Speakers labeled via automated voice-based diarization + AI name-matching against the city's official roster. Automated transcription can still mis-hear a name during fast speech (e.g. a rapid roll-call vote) -- clear near-misses are auto-corrected, but this is not manually verified line-by-line. Treat names as a strong best guess, not an official record.
[0:55] Susan Hawes: We are alive. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome to the regular meeting of the Bangor City Council. It's July 13th, 2026, and it is 7 p.m. We start all of our meetings with Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Longo, would you lead us in the Pledge, please?
[1:16] Charlie Longo: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all thank you thank
Public Comment
[1:33] Susan Hawes: you okay this is the portion of the meeting set aside for general public comment directly related to city business for matters that do not appear on this evening's agenda. If you are here for a specific agenda item that is under unfinished business or new business please wait until we reach that item. Items under first reading and referral will be discussed when they return under unfinished business and we will hear public comment at that time. Public comment requires a person to state your name and whether you are a resident of Bangor. The City Council has adopted a public comment policy that we will adhere to. Statements during public comment should respect the dignity and seriousness of the proceeding and individuals will be restricted to speaking once. Obscene truly threatening or overly repetitive comments will be deemed out of order and will be interrupted and removed. Topics that are considered out of order also include matters that are in litigation, individual employees or employee groups discussing matters for which complaint or grievance procedures are in place, personal disputes between the speaker and another resident, not germane city business, support for or opposition to any candidate for political office, and personal complaints pertaining to individual city employees. There is a time limit of three minutes per speaker and the total time allowed for general public comment regarding city business will be limited to no more than one hour. The public comment period is for City Council members to listen and not to respond or debate with persons. If you do not live in Bangor or own property in Bangor please allow those who do to have the opportunity to speak first. If you'd like to offer comment on any item directly related to city business not appearing on the Regular agenda. You may approach the podium. Individuals who have appropriately pre-registered to give public comment via remote means will be given the opportunity to participate remotely. Alternatively, counselors may be reached via email at counselors bangor maine.gov. A link to the adopted public comment policy can be found on the city's website. That
[4:14] Amber Webb: was a draw. Good evening. My name is Amber Webb. I am born and raised in Bangor. I have spoke previously about the homelessness and how we need to stop showing apathy and show more empathy. And I have been out and about and I've been speaking to some of our homeless neighbors and I would like to tell one of their stories tonight maybe to shed light on the apathy that we have. Agatha is homeless. She's 42 years old. She was born and raised in Bangor. She started to work when she was 15 years old and got her master's degree in early childhood education and she spent more than 20 years teaching children in our community. She did absolutely everything she was supposed to do. She worked hard, got an education, built a career, and built a life with her husband until covid took him. She sold the home that they built together and downgraded to an apartment. She cut every unnecessary expense that she could and then she was diagnosed with stage four breast cancer. She lost her job because she needed treatment, and she applied for disability and was denied. It's been five years, and she's still fighting that decision, and she is fighting for chemotherapy while living on the streets. She shared her story with influential voices in our community because she hoped people would understand how easily this can happen. Instead, she was betrayed as a junkie looking for handouts. Thousands of people who had never met Agatha suddenly believed that they knew exactly who she was. Since becoming homeless, she has been spat on, had things thrown at her, and called a junkie, a lowlife, and worthless. Agatha has also been raped twice and not by other homeless people. She has been raped by people who are supposed to protect her and help her. What I don't understand is why we're spending so much time arguing with each other about whether people experiencing homelessness deserve compassion. Passion? Why aren't we arguing with the system that made them homeless instead? Why are teachers like Agatha so underpaid that losing a spouse can cost someone everything that they have? When did a woman who dedicated two decades teaching our children, the kids in our neighborhoods, become another statistic? And why did we allow that to happen? And why are there so many stories like Agatha's that changing her name isn't enough to protect her identity? We spend far too much time debating who's worthy of help and not nearly enough time asking why so many people are falling through the cracks. Instead of arguing with each other, we need to start holding the systems that create homelessness accountable. Until we stop arguing with each other and asking why this happens, there will always be another Agatha. Thank you. Thank you. Good
