three point three, we're going to need to eliminate the city budget entirely. I think we need to get to, even to get to a six point three percent increase, which still requires a supermajority, my calculations indicate that we close the city up and we fund only the school in the county, and that will give us a six point three percent increase at the present budgets, so work, we're stuck, we don't have a choice. If we cannot get a five vote majority, then it does the budget revert back to last year's budget the way the school does, administrator? You have a charter, we have to pass a [28:16] Speaker A (unidentified): budget by the end of May. If we cannot pass the budget, I think we have to go back or for the Charter, but director Roy, do you have it reverts back to fiscal [28:26] Speaker H (unidentified): year 26? It's actually, if I can interrupt, I just got this from the city attorney this afternoon. If the council shall fail to adopt a budget prior to the end of the current fiscal year, then the administrators final budget shall be deemed to be automatically adopted. So whatever city minister a cane wrath gives you, if you don't get a vote on it and we continue to have meetings, you can have a pass it, that's what becomes budget, so it'll be back to tier one, so [28:54] David B. Chittim: to clarify, it would not be last year's budget, it would be tier one, which was, it would be what I've presented this year, your initial budget, which gives us a tax increase of, do you recall offhand [29:04] Speaker A (unidentified): with the current valuation I [29:09] David B. Chittim: Think we'd have to get that number, well, not an increase but a levy, yeah, the net tax levy you're talking about, right? And unfortunately I don't have the pre-tier 1, 2, 3 sheets in front of me, so the tax rate would be thirty six dollars [29:28] Bryan Kaenrath: and fifty seven cents, an increase of three dollars and seventy nine cents, which would bring us to ten point seven, would be seven point four over CPI, okay. [29:38] David B. Chittim: So that would not require a council majority, that would be if the council cannot pass a budget, which now at this point requires five councillors to agree. If we don't do that then we end up with a an increase that's exceeding what we would have with five votes anyway these are these are the realities of the costs that are imposed on us that we really have no control over so to your count there to your point counselor long champ you want to know whether we have a five vote majority for any of these tiers is that correct i'm [30:23] Susan G. Longchamps: just concerned with if the city administrator has to go and address these, the issue of letting people go, and we don't have that vote up here, then that's, that's not good. Then you have to go back and say, oops, sorry, that's no longer happening. I just don't think that's very professional, and that was my, that was my concern [30:48] Speaker A (unidentified): at the outset, that unless it appears we have a strong consensus, we have five votes to approve this budget at tier three, which is where we left off at the last meeting, unless we have that, it makes it, I think it's ill-advised to go forward and notify employees that their positions are up for elimination in a public way if we're not serious about doing that. So I think, you know, and we are, we are ready to go forward and do that, we prepared with our attorney today to do that based on last week's meeting, but if we do need a supermajority, which we do, it requires five votes. I guess we are strongly saying that we need to make sure that we have a consensus of five votes before we go and approach these employees and talk about their positions with the city and their livelihoods. That's extremely important, so this is a very good point, and I think hopefully, you know, we can come to some sort of consensus, if not tonight, by Thursday night maybe, because if we are moving forward with tier three, we Also do have to get moving on a process to put that in play, to notify these individuals, and to get that process moving forward. But we need to make sure there are five votes to do it, and we can't just go back and say just kidding. From a personal management standpoint, from someone who cares deeply about the morale in this building and about our city employees, I don't feel it's the right thing to do. I don't think you know any of you would agree with that either. So I think we just need to make sure what direction we're heading in, and if there is consensus for tier or three cuts and the five votes, okay. [32:31] David B. Chittim: If I could restate that, if we cannot get a supermajority, then we revert back to the administrator's original budget, which contains no cuts and contains a tax increase of what percent? We were, we are now talking roughly ten and a half percent on the net tax levy. We're not [32:58] Speaker A (unidentified): talking about city operating budget, you're talking about the next tax levy, that's right. [33:03] David B. Chittim: What would the increase, what would the corresponding increase be if we don't have five counselors? This is a very ironic situation because none of us up here want to cut jobs, but in order to do that, five of us have to agree to keep the tax rate down. So it's a counterintuitive situation. If we cannot get five votes up here, then the taxes go up. [33:28] Speaker A (unidentified): Well, the taxes are going up in all of these scenarios. [33:31] David B. Chittim: The taxes go up more, shall I say. And can I have the number? We're talking 10.5% more or less now. [33:38] Speaker A (unidentified): On the levy. Director Roy, do you have the tax levy number for the original proposal? [33:42] Bryan Kaenrath: The tax levy number for the city would be $44,184,495, which is 11.8%. The tax rate that goes off the CPU, the CPI is 10.7, as I mentioned, would be 7.4 over. Okay, so we're [34:01] David B. Chittim: talking 11 and a half versus 10, but that's only in the event that the council can't pass a budget [34:06] Speaker A (unidentified): by the end of May, and I feel confident that the council will be able to pass a budget. Obviously, you know, the legislative process involves compromise and amendments and working things out, and I'm confident we can get there. So the scenario of it reverting back to my original proposal, I think, is pretty far off, but well, that all [34:27] David B. Chittim: Depends, as Council Longchamp has so astutely pointed out, on whether or not five of us up here agree that cutting eight positions is necessary to keep the tax rate as low as possible. If we don't have that and we only have a regular majority, then we have not passed the budget because we have not been able to keep the tax increase below or at the consumer price index. Therefore we revert back to a tax base that's even higher than that which any of us up here are comfortable with. Wow, there could be a compromise and remember we talked about [35:06] Speaker A (unidentified): the three tiers, there's a tier two proposal also, so I think that's for the council to sort out in the coming weeks. But again I do just want to stress if we are going to move forward tier 3 we need to make sure we have solid five votes to go ahead and do that. Well [35:25] David B. Chittim: thank you for pointing that out and I agree, I don't think we have a lot of time left. We can't take any formal action in a workshop but I don't know, do we want to take a consensus as to whether there are five votes for a tier three either with or without the take-home vehicles? Let's throw that issue aside for the moment and simply concentrate on the loss of eight valued employees as a cost of keeping the tax rate as low as possible. Are there five counselors who are in favor of that informally? Now Councillor Harriman, I'm sorry, I thought we were taking a vote. Oh, okay. Well, we're not voting. We're just putting thumbs up, thumbs down. So are you in favor of the tier three? The eight position loss, okay Castle Najee [36:18] Joshua L. Nagine: Again, I would be in favor of keeping our operating expenses to the Northeast CPI. So that'd be three point three percent. Unfortunately, and I know I don't have support for that, but I'm naming this budget is absolutely unsustainable and this increase is absolutely unsustainable. So I'm reading that as a in favor of tier three. Yeah, I would support given the option three, given no other option, okay, correct, all right. [36:47] Susan G. Longchamps: council longchamp no i as i shared before i 'm not in favor of that at all in fact i 'm hoping maybe and no one wants to hear this about the school budget I've gotten many emails I've gotten maybe two other than the school budget but I'm thinking you know the school has I don't know over ten million dollars in their fund balance maybe they could cut theirs a million and use some of their fund balance to help us I'm not sure how that works I'm not going to act like I do but I don't even know if that's an option, but I'm not in favor of tier [37:31] David B. Chittim: THREE NO OKAY AS I'VE STATED BEFORE THANK YOU THANK YOU UH COUNCILOR HERMAN I'LL GET BACK TO YOU IN A MINUTE. I'D LIKE TO FINISH UP TO SEE IF WE HAVE FIVE VOTES HERE. COUNCILOR ROY, I HATE TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT BUT I'M GOING TO ANYWAY. OH THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE. I'VE ALREADY SAID IT. I'M [37:44] Michael R. Roy: NOT IN FAVOR OF CUTTING EIGHT POSITIONS. COUNCILOR NOBLE, I'M ACTUALLY NOT EITHER. [37:53] David B. Chittim: ALL RIGHT THEN THERE ARE AND I AM IN FAVOR OF TIER THREE TO KEEP THE TAX RATE AS LOW AS possible, but we do not have five votes in favor of that. Counselor Martel, I don't mean to ignore you, but you matter very much sir, but I do want to hear from you. Thank you. I know that with the [38:13] Bret Martel: vote i don't make five but i do want to speak so i was going to be against the five votes too because i 'm with counselor nageen that i would like to see us stay at the cpi and so I appreciate you for recognizing this but I feel like I'm in a position where I'd have to vote in the supermajority to prevent an even higher tax increase than I then I then I want to not vote for the increase so that I can reduce it further so I would be inclined to vote for this but only so that i can axe it more and I don't want to seem insensitive and I hate to have to put it like this, but we can't sit up here and virtue signal and say that we don't want to cut anybody's job, but that we also don't want to put anyone out of their homes. Those two statements are incongruent with one another based on this budget. This budget is unsustainable. There's another thing I want to point out. I know we're not talking right about the eval right now, but our illustrious mayor isn't here this evening, but normally six out of the eight people that sit on this dais, this will be the third budget that's been worked on knowing that this was coming. Okay, the can has been proverbially kicked down the road so many times and the spending, we never got spending in line, we never made any, the councils before didn't make the hard decisions that would have needed to be made to prevent us from being in this position right