[7:15] Scott Party: evening. My name is Scott Party and I am a resident of Bangor and I'm standing here tonight because, like many residents of Bangor, I read a recent article in the Bangor Daily News. Don't hate me on this now. Detailing the council's performance, to be frank, it confirmed what the public has been watching with growing frustration, that despite multiple ongoing crises in our city, very little of substance is actually being accomplished. The BDN's review of your meeting minutes revealed a staggering statistic. Out of 18 decisions that required major discussion over the past eight months, only five actually related to your stated top priorities of housing and homelessness. The rest of your time wasted. Weeks and months have been swallowed up by debating grandstanding issues and federal policies that have absolutely nothing to do with our local city governance. Because so much hours long energy is spent on topics outside of your door jurisdiction, no time or political will is left to do the actual job we elected you for, managing the city's budget. While our tax dollars are being allocated, we have seen no serious evaluation of overspending, no deep dives into municipal efficiency, and no accountability for wasted dollars. Instead of physical responsibility, the public is treated to continuous infighting. We are watching councillors storm out of meetings Engage in rowdy shouting matches and repeatedly drag each other before Board of Ethics. The city has even spent over thirteen thousand dollars on outside legal fees just to handle these internal ethics disputes. Shame on you. That is thousands of taxpayer dollars literally wasted on policing your own behavior. Meanwhile, everyday residents are left dealing with a housing shortage, a visible humanitarian crisis on our sidewalks, and a growing sentiment that the rules apply to the, that the rules apply to the taxpayers but not to the leadership. If any member of this council has not read the July 6th Bangor Daily News article titled Bangor's Council is Failing to Address the City's Biggest Crises, I strongly urge you to read it tonight. It's a mirror showing exactly how disorganized this body has become. We don't elect you to fight in internal cultural wars or file ethics complaints against one another. We elect you to run the city of Bangor responsibly. Please stop this distractions, focus on our local budget, start doing the work you promised to do. This isn't a beauty contest.
[9:58] Hillary Simmons: Hillary Simmons, resident of Bangor. I'm here because I believe that the public deserves confidence in that the city's code of ethics is applied fairly, consistently, and without regard to who the individual is and what position they hold. Ethics standards exist to protect the integrity of government. They are intended to ensure that public officials conduct themselves in a manner that promotes transparency, impartiality, and public trust. Those standards only have value if they are enforced equally. My question tonight concerns consistency. When city council, when city councillors give interviews to the BDN or other media outlets on matters involving city business, under what circumstances are they considered to be speaking on behalf of the city versus expressing their personal opinions? For example, Councillor Michael Back and Susan Faloon have participated in media interviews while serving on the council. What policy governs those communications? Are councillors authorized to speak on behalf of the city or are those interviews considered personal commentary? If there is a distinction, how is it determined and is that standard applied uniformly to every member of the council? I have the same question regarding social media. Many elected officials maintain Facebook pages and other public social media accounts that identify them as city councillors and regularly discuss city issues. When those pages are used to communicate with the public about city business, does the city consider those communications to be official? personal or a combination of both has the council adopted any guidance or standards governing the use of social media by elected officials I also have questions regarding conflicts of interest in the ethics process itself what measures are in place to ensure that members of the boards of committees responsible for reviewing ethic complaints are free from actual from actual perceived conflicts of interest our members required to disclose relationships affiliations and other circumstances that could affect or appear to affect their impartiality when appropriate or recuse when appropriate are recusals required to preserve the integrity of the process transparency is essential to maintaining public confidence residents should be able to trust the ethics decisions are based solely on the facts the city's code of ethics and a far a fair impartial review not on personalities political viewpoints or personal relationships finally i ask this council to consider whether the same expectations are being applied to every elected official equal treatment under the city ethic policy is fundamental to good government if one official is held accountable for certain conduct Act, the public should understand how similar situations involving other officials are evaluated and why the outcome may differ. These questions are not intended to criticize any individual. They're intended to promote transparency, consistency, and accountability.
[13:10] Phillip Henry: Good evening. My name is Phillip Henry. I'm a resident of Bangor as well, and I own approximately 10 buildings in Bangor. I pay over $100,000 a year in property taxes to the city. I spend $100,000 a year in Home Depot. I spend $40,000 at Dunnett's, over $100,000 on electricians, plumbers, and contractors per year. I am the tax base that this council depends on. And tonight I have serious concerns about where the money is going. I wanted to bring to the public the attention of Bangor Housing, which is building a 30 unit permanent supportive housing facility on corporate drive called Yellen Pines the cost of eleven point two million dollars which the city sold land to Bangor housing to accommodate then the project it was about a million dollars short of that number and the executive director told the Bangor Daily News and I quote there's not a lot of other grant opportunities out here for stuff like this they are Already talking about cutting the construction budget to make it work. And another 30 unit building is planned with no land secured, no construction timelines. And then once that's built, Preble Street operates a 24 seven support structure, which is about a $700,000 a year contract, all with no defined end date, no accountability, no metrics of success, but yet taxpayer funded. Separately, a nonprofit called Dignity First received two million in federal earmarks from Angus King as of the same month the organization's own president admitted they do not know when construction will begin, how many units they can build, where those units will be located, or how much each unit will cost, but they have two million of our tax dollars and no plan. I just want this council to know that obviously it was founded by Jamie Beck and Councillor Beck's wife in 2019. I was publicly supportive of this project. I am asking this council to just confirm on the record that these, that these decisions are our counselor, to the other lady's point, is being recused from decisions such as this. And here's the part that most everyone should be concerned about, and that is that on June 1st the HUD secretary had an official announcement saying that, I quote, the housing first experiment failed Americans by warehousing the most vulnerable. Without results, billions of taxpayer dollars were spent while homelessness increased to record levels. Housing alone will not solve a crisis that is driven by addiction and mental illness. HUD is putting recovery first. Both of these projects are based on that housing first model, which has been proven to be a waste of tax dollars and funding. That model has been declared a failure. And that's why I think that we need to be aware from the council's perspective of where we're spending money. I'll just leave you with one other thought about the economy. Every dollar that the city spends comes from people who build things, own things and take risks in a free market. Thank you. Thank you.
[16:25] Suzette Furrow: I have, I have copies for, my name is Suzette Furrow. I'm a resident of Bangor. The opinions I express are my own and do not reflect those of any committee I may be a member of. I would like to talk about the City of Bangor Ethics Board. I attended the Ethics Board meeting on June 30th, 2026. I spoke during the public comment time. I spoke about the chair of the Ethics Board. The chair is a business partner with one of the members of the Ethics Board. According to the Board of Ethics procedural rules, Article 4, Due Process and Ethics, subsection 4.2, Public Meetings. Quote, board members may not discuss pending matters with each other outside of a board meeting. No decision may be made by the board outside of a regular or special meeting of the board. Board members may discuss pending matters with city staff or the representatives. Whether or not the chair of the board member, chair of the board member and the member discuss pending matters is irrelevant. The fact that they work together, run a business together, should not be allowed. The chair, as the leader of the board, should not have a business relationship, partnership, with one of its members. I cannot think of any other board or committee representing the City of Bangor that has a chair who has a business partnership with one of its members, of all boards and committees. The Ethics Board should be held to a higher standard. Also, according to the Board of Ethics procedural rules under Article 7, Administrative Provision, subsection 7.3, Procedural Rules, the rules contained in the current edition of Democratic Rules of Order shall govern the board in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with state law, city ordinance, these procedures, and any rules adopted by this board. According to the Democratic Rules of Order during formal. Meetings, the chair guides impartial, impartially, and does not participate in discussion. The chair's function is to maintain order, recognize speakers, and ensure procedures are followed. I would urge the Bangor City Council and the legal department to review the Ethics Board meeting which took place on June 30th and consider the fact that the chair is supposed to follow the Democratic Rules of Order and not participate in discussion, as well as the fact that the chair is in business with one of the. Members of the Ethics Board. Also, the Bangor City Council and the Legal Department should consider that three members are required for a quorum of the Ethics Board. This means that two of the three members for a quorum could be the two that are in business together. Before the City Council considers imposing punishments based on findings from the Ethics Board, I suggest the Council examine the Ethics Board and whether they are following their own procedural rules and the democratic rules of order, which their board is supposed to adhere to.