now. Last year instead of making difficult decisions, we spent the vast majority of the available fund balance in order to soften the blow that realistically should have been saved for this year had we been forward-thinking and saying this reeval is coming. We can't avoid it any longer. We're gonna make some tough cuts last year so that we can preserve the fund balance to give people a little bit of a break and soften the blow of this re-evaluation. But that didn't happen. So this will be the third budget that difficult cuts have been avoided at all costs, that the can has been continued to be kicked down the road. The fund balance was used. Every option that is available to this council to try to soften the blow to taxpayers has been exhausted prior to now. And I would also like to point out, if you don't mind me asking, how long is your service to the city been, Mr. Healy? I've been with the city since 2015. Thank you. And it still remains your professional opinion that we should not push this reeval down the road? That's correct. It's been 38 years. At some point we have to implement a reevaluation. So you're the city pays you for this opinion and if we're gonna sit up here and kick the can down the road, we're going to do it in the exact, in direct contrast to your best advice. That's correct. Thank you. That's [41:11] David B. Chittim: what I've got for right now. Thank you, Councillor Martel. If we could stick to the topic, which is finding out whether we have a super majority, and it appears that we do not. Now Councillor Harriman, [41:22] Scott A. Harriman: yes, I just wanted to address the fund balance. So the school has around 10 million dollars in fund balance. They are currently using about half of that for this year's budget. They have been using several million dollars each year for the past several years. So that will, they're already using five million dollars approximately in this budget to help reduce the impact. And I believe the city currently has about 19 million in our fund balance and we're not using any, just to compare the two. [41:59] Joshua L. Nagine: Counselor, so since it seems like tier one is what we're moving forward with, could I propose that the next budget session that we actually address line items and in the pieces that I would absolutely love to see explored for cuts? I'm not 100 sure that the budget that was put in front of me, and I understand that everybody's worked on it very hard, but it's at certain points I have to ask why wouldn't we just freeze all hiring overall? If the position opens up, why wouldn't we cut down on overtime? Why wouldn't we eliminate non-essential programs like, why would we not do these things in order to reduce the budget? If we're looking at a situation where, I think that this was handled in a way that was professional and had to be handled this way because we were talking about eliminating positions, but if now we're not talking about eliminating positions, I want to gut all kinds of things. I mean, honestly, I, you know, I apologize for taking that stance, but if it's offensive to, you know, the directors who have worked hard on their budgets, but it's this is just it, we cannot continue to see an increase over the Northeast CPI, it just can't happen. And so like we have to cut, we can't afford to pay for all things, and so there's just my position overall. And I would also say just really quickly about the school, the school operating budget and their, fund balance, by state law you only have to have three to five percent of your fiscal year's funds in that fund balance, so if it exceeds three to five percent I think you might want to look at it. [43:51] Speaker A (unidentified): Thank you Administrator Kane Ross. Yeah, just a process question just to respond to Councilor Neji. And so this is not to critique our process here in Lewiston, but you know after I present the budget to the council it is the council's budget and you can offer amendments and go through that process to change, cut, you know, delete, remove, add anything you would like. So I think that's perfectly fair what you're talking about, it's, it's the council's budget at this point, amendments can be offered, you can gain the support of your colleagues and make, you know, whichever changes, you know, you would like. I mean my piece of this is, done, I've presented a budget, I've turned it over, so just to say what we're talking about is completely fair and in line, and if there are amendments to be offered we're more than happy to work with you on whatever they may be. Appreciate it, thank you, thank you [44:45] David B. Chittim: administrator it ain't easy any other comments questions there being none i want to thank all of our employees and i'm sorry i didn't see your hand counselor longchamp thank you i would just [45:06] Susan G. Longchamps: like to agree with counselor nadine i do think it would be a good idea to kind of go think go through a lot of those items and I'd be happy to help in any way that I can because we definitely do need to cut the budget I don't know exactly how that will look but I think that's a good start thank you just [45:28] David B. Chittim: To recap then, we are now facing the administrators initial budget which came to us. We are going to be working and looking at that as a council and recommending areas that we can cut. I will, I admire your goal council nation, but as I said before, in order for us to get even down to six percent increase of taxes with the county and the school, we're gonna have to eliminate the city completely so we can make progress in it. And I think we're still going to have to have a supermajority to pass a budget. That exceeds three point five three. [46:11] Joshua L. Nagine: Counselor Najin, I'm just stating the operating expenses for this year. Clearly if we can get the operating expenses for this year down to, you know, three point three percent, which is the Northeast CPI. I would be, I would be okay with that. But I think again for all of us, you've all looked at the budget several times, identify the line items you have questions about, be prepared for the next meeting because I think we don't have a lot of time. I mean, we've got a month in ten days, but it's not a huge amount of time to work through all of these pieces that we may be able to see savings in. So thank you. I would like to clarify that. [46:58] David B. Chittim: The city's operating budget is not the measure with the 3.3 percent, it's the overall tax levy. So either way, even if we get, even if we achieve the goal of getting the city's increase down to three point three percent, we still have. [47:13] Speaker O (unidentified): To have a supermajority to pass the budget. Completely understood. I'm just. [47:16] Joshua L. Nagine: Hoping that we can get at least one thing in line with inflation, just one. [47:20] David B. Chittim: Thing, every penny counts, and I'm with you on that council nation. Any other final closing comments? Administrator? No, thank you. So just again, it appears we're. [47:32] Speaker A (unidentified): A posture where we are at least pressing hold on the layoff piece and notifying employees unless there's, you know, further discussion from the council. And I do also want to add, if you are looking at specific amendments, cuts you'd like to make, changes, please reach out to finance and myself, Tracy and I, and we can help you navigate some of that if you'd like some assistance. And again, I haven't been through a budget process here in Lewiston yet, but the normal process I'm used to is councils offer. Amendments where, help will help you work up those amendments, you offer it to the body, and we see where they go. So, but we're more than happy to help work with you on those amendments and what you'd like to see done. Just please. [48:16] David B. Chittim: Reach out to Tracy and myself. Thank you, Administrator. I have one question for Director Haley. I know at the last workshop the council expressed a strong desire to delay the implementation of the revaluation for one year. I know that was against your recommendation. At what point do you need to have formal action by the council to decide that delay or not? I [48:43] Bryan Kaenrath: Ultimately it's going to be my decision based on recommendations from the City Council. The statute is pretty [48:51] David B. Chittim: clear on that. Okay, I misspoke then. We don't direct you in this. You are your own boss here, but you will listen to the council as a recommendation. And my question to you is, what is the last date that the council can offer you its final recommendation [49:12] Bryan Kaenrath: I we need to work on our valuation. So if we delay the reval, then my staff has to go in and update values in the old database based on new construction and permits and what have you. So if it would be a couple of weeks, I've already directed my staff to start looking at that and start getting numbers together. If we don't implement, then we need to increase the valuations for what there would have been had not been the reval. So okay, and that's new construction, building permits, and [49:48] David B. Chittim: what have you. So sooner rather than later, sooner rather than later. I'm holding out a Phil still faint hope that I can convince at least one or two other counselors that implementation this year is appropriate [50:01] Susan G. Longchamps: Got so long Jim. Yes, thank you. I should have asked this question already, but I know you said you've been here since 2015 and the revals haven't happened for 30 plus years. When did we start this? I started recommending a revaluation in 2017. You started recommending, so when did you actually start? I start, so I my [50:25] Bryan Kaenrath: first day here was February 15, February of 2015. My council meeting that I came to in 2017, I started recommending that we needed a revaluation. At the time you could see that we're already slipping and it would have been a lot better to have done it then and to have waited now. No one could have foreseen what happened with the market the way it went over the last six years, five, six years, but there was a trend that you could see. Our assessment to sale price ratio was getting closer to the minimum Of 70 percent when I came to the council it was always we needed the funding. I think I meant well. I know I mentioned this to the last time I came. I can recommend a reval. You can say the council can say we're not going to give you the money. So that's what happened over a period of six, seven years. [51:16] Susan G. Longchamps: When did council finally approve it if you don't mind me asking? I think it was 2023. So 2023. So we've really only been at this a couple of three years, right? So it hasn't been 30 years. We've been [51:30] Bryan Kaenrath: at it for about three years, right? But it's been since the last time the revaluation process was [51:35] Susan G. Longchamps: completed it's been 38 years, right? No, I mean, right, yeah, right. But we really started making the public aware that we were doing this back in 2021, 2023, oh 2020. We discussed that we needed to do it, but the process and timeline really started 2023 and we're in 2026. So okay, thank you. 're [51:56] Joshua L. Nagine: welcome, Councilman Eugene. Just for a point of clarity, we keep talking about 38 years, but that was when the reeval was actually due, correct? So we're actually talking about the last time we had [52:07] Bryan Kaenrath: a city-wide evaluation was 48 years ago. It was in 1988. Last time there was a full implemented revaluation. There was one done in 2006 and at the time it was decided not to move forward because the market was changing so rapidly. At the time values were dropping significantly and the assessor at the time determined it wasn't a good point to move forward at that time. Yeah. [52:35] Joshua L. Nagine: So that's 48 years ago was the last time we actually had a full 38. Okay, Councilman. [52:44] David B. Chittim: Sorry, yes. So it's [52:48] Susan G. Longchamps: been 38 years since we've had that but the public even though yes people are aware that it hasn't been done in 30 plus years but the public was really made aware that we were going to move forward with this in 2023 correct so i know that i had accepted your one year that you were willing to maybe push the button and say okay I'll do this for citizens of Lewiston but I'm gonna actually take that back and I hope you would delay I'd like to see it delayed for two years that 's what I would strongly suggest and I don't know if we'd have the votes, but that's what I'd like to see. I'd like to have it delayed for two years. Thank you. Thank you. Anything. [53:37] David B. Chittim: else on this workshop I will declare the workshop closed. We will reconvene in a short five minutes for our regular semi monthly meeting. Let's take a break. Good evening Lewiston now we're on the air. It is seven o'clock my clock says eight o'clock but I know to subtract an hour. It's seven o'clock welcome to the regular Lewiston City Council meeting tonight on April 21st 2026. Thank you all in attendance. I am going to start the meeting with a pledge of allegiance. I would ask Sam Chamberlain if he would lead us in the pledge. Thank you and I will call out mr. Chamberlain for having put together a wonderful dashboard that is available to citizens. Remind me of the name of the site budget data dotnet. Mr. Chamberlain has put together a wonderful tool that helps people understand how the budget works what its components are and so forth. So kudos to him. I think we have minutes of the April 7th meeting. Yes we do those have been distributed. Do I have a motion So moved second deputy clerk Thank you, would you please call the roll? Yes, the roll call starts tonight with Ward 1 Counselor from Ward 1. Yes Ward 2. Yes Ward 3. Yes Ward 4. Yes Ward 5. Yes Ward 6 Yes Ward 7. Yes motion passed by a vote of 7-0 Thank you, we are now up to public comment. The mayor normally has a screen which he reads outlining the rules of public comment. I will simply paraphrase those by saying this is my first night presiding at a City Council meeting so please be gentle please be kind please don't raise your voice and please behave. I'm not thank you I'm not using the mic [1:01:08] Speaker Q (unidentified): because mayors not hear any complaints that I talk too loud. First of all I got a few things. Martel school would you please identify yourself. I'm sorry everybody knows me Ronnie parody would six anyway. Martel school I'm really concerned again we're not paying attention to seniors and seniors out there please. I look at across the street on Pine Street and all those buildings that are going up and we've been working on Martel school since 2019. We paying attention to us seniors we're not paying Attention to our seniors, because I feel what two, four, six, and seven is not getting paid attention to. And then the other populations, there's two populations and I'm not going to say them, in Lewiston, that gets paid attention to and listened to all the time. One is Bates College, okay. Second, communication director. Where's our system for communication in this city? We had two things, water main break, we didn't know, I didn't know where to do it, and thank god for Brent that put it over social media about Bates College and that shooting. The communication director should be let go. She's not doing anything. I'm sorry, the comments about [1:02:37] David B. Chittim: individuals should be addressed privately to the administrator rather than in a public, I said but [1:02:42] Speaker Q (unidentified): I'm saying about communication, this somebody's not doing it. Suggestions, advisory committees, they should be doing more. You guys should be asking advisory committees for input, public health, senior advisory committee. These people are sitting around talking and they're not, you guys are not using them to what they should be using, and this way you could save money by using the advisory committees and their knowledge and everything else. Then thing, we wouldn't had to go through that needle thing for a year and a half if it wasn't. And by the way, I heard about the water main break through Wren, so she's published the streets over things and you let her go. Thank you [1:03:40] David B. Chittim: Any other public comment? [1:03:47] Kara Corshane: Hi. My name is Kara Corshane, resident award one. I don't think it's a surprise to anyone that Lewiston is full of division. Some of our disagreements are understandable and healthy, because Lewiston is full of different people with different beliefs, but some of what we're seeing goes beyond healthy debate. It becomes personal and at times cruel. I'm grateful to hear counselor Harriman speaking openly about autism and his diagnosis at the last meeting, and he shouldn't have to. Neurodivergence, of which being on the autism spectrum is a part, is not rare. About one in five people are diagnosed somewhere on the spectrum. My extended family is full of neurodivergent people, myself included. My partner's son has ADHD and is autistic. And like parents of special needs kids, most of them know that it takes a village to make sure he has what he needs to be as successful in a world that is not built exactly for people like him. That's why it matters how we talk about people, especially when they act outside of narrow expectations. Expectations. Some things as simple as doodling or knitting or fidget spinning are tools for focus, not signs of disrespect. When we assume the worst or publicly shame those differences, it sends a message that counselor Harriman or Kara Corshane or my partner's son or over 1,000 students in Lewiston's public schools are different and that different is not okay. If someone serving Lewiston feels pressure to explain or justify a diagnosis just to be treated with basic respect, that's not a disagreement about how we solve our community's problems. That's a signal about who we are becoming as a community. And if you don't think that contributes to our public image, which I know every single person in this room is concerned about, think again. Lewiston should be a place where people don't have to shrink themselves to participate. We can disagree even strongly about how we solve our issues and still choose to treat each other with dignity. Our kids are watching, as they should be, and they are learning from us how to behave. Thank you, counselor Harriman. Thank [1:06:13] David B. Chittim: You, miss Cushing. Any other public comment? Robert [1:06:25] Speaker S (unidentified): McDonald, Ward 6. About two, I haven't been since I was mayor the first time. I had stepped into this place really was two weeks ago and saw this barricade here. This is a public meeting. I don't understand why barricades are up there. I don't understand why everybody is so afraid to talk with the public. I think that should come down. I really do. It's very, it's not something that we should be proud of. That being said, Mr. Healey, he's gone. When I was mayor, we hired Mr. Healy. I hope that when the budget comes through, you run us by him, because this man knows a lot more than anybody else up there knows of how this is going to have to be put in place. So please listen to him. Him. Lastly, as I'm listening to the budget, we could cut that budget down very simply. All we got to do is bring in ICE. But we can't do that because, my God, the people in Augusta would hate that. And probably we'd lose a lot of, some people would lose a lot of votes. But you bring in ICE, welfare is going to go down, that school budget, God knows how much money is being spent to educate kids, these kids, they don't speak English, I'm sure it's a very big cost factor. But I think that if we looked at that, I think most people would be very satisfied with what the tax rate will be. But again, I don't think anybody here has the intestinal fortitude to bring that up. And I hope I'm wrong, because I'd love to see you do that. And thank you. [1:09:05] David B. Chittim: Thank you, Mayor McDonald. Any other public comment? My [1:09:12] Destiny: name is Destiny. I'm a survivor of the Lewiston mass shooting. The mayor altered the rules to grant speaking rights exclusively to Lewiston residents. Pardon [1:09:23] David B. Chittim: me, Destiny, would you identify where you're from, please? I'm from Wyndham. I'm sorry, this public comment is for Lewiston residents and taxpayers only. [1:09:32] Destiny: I'm a Lewiston survivor I am I was almost shot and killed it in this city [1:09:37] David B. Chittim: you have my utmost sympathy however the council rules require public comment to be limited to Lewis and taxpayers I would ask again that we allow all right there's been a consensus on council to allow you to continue please proceed [1:09:56] Destiny: Thank you so much. Okay, so back to what I was saying, the mayor altered the rules to grant speaking rights exclusively to the motion of residence. I've been speaking at this meeting for the last couple months. This presents a problem for me. I'm a victim of a shooting incident in Lewiston that nearly claimed my life. The mayor's stance suggests he wants us to leave us and leave and go away. We plan to continue attending meetings and voicing our concerns until we get the answers we seek. Survivors and victims' families did not request the city's council assistants in addressing their needs. Instead, our focus has been on seeking accountability for the 1.9 million awarded to 29 nonprofits that were known at Spengey's or at the Bolin Elle on October 25, 2023. We specifically asked for an investigation into the allocation of these funds. It's worth noting that the Rude Seller, one of the 29 nonprofits, has stated that it returned the Lewiston shooting funds they received back to the victims. Given your current partnership with the Maine Community Foundation, it seems reasonable for you to ask the Maine Community Foundation to return the remaining of the 1.9 million to the victims and their families. While we cannot undo what happened the night at Spangy's or at the bowling alley, we cannot erase the fear, the loss, or the trauma, but We can demand accountability. We can insist that when money is raised for victims, the victims come first. I escaped to the kitchen of Smenge's. Others didn't make it out at all. The least we can do now is ensure that their names and the support promised in their honor are treated with fairness, transparency, and respect. Thank you. Thank [1:11:48] David