[19:35] Mike Ferrell: Mike Ferrell, resident of Bangor. I also want to reiterate what Suzette said. When you running a board, if two people work in the same business, is one the boss of the other one or vice versa? It just, it doesn't have the appearance that ethically, it meets the ethical standards. standards, and I believe you need to take a look at that and determine if it does meet the ethical standards. I also want to point out that when you're the chair, you're not to be a dictator. As a chair, you're supposed to organize, orchestrate the meeting. Your speaking part is very limited, especially in official capacity. And the one we attended on June 30th, the chair acted like a dictator. And if somebody said something he didn't like, he automatically tried to correct them and point them in the right direction. This is not the way ethics works. Every person within that committee has a right to speak freely without being interrupted by the chair and ask questions as appropriate. The chair also asked inappropriate questions. Some were very condescending and they weren't very nice. And that was to the people speaking on behalf. have. But anyway, I encourage you guys to take a look at that meeting. It was very unethical. And my position is, this is my opinion only, is that maybe look at removing the chair. Thank you very much.
[21:12] Zoe Smith: Hello, my name is Zoe Smith. I'm a resident of Bangor. Many of us feel that our government is failing to represent our values and aspirations as American citizens. We stand together, embracing both our shared experiences and our unique perspectives, ready to confront our realities and fear the collective. Our presence today sends a clear message to the current administration. We will not be silenced, marginalized, or disregarded. We are here to demonstrate the strength of our numbers, empowering us to pursue the changes we seek for our nation. We want to make it known that our current president, Donald Trump, that we reject his policies. We reject that he has implemented, sorry, we reject the policies he has implemented. We reject his policy of hate and cruelty, saying no, this is America, our nation, the nation of the first peoples and their occupiers, and many have now changed to kind and friendly neighbors. Around the world, people are discussing and challenge the challenges in America faces. They speak of those who lose safety rights and lives from the government and individuals in our own communities. In this unity we find strength. The very difference and commonalities that should bring us together are being exploited to instill fear and division by those who profit from our struggles. We witness the government that is being designed to enrich billionaires while most are diverse hard-working American families that are struggling to make enemy ends meet. Rights, homes, health and education are being eroded with essential programs like Social Security, better veteran benefits and Medicaid at risk. The landscape of our society has shifted and the values that once guided us, hard work and knowledge, have seemed to be overshadowed by a different reality. But we are showing that we don't have to accept that reality and there's always another way.
[23:07] Scott Party: Thank you, thank you. Good
[23:13] Joyce Mallory: evening. My name is Joyce Mallory. I'm a Bangor resident for more than 20 years. My comments are my own, I'm not affiliated with any or other organization. And first of all, I want to say I know there are a lot of issues happening with the council right now. But I want to start by thanking you. This is a hard job. And I appreciate the dedication and all the time that you put in. Well, we all agree that Bangor has a challenge with our homeless population. But we are not the only small city to be dealing with this challenge. Instead of blaming and pointing fingers, I would like to point to some communities that are actually use having solutions that are actually working and making a difference with measurable success. My time is short tonight. So I'm going to focus first on our Canadian neighbors, Fredericton and St. John, communities very similar to Bangor in demographic and the issue with their homelessness. Last year I visited their very first pod village. This was comprised of small heated pods that contain a bed, a small desk, space for personal belongings, and an electrical outlet. Homeless people stay in the pods for a certain length of time, based on guidelines and rules, and they are designed to help people transition to housing. They are not there to be permanent housing. Housing. The permanent housing includes apartments, mobile homes, and a thriving tiny home community. Each pod costs about $2,000 to build. Since my visit last fall, the City of St. John has built three more pod villages. All pod villages provide support services, and now each village focuses on people with specific needs. The growth of these villages shows that they are successful. And I will visit again in the fall to observe, ask more questions, and collect data. Request today is to urge the council in the homeless committee to check out this solution as well as other solutions that are already working. We are not alone. I don't know if the pod program would perhaps work in Bangor. But I do believe that there are solutions out there that we can be looking at. We are not here to invent the wheel because other things are working. And I do believe that we can find some of these solutions to work right here in Bangor. Thank you. Thank you.