B. Chittim: You destiny any other public comment seeing now yes sir I'm [1:12:05] John Boccia: John Boccia. I was here last time and so I'm back again. At first I had a lot to say but a lot has been said already. So I just want wanted to know what was taking so long. It's been over a month and you know we're still dealing with what we're dealing with now. I started to get a little ticked off as you would too if you were in my shoes. You know sitting in the cheap seats don't seem really nice lately. But I just want something resolved. I don't care how it happens or what's gonna happen. I had a whole bunch of stuff I wanted to say tonight but after tonight and talking to a few people here, I'm really not sure what to say right now. You know, I just don't want this to just be forgotten about. So that's about all I got to say right now. I'm not even sure what to say right now. So I appreciate it. [1:13:32] David B. Chittim: It thank you sir for the public you're referring to the water main break on Orange Street and the damage to your home on Diamond Court is that correct. My understanding is that there are actions taking place behind the scenes. Okay I'm sure it does but your time is up. I recognize that you are you are heard you have been heard thank you. Any other public comment there being none let's move along to agenda item number one. I understand madam clerk that we have a consent agenda you know mayor always forgets to don't feel now I feel really embarrassed. Thank You administrator got advocate for yourself [1:14:33] Speaker A (unidentified): all the time you know it's okay all right thank you appreciate it. We have a public engagement opportunity lisbon street study. Lewiston public works is partnering with the Andrew Scoggin Transportation Resource Center on Lisbon Street safety and on Elizabeth Street safety and mobility study. The purpose of the study is to improve safety and accessibility along Lisbon Street from Cedar Street to the I-95 access road for pedestrians cyclists transit riders and motorists. ATRC will gather public input at the Starbucks location 857 Lisbon Street on Saturday May 9th from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. with additional events and an online engagement opportunity to be announced. So this study is expected to be completed in July. We're encouraging all residents, especially those impacted on that corridor, to please attend again May 9th, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. director Healy had another Facebook live session tonight as he mentioned we have some good attendance about 40 individuals attended there but we do have two upcoming in PERSON SESSIONS TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THE REVAL PROCESS WITH OUR CITY ASSESSOR THE FIRST ONE WILL BE ON MONDAY MAY 11TH 1 30 2 30 AT THE LOUISTON ARMORY SENIOR CENTER 65 CENTRAL AVENUE THE SECOND ONE WILL BE ON MONDAY MAY 18TH 9 AM TO 10 AM ALSO AT THE LOUIS ARMY SENIOR CENTER 65 CENTRAL AVENUE ENCOURAGING EVERYONE THAT WOULD like to have some in-person dialogue with our assessing team to please attend and get your questions answered. Also, as noted, new assessments, new values will be mailed out the end of this week to all property owners, so please look for those in your mailboxes. Community Development Block Grant, the city is required every five years to submit a consolidated plan that describes how CDBG funds will be spent. For this year, the team will present the plan during our May 5th council meeting, and the public CAN ACCESS A DRAFT OF THAT PROPOSAL AT LOISDOMAINE.GOV SLASH CDBG 26 DRAFT FOR MORE INFORMATION THERE A REMINDER UPCOMING THERE WAS A NICE PIECE IN THE SUN JOURNAL ALSO YESTERDAY WE HAVE THE BUSKING FESTIVAL COMING TO ELIZABETH STREET BACK AGAIN THIS SPRING MAY 1ST MAY 8TH AND MAY 15TH ON ELIZABETH STREET BETWEEN ASH AND MAINE 4 PM TO 7 PM ENCOURAGING EVERYONE TO GET DOWN THERE FOR THIS NEW AND EXCITING EVENT the only busking event of its kind in the state of maine again may 1st 8th and 15th 4 to 7 pm looking forward to that event tomorrow wednesday april 22nd is earth day in recognition of earth day we'll be joining lewiston public works on its annual citywide cleanup effort all lpw hands on deck this initiative reflects our shared commitment to community pride teamwork and maintaining a cleaning cleaner and more welcoming city so my thanks to public works for putting this on and everyone please go out and celebrate earth day ship into your community and let's keep loosed in a Cleaner, more beautiful place for all. A public art project opportunity. The Public Art Committee is issuing a call to artists for a public art installation. The project intends to bring color and vibrancy to a highly visible alley location for both motorists and pedestrians. Plans call for six to nine wall murals to be painted on the alley facing brick wall of 140 Elizabeth Street. The deadline is Monday, May 4th at 4 PM. For more information, please visit lewistonmaine.gov public art, or you can also email our Community Development Manager Catherine Ruth at k ruth at lewistonmaine.gov for more information. Memorial Day is coming up, and continuing a value valued Lewiston tradition, the Lewiston Auburn Veterans Council invites the public to attend its annual Memorial Day observance ceremony on Saturday, February 23rd at 10 a.m. at the Veterans Park located at Main and Lincoln Street. This year's program will honor the four chaplains and recognize the addition of nine new names to the granite monuments. I'd like to thank Jerry DeWitt and the Lewis and Auburn Veterans Council for continuing to lead this meaningful tribute, and of course invite everyone. ONE THERE AGAIN MAY 23RD 10 A.M. LASTLY CENTRAL AVENUE REMINDER. THE CENTRAL AVENUE REHABILITATION PROJECT WORK BEGINS THIS WEEK. THE PROJECT INCLUDES DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, NEW PAVEMENT, CURBING, SIDEWALKS, UPGRADED CROSSWALKS, AND OTHER SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS. WORK WILL EXTEND APPROXIMATELY 1500 FEET ALONG CENTRAL AVENUE BETWEEN RUSSELL STREET AND CAMPUS AVENUE AND IS EXPECTED TO BE [1:19:02] David B. Chittim: COMPLETED BY MID-SEPTEMBER. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU ADMINISTRATOR. AND AGAIN MY apologies, I think we'll put this in bold in future agendas so that neither the mayor or I will miss it again. Now we have a consent agenda, Madam Clerk. There are seven items on the agenda. Would you do your thing please? Yes, there are seven items. Item number one, amendments to the athletic field use policy. Item two, amendments to the city business license fee schedule policy regarding the fees for the pre-packaged food sales. Item three, biennial appointment of election workers. Item four, amendments to the personnel policies to clarify the language regarding employee termination. Amendments to the personnel policies to clarify the catastrophic leave policies. Number six, amendments to the personnel policies to add Maine State Surveillance Act law. And item number seven, order authorizing the transfer of funds from water utility bond premium and interest proceeds from 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 bonds to the lake auburn intake study projecting project totaling 150 000. [1:20:20] Joshua L. Nagine: Thank you madam clerk. Do I have a motion? I move that we accept items one through seven as a slate. [1:20:28] David B. Chittim: Thank you councillor nejean. Second councillor longchamp. Please call the roll. Council from Ward 1? Yes. Ward 2? Yes. Ward 3? Yes. Ward 4? Yes. Ward 5? Yes. Ward 6? Yes. Ward 7? Yes. Motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Thank you Madam Clerk. Item number 8, annual appointments to the Lewiston and Auburn Railroad Company Board of Directors. Requested action to review the applications and to nominate two members to serve on the Lewiston and Auburn Railroad Company Board of directors. We have the applications in front of us. I will readily admit that my name is on that list. We also have an application from alexander, alex pine, whom you may know as a long-standing member of the planning board. I guess the council has had an opportunity to review these and offer any comments it wishes. [1:21:30] Scott A. Harriman: Counselor harriman, I would just like to make a motion to appoint david chittum and alexander pine as lewiston directors on the lewiston and auburn railroad company board of directors for a three-year term, said term to expire april 2029. Thank you. Is there a second? I would second that. [1:21:45] David B. Chittim: Moved and seconded counselor harriman and nageen. Madam clerk, please call the roll. Counselor from board one? Yes. Word two? Yes. Board three? Yes. Board four? Yes. Board five? Yes. Board six? Yes. Board seven? Yes. Motion passed by a vote of seven zero. Thank you. Agenda item number nine. Resolve appointment of a proxy to vote the shares of the lewiston directors of the lewiston railroad company as a single block as determined by the majority of the lewiston directors. Requested action to approve the resolve appointment of a proxy to vote the shares of the Lewiston directors of the Lewiston railroad, Lewis and Auburn railroad company, as a single block as determined by the majority of the Lewiston directors. Thank you. And that proxy would be the ex officio member acting director John blazer, the economic and community development department. Is there any discussion on the proxy? Seeing none, please call the roll. [1:22:54] Joshua L. Nagine: Point of order. Can I have a motion? You need to go to the public. [1:22:58] Scott A. Harriman: No, we also haven't made a motion. We need a motion. [1:23:01] David B. Chittim: We have a motion and a second. [1:23:06] Susan G. Longchamps: That was the other thing, but you're doing great. [1:23:08] David B. Chittim: Do we need to go to public comment? Yeah, we've gotta go to public. Is there any public comment? I would prefer to avoid this, but is there any public comment? There being no public comment, back to the council. Council. Can I just ask who made the motion and who seconded? So moved. Okay. Second. Okay, so second. Okay. [1:23:26] Joshua L. Nagine: You now have a motion. Okay, thank you. [1:23:30] David B. Chittim: Okay, are we all together now? We are. All right. Councilor from ward one. Good job. Yes. Ward two. Yes. Ward three. Yes. Ward four. Yes. Ward five. Yes. Ward six. Yes. Ward seven. Yes. Motion passed by a vote of seven zero. That was my fault, I'm sorry. I confused items seven and eight thank you for whoever corrected me appreciate it item number ten item number ten public hearing on an application for a new liquor license for five slash five East Africa LLC 413 Main Street requested action to authorize the city clerk's office to approve a new liquor license application for five slash five East Africa LLC 413 Main Street I have a motion moved by councillor martell second by councillor harriman any discussion public [1:24:23] Joshua L. Nagine: comment i think we're back to the council i apologize i think we're we're moving to open [1:24:30] David B. Chittim: the public hearing public hearing i'm sorry thank you i need all the help i can get no worries we'll get through this together yeah all right a