[25:48] Susan Hawes: My name is Grace Nichols. I live in Bangor, and I want to thank the previous speaker for those comments. But today I'm coming to speak about a human rights emergency here in Maine, and every municipality is affected by this kind of action at 8 a.m. this morning I slaughtered of a 26 year old man on the way to work in his car the main Immigrant Rights Center reported that this Colombian young man had a social security number had a legal right to work and was simply trying to drive there I call upon Bangor just as human beings to condemn this kind of action in our streets is a frightening time for all minorities around the country and in Maine and I want us to be on the right side of history and I want us to say this is enough. Ya basta. We cannot permit assassinations of unarmed people in our streets. This is administrative law. Deadly force is not a remedy in administrative law, and we want to see rule of law. We do not want to see murder in our streets. The blame the victim mentality that allows this kind of human rights abuse to happen has also sometimes in this chamber been reflected in the public comment about our unhoused neighbors. And I just want to echo that we do not persecute the people with the fewest options, we lift them up. And at this point, transitional housing such as supervised campgrounds, so there's a legal place for unhoused neighbors to be, would be a human rights advance to where we are right now. So I wanted to support the previous speaker and again call upon this body to condemn that kind of action in our streets, which is not permissible in the United States. Thank you so much. Thank you. Hello.
[28:21] Abigail Schultz: My name is Abigail Schultz and I am a resident of Bangor. I am calling or I'm not calling him here today to speak about the city ordinance that was attempted to be passed 26-095, the amending a code of the city Bangor's to establish a chapter 46 employee authority in immigration matters. I am speaking here today because I am deeply disappointed in the city councillors who have failed to see the urgency of this city ordinance, and I'm frankly disappointed in myself as well for not showing up before today but I am here today to speak to the urgency of adjusting our city ordinances to make the residents of Maine the residents of Bangor regardless of the color of their skin or their background feel safe engaging in public life here and i know that you know we look at what's happening across the world and across the nation and we wonder when will it come to my back door you know los angeles 3 000 miles away we lost keith texas 2 000 miles away we lost reuben and lorenzo in minneapolis 1600 miles away we lost renee and alex in chicago 1200 miles away we lost silverio and in biddeford today we lost a gentleman that i don't even know the name of that was 26 years old 147 miles away from me i am 26 years old in a different life in a different situation it could have been me the residents of bangor deserve to feel safe accessing schools city facilities health services and emergency services these untrained violent agents have created an environment of fear and uncertainty and today They were in Bitterford today. It was a Colombian man. Tomorrow it may be in Bangor. I have a family that lives down the street from me. When they moved into the neighborhood and I moved into the neighborhood around the same time, we have friendly waves, and I don't see them anymore because of the color of their skin. They spend so much time in their house, and I've watched over the months them, I've seen them less and less and less. I see their cars are still there. I know they still live there, but I do not see the little girl that used to stand on the corner waiting for the bus, and I know it's because of the color of her skin, and I know that it's because they are a refugee family, and they are scared. The city of Bangor and the Bangor City Council needs to immediately condemn this kind of violence by ICE and federal agents against any of our residents in Maine so that we can feel safe walking the street no matter who we are. Thank you. Thank you. Good
[31:08] Emily Ellis: evening. My name is Emily Ellis. As a Bangor resident and realtor, I believe strongly in protecting private property rights. That's why I'm here tonight. I'd like to speak about Bangor's vacant and abandoned property ordinance. I believe the ordinance should be amended by removing the word vacant entirely. The city's own website explains why these properties are regulated. It says they can become dangerous, structurally unsound, attract criminal activity, threaten public health and drain city resources. That describes abandoned property. It does not describe every vacant property. A vacant property can simply be an unoccupied home that is secure, insured, well maintained and creates no burden on the city whatsoever. Many homeowners temporarily leave homes vacant while renovating, settling estates or preparing them for future use. Those owners are not creating the problems this ordinance was intended to address. Yet under the current ordinance they are treated exactly the same as owners of abandoned, neglected, nuisance properties. Imagine purchasing a $35,000 home and spending six years restoring it. During that time, you pay your mortgage, property taxes, insurance, water, sewer, stormwater fees. The property is maintained because you live next door. It poses no danger to the neighborhood and costs the city nothing beyond the normal services every taxpayer pays for. Under this ordinance, that owner could accumulate approximately $17,000 in vacant property registration fees on a $35,000 home. That alone demonstrates why the ordinance needs to change. But until it does, it should be enforced equally. Recently we saw a property owner register a vacant property after six years for the current $500 registration fee while approximately 16,500 and accumulated fees was waived. Whether anyone agrees with that decision isn't the point. The point is that if the ordinance is flawed, it should be changed, not selectively enforced. Laws should apply equally to every property owner regardless of who they are or the office they hold. I respectfully asked this council to do two things. First, amend the ordinance by removing the word vacant so it applies only to abandon properties that actually create public safety and neighborhood problems. And the second, until that amendment is made, enforce the ordinance consistently and equally for everyone. Thank you.