team so we are opening the public hearing now is that something I declare I declare the public hearing open we've heard from the public I declare the public hearing closed now we can take action on the liquor license for 5 East Africa LLC any discussion with the council I move [1:25:05] Joshua L. Nagine: that we authorize the city clerk's office to approve a new liquor license [1:25:08] David B. Chittim: application second house cousin a gene custom artel second discussion all those in favor i'm sorry go ahead counselor from ward one yes ward two yes ward three yes board four yes board five yes board six yes board seven yes motion passed by a vote of seven zero aren't we having fun now we're on two this is indeed item 11. i wish i could claim the credit But it's not me. Item 11, item number 11, public hearing and final passage regarding an amendment to the business licensing ordinance regarding the annual licensing for prepackaged food sales and inspections. Requested action that the proposed amendment to the city code of ordinances, chapter 22 businesses, article 1 in general, section 22-2 definitions, and article 2 licenses, sections 22-34 inspection of applicants premise merchandise, receive a final passage by a roll call vote. I will open the public hearing and then we'll take a motion after we've heard from the public. Does anyone in the public wish to weigh in on annual licensing of prepackaged food sales and inspections? Thank you very much. Now I'd accept a motion to adopt this. I move that we adopt the proposed amendment. Thank you, Councilor Najin. Second. Seconded by Councilor Martel. Any discussion? We've had a public hearing, so you had your chance. Any discussion on the council? Madam Clerk. Councilor from Ward One? Yes. Ward Two? Yes. Ward Three? Yes. Ward Four? Yes. Ward Five? Yes. Board 6? Yes. Board 7? Yes. Motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Agenda item number 12. Item number 12. Public hearing and first passage for an amendment to the zoning and land use code article 11 district regulations for the changes to the space and bulk table and the land use table regarding mobile homes, day cares and used car dealers and new dimensional requirements. Requirements. Requested action that the proposed amendments to our appendix a of the Code of Ordinances zoning and land use code article 11 district regulations regarding mobile homes, daycares and used car dealers and new dimensional requirements received first passage by a roll call vote and to continue the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting. Thank you, Madam Clerk, Director Connor. Would you look here to kick us off on this issue? [1:27:50] Speaker V (unidentified): Absolutely. If you guys all recall, I know you guys have had a lot of meetings and been very busy, but back in January with the 20th meeting we brought a list of these ordinance changes to you. There was one sticking item in that dealt with the minimum height requirements in NCB. We brought it back to the Planning Board, they removed that portion of the changes and left everything else that you guys all had, yeah, at least my impression, were favorable to, and we're bringing it back to you now. [1:28:21] David B. Chittim: Thank you, Director. this requires a public hearing. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to weigh in on these proposed ordinance, zoning ordinance changes? Seeing none, I'll take it back to the Council for a motion. [1:28:36] Joshua L. Nagine: Councilman Agene, I just want to make a comment before we make a motion, or do we make a motion? We should have a motion to discuss the, I would, I would make a motion to accept the proposed amendments to Appendix A of the Code of Ordinances. [1:28:53] David B. Chittim: Second. Seconded by Counselor Harriman. Now, Counselor Nagine, you had a comment you wanted to make. [1:28:57] Joshua L. Nagine: I would just like to say that I'm very happy to see the lot minimums reduced. I think that's an important sticking point for some development that we haven't been able to see downtown. So overall, bang up job. And I'm curious as to who voted against the favorable recommendation of why was it because of the substance of the of this do you remember it just it's six to one I'm just curious. [1:29:31] Speaker V (unidentified): You got me, I don't know. I believe I know who it was, but I don't want to speak without knowing for sure. Well, it was still a [1:29:39] Joshua L. Nagine: supermajority, so I was curious as to why they may have. I can go back and watch [1:29:43] David B. Chittim: the video the memo indicates that it was passed six to one with Michael Marcotte opposed that Shelly 's memo two three days ago any other comments or questions from the council there being none madam clerk counselor from Ward one yes. Ward two, yes. Ward three, yes. Ward four, yes. Ward five, yes. Ward six, yes. Board 7, yes. Motion passed by a vote of 7-0. On to item agenda item number 13. Item 13, public hearing and first passage for an amendment to the zoning and land use code article 11 district regulations for changes to the no-name pond conservation overlay district to clarify buffer language. Requested action that the proposed amendments to the excuse me to Appendix A of the Code of Ordinances zoning and land use code article 11 district regulations for changes to the no-name pond conservation overlay district to clarify buffer language receive first passage by a roll call vote and to continue the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting. Thank you, Madam Clerk. [1:30:58] Speaker V (unidentified): Director Connor, good evening, council president and members of the council. This item is a proposed amendment to the no-name pond conservation overlay district. The Planning Board recently reviewed this matter and voted 6-1 to recommend these changes to you. The amendment is a technical correction designed to fix a linguistic flaw in our current ordinance. Currently, the language inadvertently treats man-made infrastructure like road ditches, backyard swales, and engineered stormwater ponds the same as natural streams. This creates a no disturbance buffer that technically makes it illegal to perform the very maintenance required to protect the pond. Excuse me. The three key goals of this update are one, to fall to allow essential maintenance. Engineered systems must be dredged and cleared of sediment to function properly. Without maintenance, these systems fail, leading to erosion and nutrient loading into no-name pond. Number two, to correct impractical barriers. The current language can be interpreted to block standard developments such as installing a driveway over a road ditch, a roadside ditch, even on previously approved lots. And number three, to maintain all natural protections. This change does not reduce the 50-foot buffer for any natural stream or water body. It simply clarifies that man-made plumbing used for water treatment is exempt from these natural state requirements. This change ensures our local code supports environmental best practices and historical usage while maintaining the rigors protections the no-name pond watershed deserves. [1:32:24] David B. Chittim: Thank you, director. I'll open a public hearing to these ordinance changes. My [1:32:40] Diane Chassis: name is Diane Chassis and I live at [address]. If you look at the subdivision of water's edge from the pond, my property sits to the left of the water's edge entrance and back approximately 300 feet from the road. My land is very close to pond level, especially since the level of pond now has risen in the past 25 years. For the last five years or so, I have struggled with standing water and flooding in parts of my yard. I voiced my concerns on how I cannot mow my lawn and sometimes because Water collects there and has nowhere to go, and how the water runs right behind my shed and it is eroding some of the side lawn. Also there's a CMP pool there now that now leans because water pools and sits there. I am not talking a trickle, I am talking streams. One of them is at least 12 inches wide. It has become worse over the past five years. I cannot drink the water from the well. The well itself sits in a large pool of water, and my point is I believe some of it is coming from upstream at Water's. Edge I feel my property is one big retention pond. I am concerned that the new proposed wording for the ordinance for Water's Edge will adversely affect the water runoff from Water's Edge even more than it does now onto my property. Any increase in stormwater runoff, even a small amount, will make these conditions work. I think the changing of the language will make it less restrictive. I know I don't have much time. I have, I have been to three of the planning board meetings, and the last one they voted to change the wording. I believe this should not happen. I and a landowner on Water's Edge met with John on this issue. Again, my concern is the runoff from Water's Edge on my property. I was told that maybe 1% of the problem was from Water's Edge, and I was told to contact Public Works, which I did, which I haven't heard from yet. I am asking that City Council vote no to the language change for the No Name Pond overlay. Will it take care of all the water from Water's Edge? No, but it would help greatly. [1:35:02] David B. Chittim: Thank you, Ms. Chassie. [1:35:07] Dan Bernier: My name is Dan Bernier from Ward 6, Ward 6 chair, members of the city council. Before anything else, I'm here to ask for your vote. If the ordinance does not directly concern you or your property, then it should not be changed. I am asking you to vote no and leave the No Name Pond conservation overlay exactly as written. Chair, I'm also asking for your support. You led, you've led as chair for many years. I want to keep this exactly. I know you live in that district. This has been in place for 25 years. Consistent stormwater quality protection with no evidence on the record that it has failed. Not the vote question comes first because once the conservation ordinance can be rewritten for a single permit request no overlay in this city is safe. Now briefly here's why that matters. The no-name pond conservation overlay was adopted as a precautionary ordinance. Stormwater runoff is one of the most well-documented source of pollution to surface waters and this overlay was intentionally written to require early interception through natural buffering across the watershed before runoff is concentrated conveyed and treated downstream. For more than 25 years the approach has worked. There is There is no pond-by-pond evidence of system failure, overtopping, breach, or water quality or impairment caused by the existing ordinance. None was presented at the Planning Board and none is before you tonight. What is before you is a proposal described as clarification that would remove buffer protection from stormwater conveyance features exactly where runoff is concentrated and moving towards the pond. That is not clarification, it is policy reversal and it weakens the protections upstream in exchange for greater reliance on downstream treatment systems that were never designed to replace natural interception. This is not about opposing maintenance buffers and not prohibited maintenance they require controlled access erosion controls and restoration tools the city already uses. If maintenance standards need refinement that can be done narrowly without rewriting a watershed-wide conservation rule that has protected the public resource decades. So tonight I'm asking you to choose precedence over pressure. Vote no keep the ordinance exactly as written preserve the protections this city deliberately put in place more than a generation ago. Mayor or chair I respectfully ask again for your support. If this ordinance is weakened despite the absence of demonstrated harm I am prepared to gather and document maps correspondence and community support including a petition to place the ordinance before the voters as it has stood for over 25 years. Now thank you very much for your time. If you have any questions i put together a comprehensive packet on everything thank you [1:38:03] David B. Chittim: Very much, thank you sir, appreciate your comments. Any other comments in this public hearing on the draft ordinance change? Seeing none, there has been a motion, I believe. No, okay, I'll need a motion then. Moved. Would you like to read the language again please, Madam Clerk? Sure. Requested action that the proposed amendments to Appendix A of the Code of Ordinances, Zoning and Land Use Code, Article 11, District Regulations, for changes to the No-Name Pond Conservation Overlay District to clarify buffer language, received first passage by a roll call vote and to continue the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Mr. martell when she said i moved that is there a second councillor harriman discussion by the council director connor do you have anything you'd like to add after public [1:39:01] Speaker V (unidentified): comment you know we 've met with those individuals we've met with the neighbors we do believe that we're clarifying it for the future we are not minimizing or reducing the amount of clean water going into the pond we believe that this is this needs to take place in order to do what these retention ponds are designed by engineers to do which is to filter the water before it goes into no name pond thank [1:39:30] David B. Chittim: you director discussion councillor eugene just [1:39:35] Joshua L. Nagine: out of curiosity that so the vernal pools that were created by the army corps of engineers That are out around the no-name prompt pond area. Does this also refer to those verticals or I guess they're retention ponds [1:39:51] Speaker V (unidentified): This is, this is referring mainly to the streams, the natural streams, the intermittent streams. Any of the water coming out of those retention ponds? But it doesn't specifically state that the vernal pools, but I believe they're protected [1:40:08] David B. Chittim: otherwise. Okay, any other comments? I have comments. I would propose that the Council table this action. We've received a copious amount of information from Mr. Bernier just this afternoon. I would like, I have looked at this area, I would like time to study it myself. you know me, I'm a, I'm a details kind of guy, and I would urge the Council to table this. I do not believe there is an urgency, for it, but I'll defer to the Council. So I would make a motion that we table this, until our next meeting. [1:40:51] Joshua L. Nagine: Councilor Nazi, until the next meeting, that's what I was looking for. I would, I would second that. Moved and seconded. Table until [1:41:01] David B. Chittim: April, May 5th, May 5th, May 5th. Discussion on the motion to table, Mr. Council. [1:41:10] Speaker A (unidentified): President, so May 5th is our final budget enactment a meeting. We usually leave all other business outside of the budget off of that meeting. Obviously the budget is in flux this year also, so yeah, if it's if it suits you, perhaps the second meeting in May would be a better date to postpone till. That would be May [1:41:28] David B. Chittim: 19. Correct, I my math works. Okay, so the motion would change to May 19th. I would be amenable [1:41:37] Joshua L. Nagine: to that, but can I ask a question first? Certainly. Is there an urgency to having this approved [1:41:43] Speaker V (unidentified): tonight? There's there is a potential delay. So I know it's been commented on that this is for one building permit. It's not the one building permit is what brought this to our attention. That individual is trying to build on a lot that this ordinance would allow them to do, so it's it's merely just pushing that back, and I don't know if it pushes back out of the [1:42:05] Joshua L. Nagine: building window or not. So right now though that individual wouldn't be able to build? Correct, they cannot build until. Okay, so I would be amenable to your to the friendly amendment for two [1:42:17] David B. Chittim: meetings, but all right, and that's second is fine with you, Counselor Harriman? Yes. Thank you. All right, discussion on the motion of table, and I'm not sure that's in order. Is there motion to table discussion? Something tells me there's not. No, so would you call a roll please, Madam Clerk, and we're voting to table, moving to table. Okay. [1:42:39] Joshua L. Nagine: We have a motion on the on the floor right now. Yes. [1:42:45] David B. Chittim: Council from Ward 1. Yes. Ward 2. Yes. Ward 3. Yes. Ward 4. Yes. Ward 5. Yes. Ward 6. Yes. Ward 7. Yes. Motion passed by a vote of 7-0 to table until May 19th. Thank You Madam Clerk. Item number 14. Item 14, public hearing and first passage to contract contractually rezone 860 Lisbon Street from the neighborhood business rezoning district to a contract zone to allow the commercial uses and bulk and space requirements for the community business district with the exception of smaller setbacks for pavement and structures. Requested action that the proposed amendments to Appendix A of the Code of Ordinances, Zoning and Land Use Code, Article 4, Establishment of Districts for a contract zone located at 860 Lisbon Street for neighborhood business zone from neighborhood business zoning district to a contract zone with the limitations proposed received first passage by a roll call vote and that the public hearing be continued to the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting. Thank You Madam Clerk. I'm not being very Consistent here, but I've asked Director Connor if he'd like to kick this off. [1:44:00] Speaker V (unidentified): Before we go to public hearing, absolutely. Thank you, council president, councilors. Agenda item 14 is a request for a public hearing in first passage to continue contractually rezone 860 Lisbon Street, the site of the former Martel school. The applicant, Martel School Senior Housing LP, is seeking to move from the neighborhood business district to a contract zone that utilizes community business standards. This transition serves two primary purposes: commercial expansion, it allows for retail and restaurant uses, specifically including a drive-through option along the Lisbon Street corridor, into housing development, and increases the maximum building height from 35 to 50 feet, which is necessary for the proposed four-story phase 3 of the senior housing project. Related to the setback adjustments, the proposal reduces front, side, and rear setbacks to 5 feet to accommodate the necessary pavement and building footprints for these uses. On April 13th, 2026, the Planning Board voted 6 to 1 to send a favorable recommendation to the council. Staff also supports the request as it creates consistency with the surrounding community business zones and advances the city's goals for the city for the Lisbon Street commercial corridor. A representative from Lewis and Housing is here tonight to address any specific questions regarding the development plan. [1:45:14] David B. Chittim: Thank you, director. I will now open this up to public hearing. The public hearing is now closed. Back to the council, we have a motion. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Yes, I need a motion. I would move in order to discuss. Move by Councilor Najin, second by Councilor Martel. Discussion by the Council. [1:45:45] Bret Martel: Martell, this is more just a general statement. I'm inclined to approve this. I just want to see something happen. I don't mean to be sarcastic or over the top, but I fear that MARTELL SCHOOL MAY NOT BE READY TO HOUSE SENIORS BY THE TIME I NEED SENIOR HOUSING. SO I JUST THINK IT'S TIME TO GET THIS PROJECT GOING. CALLING IT A PROJECT INDICATES THAT THERE'S SOME SORT OF PROGRESS, AND IT JUST FEELS LIKE THIS PROJECT HAS SURPASSED A NUMBER OF COUNCILS AND HAS CONTINUED TO GO ON FOR SOME TIME. IN THIS CITY IS IN DESPERATE NEED OF SENIOR HOUSING, SO I JUST WOULD LIKE TO SEE ANYTHING TO HELP MOVE THIS PROJECT FORWARD, SO I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF IT. [1:46:23] David B. Chittim: BUT THAT'S JUST MY GENERAL COMMENT ON THE MATTER. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MARTELL. COUNCILOR ROY, UM, THANK [1:46:31] Michael R. Roy: YOU COUNCIL I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO I TOO WOULD LIKE TO SEE UH SOME MOVEMENT ON THIS IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME AND I'VE GOT A QUESTION LIKE I AM NOT SURE WHY WE NEED A DRIVE-THROUGH IN A SENIOR housing place that's just I don't know why we need to make that happen. Everything was good up until now we're asking for certain things but like I like council martel I would love to see this go it's been too long so that's my comments. [1:47:07] Joshua L. Nagine: So just a few things I remember when this proposal first came to us when it was just one set of one set of buildings instead of phase two and phase three and I remember specifically the executive director of LHA is saying that he didn't know how to do retail and he asked Dave Gendron if he'd help him and so that was when we were talking about like a senior a senior center or possibly some type of medical services one of the challenges that I'm gonna have with all of this is that there's six lanes right there at that road including the slip lane that turns past martel the concept that we put a and I'm going to allow the planning board to handle those pieces but the concept that we would put like I don't know an arby's or something there when already like the development that I saw that was put forward you still can't walk to Shaw's unless you walk out to Lisbon Street and then walk over and so you know, these are all things that I think about when I think about a Neighborhood that's livable, especially in this is this density. I would also say We absolutely have to get this project off the ground a shovel has to go in the ground. This is I Can't state just how disappointed certain members of my constituency are at the fact that this just keeps limping along in such a weird way and now we're talking about drive-through restaurants we need senior housing so those are all my criticisms I am inclined to support it although I seriously think with the review that we're going to be doing for Lisbon Street for street improvements the street's got to be narrowed like you 're not going to be able to walk from across the street to pop you can't do it now especially if you're in a you know if you're a walker good luck that you know that's that's a minute long walk across the street right now so those are [1:49:19] Scott A. Harriman: my comments counselor herman thank you may i ask the representative from lewiston housing I guess how this proposal came about and is this to I assume it's to increase the amount of rent you know on the on the property to help offset the cost of the housing but if somebody could answer that thanks good [1:49:48] Speaker O (unidentified): evening. Penn Lindsay with Lewiston Housing. That's to see all of you again. Let me start by saying that we share your frustration in the slowness of this process, but I'm excited to be able to announce tonight that we do have our commitment for financing from Main Housing, which is the final step in the process, and we actually had our first closing call earlier today. What that means is that we expect to be closing and beginning construction in probably five or six weeks. It may go a little longer than that, but it may also be shorter than that. There's unknown, but the point is it's happening very soon. There's absolutely a light at the end of this tunnel, so that's great news from our perspective, and we certainly hope you agree. I'd also like to say that our plan for this property for quite some time, and I know that the parcel itself what has gone through a lot of iterations, but since Lewiston Housing took over ownership of the parcel and had a plan, it has always been for three phases of residential housing with 44 units each. We have phase one ready to go as I said in within a couple of months, hopefully sooner. Phase two is already approved by Main Housing and has received an award of tax credits because it assessed second phase. A lot of the decisions that went into this program, a lot of the value engineering that's taken extra time to get to this point, has already been done, so we expect that phase two can move swiftly and be overlapping with phase one. We expect that phase two to close hopefully six or so months after phase one, and then phase three will be going in for an application for low-income housing tax credits to Main Housing in their September 2026 round. And so if we are successful with that application, phase three will follow along after that, and probably will be, you know, six to eight months of planning and then another year or so of construction after that. So that's the timeline on Martel, and I think that we're right on the precipice of seeing affordable Housing for seniors on this site. We have also made this application for a contract zone. We do, we do need for the, for the phase three. This has always been the plan for the phase three, the height restriction to be raised up to allow us one additional story. And we have proposed to put a commercial area on the Lisbon Street end of the site. As the director mentioned, the idea here is to be consistent with the commercial corridor on Lisbon Street in that area. Anything that goes into that area will need to come back through for approval. So you know, if there were, and I think the wording about, you know, specific commercial is a little bit premature. We don't have anything that is planned and approved or, you know, signed up on that, you know, for that space. But we are putting ourselves in a position to be able to look for and work with tenants in that area. When we do have that signed, they will need to come back through an approval process with the planning board. So in terms of, you know, the commercial parcel itself, I think we're looking for the highest and best use for the space, and we feel, and in conversations with the city, the city seems to agree that this is a commercial corridor and it does make sense. And so that's why we're making this proposal tonight. Thank you. [1:53:53] Joshua L. Nagine: Councilman, that answer your question? Yes, thank you. Constant, and I would just say to that, ultimately, obviously there'll be a process for whatever might get developed commercially or write it as a commercial corridor. It is also going to be the site of how many senior housing units? 132. Mm-hmm. And how many units of housing are in the lot behind Bangor Savings? I'm not entirely sure. Okay, my point with this is there are probably appropriate commercial uses, but hopefully they would be suitable for the people who are living in and among them, and there are certainly age-friendly businesses. You know, we don't have a Tim Hortons anymore, but you know, end of the day, all I'm saying is I'm getting concerned. I am concerned about this concept that the footprint of the property isn't living space for seniors, but I understand the point. So and again, what's the date that you're gonna put a shovel in the ground? Well, [1:55:04] Speaker O (unidentified): I can't give you a specific date, but my estimation is [1:55:08] Joshua L. Nagine: about six weeks from today. And what's the worst case scenario? [1:55:14] Speaker O (unidentified): The worst case scenario is not something that I can define because I can't predict the future. But I'm very confident that we now, that we're through this process of getting our firm commitment from Maine Housing, that we are at the final stages. We've moved into the closing stage of that process, which typically takes about [1:55:40] David B. Chittim: about six weeks. Thank you, Councillor Longchamps. Thank you, Councillor Chittim. [1:55:49] Susan G. Longchamps: I'm really excited about this program. As you know, many people are. It makes perfect sense that you would need a commercial or should have some sort of commercial space facing Lisbon Street. I would kindly ask that when you do the shovel, you know, there you go, thank you, ceremony, that you would allow Ronnie Parity, I know it's the mayor that usually does, but Ronnie Parity, and there's another lovely lady that sits here and has advocated for this for a long time, so, yes, I would ask that they would be the ones that would help with that, so thank you. [1:56:30] David B. Chittim: You thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Lindsay, thank you for being here, I appreciate that. Has the footprint or the site plan for the three phases changed from its initial inception to what we're looking at today? The site plan and [1:56:51] Speaker O (unidentified): specifically the footprints for phase one and two have not changed at all. The footprint for phase three has shifted back slightly to allow for the 100 foot width of that commercial parcel along Lisbon Street. But what we have done is, you know, made sure that everything works for the residential portion of this without, you know, affecting the number of units or, you know, any of the other items [1:57:23] David B. Chittim: items planned for the site. The additional story on phase three, is that adding capacity to what had originally been planned? Because that would not be permitted under the existing zoning and what that's, one of the reasons for contract zone in this area is to add the fourth floor that [1:57:41] Speaker O (unidentified): phase three is, that correct? That is correct, but we are not adding any additional units [1:57:47] David B. Chittim: to what was originally projected and planned. Okay, and phase three has not received Planning Board approval, but phase one and two have. That's correct. [1:58:00] Speaker O (unidentified): We'll be going back to the Planning Board for phase three approval after we get through this rezoning process, likely going back to the Planning Board sometime this spring, maybe summer, and then that will be in advance of the application going into main housing in September. Thank you very much. Any other questions, comments? [1:58:22] Joshua L. Nagine: Councillor Najin, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that this contract zone allows for commercial property development of a property that we actually gave LHA and then paid for the remediation on, and there was a second proposal that was floating around at the time that was a commercial developer. And so it is what it is, but it does feel that LHA is using some of its properties in order to back commercial development when we need housing, and so I just want to name that. Thank [1:59:04] David B. Chittim: you, Councillor. Any other comments, madam clerk, would you call the roll please? Councillor from Ward 1? Yes. Ward 2? Yes. Word three? Yes. Word four? Yes. Word five? Yes. Word six? Yes. Word seven? Yes. Motion passed by a vote of 7-0. On to item number 15. Item 15. Request to approve a letter of support to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection regarding the Brookfield-Lewiston Falls Relicensing Water Quality Certificate. Requested action to review the proposed letter of support from Grow LA River Working Group and to determine a course of action. Thank you, madam clerk. Do I have a motion? So moved. Second by, move by Councillor Nagine, second by Councillor Longchamps. There have been some questions about what effect riverly relicensing has on our city budget and the costs. I see Director Gagne is here, and I don't want to put him in the spotlight unless he's willing to do that. Good [2:00:24] Kevin Gagne: evening, Kevin Gagne, Public Works director. I did forward and some information. I think I'm an environmental engineer. I've been working to clean up the Anderson River my whole career here in the city of Louiston. So I think supporting water quality and improving to its class from a C to a B is actually an excellent thing, and I support every effort to do that and what you guys are trying to do. But I want to do it in a way that you as well as the public understand that moving the river to a class B, our public operated treatment plant or our sewer treatment plant down on River Road will then discharge to a class B River and there's increase in standards for that. So looking at the window right now, if it had passed, we were looking at a possible new permit with LACWA right now where this failed, coming up on the next triangle review. It looks like the timing on this may be in five years, so Just understand, I just want to get it out there that the public knows, and it's, it's not that it's not worth it. I think having clean water and Anderson River being the impetus of the Clean Water Act moving to a Class B is a huge, monumental thing for the communities. But I just want people to understand that we were looking at a 15 to 20 percent rate impact for those treatment efforts to be able to maintain a Class B license discharge. So that's a future thought, that's not pending, but I just want to make sure that we're talking about rate increases every year, we're talking about offsetting rate increases with tax increases, and just being sensitive that I want to provide [2:02:17] David B. Chittim: that information. So thank you, Director. So if I could summarize, we currently have a main pollution elimination discharge license for the treatment facility that's based on a Class C standard. The next review of the river qualification will be in three years, but our license is a five-year license. Does that mean that our license would continue to be discharging as though it were a Class C river even though in three years it may be upgraded to B, and that we would be then waiting two years before a license revision would reflect the increased quality of the receiving [2:02:54] Kevin Gagne: water? That's a good summary. So right now Lacqua has a permit that's in review. They expect in the next two to three months to have it finalized. I'm presuming that they might have been waiting on that to see what this triangle review outcome was, but we expect that in the next, in about five years would be when that discussion would come up for the next renewal for the treatment plant license. Thank you very much. Any [2:03:24] Joshua L. Nagine: questions from the council? Councillor Energy? So yes, Edmund Muskie was the reason why the Clean Water Act was written. Obviously Bates College holds his archives, which is pretty rare. Would have been probably a good thing when we were thinking about upgrades to the facility 10 years ago, 15 years ago, to be planning for a Class B or a Class A. So right now what we're talking about is effluent runs into the river, is that correct? [2:03:59] Kevin Gagne: Yes, the discharge, the clean water that comes after treatment is discharged to the river within its permits. [2:04:06] Joshua L. Nagine: Yeah, ultimately we've seen that the water quality standards have met the class B between the Falls and we're on Boba Dam for the past decade. And I think the importance of having clean a clean river, it's this entire community is affected by the fact that the river was so filthy for so long. Like it's something that we hold in our collective memories. And so yeah, sometimes you do have to actually protect the environment that we all live in. So that's what I want to put forward. I know that we have no control over whether main DP decides to set the classification for class B or not, but if we get there I feel like we've achieved something. Thank You counselor. Any other comments, questions? [2:04:59] David B. Chittim: Thank you, Director. Does anyone from the public wish to weigh in on our request to autograph this letter to the DEP? Seeing no one, back to the Council. No other comments. Madam Clerk? Just to be clear, the motion is to approve and endorse the letter to support the Maine Department of Environmental Protection regarding the Brookfield-Lewiston Falls Relicensing Water Quality Certificate. Correct. correct counselor from Ward 1 yes Ward 2 yes Ward 3 yes Ward 4 yes Ward 5 yes Ward 6 yes Ward 7 yes motion passed by a vote of 7-0 you'll pass around one for us to sign yes thank you Thank You counselor Martell already looking at saving on the budget that takes us to final public comment. I am going to editorialize here and say that the initial purpose of the final public comment was to take care of any overflow that occurred if the 18 minutes of the initial public comment did not suffice for the number of people who wanted to speak. It has become the habit to use the second public comment for anyone who wants to speak on any matter regardless, except if they've spoken before. I am not going to open a second public comment, which I believe is strictly in accordance with our rules. [2:06:31] Joshua L. Nagine: Councilor Anegean. Councilor Chittim, one of my constituents and my neighbor is here actually to speak and did not make the first public comment. So I would certainly hope that we would consider allowing second public comment since it was on the agenda to start with. [2:06:48] David B. Chittim: All good plans. Yes. If there's someone here who specifically came to speak to the council please do for do so [2:07:00] Speaker Z (unidentified): I actually came to speak on this topic a previous time, but so many other people spoke there was an opportunity, and I do apologize that I was late and missed the first public comment session. So in the remaining 248, I'm here today to say that as a resident of the second largest city in Maine, I am extremely disappointed to know that what is going to happen this week. Androscoggin Bank is closing their branch on Lisbon Street. That means there will be no branch, no banking downtown after many, years. And I know, I forget exactly when Androscoggin Bank first started on Lisbon Street. I know it's been on both sides. And like other account holders, I got a letter from the bank in February saying that they were going to close their bank here. They are maintaining operations within the city, but they encouraged those of us who hold accounts to visit their other branches on Sabata Street in Lewiston, Minot Avenue in Auburn, or when you want a day in the country, just over the town line in Turner. I think this is really unfortunate not to have a bank downtown. I know we have credit unions, they are somewhat different purposes. I have admired Andrus Goggin Bank for many of the services it has provided. At one point they did have an ATM downtown, which I think was extremely useful. They closed that some years ago. They showed their cultural sensitivity in a lot of ways and gradually not referring to the female tellers as the ladies in the bank and gradually promoting people of both genders and any possibly up to management positions. They showed their cultural sensitivity by providing Islamically okay banking systems, having a community fund and becoming a corporation, a corporation. I think these have all been good, but I think a city without a bank on one of its main retail street branches is very unfortunate. Thank you. Thank [2:09:31] David B. Chittim: you. Did you identify yourself, Christine? Thank you. No other public comment. All right, moving on to reports and updates. No one has. REPORTS AND UPDATES. OTHER BUSINESS COUNCILORS OR STAFF MAY HAVE. COUNCILOR LONGSHAM. THANK YOU. [2:10:01] Susan G. Longchamps: First, I'd just like to say you did a great job tonight, Councilor Chiddom. Second, I just want to share that to the public that although I wasn't in favor of the number three for our budget and eliminating jobs, that doesn't mean that I don't want to or don't have a desire to cut the budget and our taxes for our citizens of Lewiston. Again, I just want to share that I have a desire and I know that all of us do to cut the budget. I am going to see if I can meet with our administrator to go through line items and I do think we will be successful at cutting the budget. I don't know exactly how that will look, but I just want the public to know that I am aware that we do need to cut the budget. I just am not in favor of [2:10:57] David B. Chittim: cutting positions so thank you thank you counselor any other business I have one for Administrator Kainrath. Former Mayor McDonald asked about the barricade. This was put up as a temporary measure. I guess you would be looking for some direction from the council as to whether that remains or goes. Correct, we're looking [2:11:22] Speaker A (unidentified): for feedback. It's been up for about a month now. I think everyone has an opinion about it, so if you would like to provide feedback, I think maybe we'll go with what the consensus would like to see, and unless you'd like this to be a formal agenda item and discussion about chamber security. As you know, we did install some other measures, including the camera in the back corner to keep an I on the dais. We also have, as you know, a Lewiston police officer here at all meetings, and it could be two in the event there are going to be some particularly sensitive topics on the agenda. The third measure was also this stanchion barricade at the front. So I assume everyone is good with the other two elements of the security plan, the camera and the officer, but I think this one remains to be seen with further feedback. So if you do have additional feedback, we're happy to hear that, or if you'd like a formal agenda item to [2:12:16] David B. Chittim: discuss that we can do that I would just as soon avoid a formal agenda item if we can come to consensus this evening I would like to see it removed maybe go down sure counselor Martel your position take it down take it down [2:12:40] Scott A. Harriman: Cousin Herman, if people can continue to behave themselves, then I think that maybe it has made its point. [2:12:49] Susan G. Longchamps: Councilor Lange? Yep, I think that's a good point. I think taking it down is appropriate now, thank you. [2:12:56] David B. Chittim: And Councilor Najin? [2:12:58] Joshua L. Nagine: I would support removing the stanchion. I do have something else for new business, too. [2:13:02] David B. Chittim: Okay, thank you, Administrator Kainreth. I think you have an idea of the sense of the council. [2:13:09] Speaker A (unidentified): We will see if Amazon will take it back, return it. [2:13:12] David B. Chittim: All right, well, I appreciate very much your putting it up as a trial run. It gave us a sense of what it can and can't do, and so thanks for that, and thank you council [2:13:21] Joshua L. Nagine: members, councilman, just on the Earth Day and cleanups pieces. So tomorrow's Earth Day, there's city-wide cleanups going on the 26th of April from 10 till 2 at 2 Oxford Street, which is the site of the Lewiston Farmers Market. They're hosting a early market cleanup. The first market is May 10th, and then Healthy Neighborhoods is running their bulky trash pickup on the first and second of May, which is a Friday and Saturday. They are looking for some volunteers, and then also if you live in the in the Choice Neighborhoods district, then you have the ability to take advantage of these programs. So everybody's been complaining about trash quite a bit. I see it, I drive around, I see it doesn't look great. Let's get out there and pick some of it up. Thank [2:14:19] Speaker A (unidentified): you, counselor. Any other new business, Council President? One more item just in terms of scheduling. I think we will need another budget workshop on Thursday evening, so please plan for this Thursday, 6 p.m. We'll be back here for budget workshop to continue our discussions. [2:14:38] David B. Chittim: There being no other business, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. We do have an executive session. [2:14:43] Joshua L. Nagine: I move we adjourn the regular meeting. Second. [2:14:47] David B. Chittim: Moved and seconded to adjourn the regular meeting. We will be going into executive session and we will not be returning. Point of order. [2:14:56] Scott A. Harriman: I believe we need to read the motion for the executive session into the record and vote on it. [2:15:01] David B. Chittim: Thank you, counselor. Yes, Madam Clerk, would you read the motion for executive session please? The requested action to enter into an executive session pursuant to MRS a Title 1 Section 405 6c to discuss an economic development issue of which premature disclosure of the information will prejudice the competitive bargaining position of the city. The motion moved, second, Counselor Martel seconded. Moved by Councilman Eugene. Madam Clerk, Council Ward One? Yes. Ward Two? Yes. Board Three? Yes. Board Four? Yes. Four Five? Yes. Four Six? Yes. Four Seven? Yes. Motion passed by a vote of seven zero. And now I'd entertain a motion to adjourn after the executive session. So moved. Second. I will second that one. Call roll. Yes. We did it all by ourselves. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all, one and all, for your tolerance this evening. I appreciate it very much.