[34:10] Susan Hawes: Thank you. My
[34:16] Tyler: name is Tyler. I'm a resident of Bangor. So Fresh Start recently received 25,000 in opioid settlement funds from Penobscot County. These dollars have been directed in initial recent subsidies removing major barrier for individuals transitioning into sober living. This support has assisted 40 members, 23 from treatment programs and 17 from incarceration. So far of these, 19 are current active members. Among those who have left, 14 were discharged due to recurrence of substance use. Our experience is clear. Treatment first must be prioritized over housing first. Structured treatment before entering sober living is critically important. It equips individuals with the tools, coping mechanisms, and emotional stability needed to succeed in a less structured living environment. Without this foundation, the risk of early relapse increases significantly. Equally vital is maintaining a robust continuum of care in our area. Options such as 30-day residential programs, partial hospitalization programs, and intensive outpatient programs. These allow individuals, excuse me, these allow individualized pathways that match each person to the right intensity and duration of support, which improves long-term success rates and reduces relapse. The this opioid settlement funding not only provides immediate housing stability but also highlights the power of prioritizing treatment first then supporting strong transitions into sober living. By investing in both clinical treatment access and recovery housing we give more people a genuine opportunity for a fresh start. This approach benefits all of Bangor. Stable recovery reduces demands on emergency services, hospitals, law enforcement, and shelters, while helping more residents become employed, pay rent, shop locally, and contribute as productive community members. It strengthens our local economy and eases pressure on city resources. Prioritize treatment first strategies alongside these important housing supports. You've got all these committees of so-called knowledgeable experts but knowledge isn't power if you're not taking action. Thank
[37:10] Susan Hawes: you. Hello.
[37:16] Jody McDonald: Jody McDonald, Bangor resident for 20 years. What happened a few weeks ago is your own fault because we've been saying the same thing for months and months and months. We've compared ourselves with every other town, large town in this nation, because that's exactly what's happening is the same thing. Inaction is action. As I haven't been present for a couple of weeks because I took a trip, and as I'm standing on the streets of Berlin trying to explain to my son why all of these little gold plates are everywhere that he's looking at, I'm trying to explain to a 12 year old because people turned away because neighbors tried to hide other neighbors and other neighbors were too scared to do anything and other neighbors didn't care. Some neighbors who have only been here a few generations believe that it's their right to run this nation, not the collective, not the humanity. I am very disappointed that so many of us are trying to be on the right side of history are trying to simply say follow the federal laws for federal agents. We want our taxpayers to go to protect and serve through our Bangor Police Department but those are different entities entirely. The disaster and the mess that I feel like as a parent who's having a slumber party tonight, I feel like my preteens in the basement have a better decorum. Than to storm out talk about ethics, but it isn't the same. We have as a community asked for certain members to abstain from votes that pertained only to one particular issue that individual had spoken out about. It's the same as Washington. It's the same as the state of Maine. The solutions are the same. We need the people who are working here in our community, who are living here in our community, who are building here in our community to be able to shop in our community, and that money should filter back through here. We should be able to have Hammond's lumber. We should be able to up on Hammond Street have the old mom and pop shops again because that's how people were able to live here. I bought my home 20 years ago. I don't know if I'll be able to stay in it another 20 years because my taxes continue to go up while those who could afford a bit more have your ears. These roads are terrible, absolutely awful. When I moved here to Maine, downtown was becoming beautified. Certain things happened above us where much of our tax dollars go. We have not recovered. We are not choosing to recover, and I ask you to decide, is this what you want your grandchildren to inherit? Thank you. Good
[40:29] Teal Vasquez: afternoon council and neighbors. My name is Teal Vasquez and I am a Bangor resident. In a racist society it is not enough to be non-racist, we must be anti-racist. Those are the words of black activist Angela Davis. Over the years American politicians have heard those words or a version of them tens of thousands of times. As American myself I must congratulate Bangor in the state of Maine for perpetuating the time-honored American tradition of ignoring those words. As an American myself I must congratulate many of our Main leaders for perpetuating the time-honored American tradition of being neither non or anti-racist. Our own Bangor city councillors attack our education system for containing so-called illegals. It should not be illegal to try and become American. It should be illegal to vilify, castigate, and stoke violence against the people whose blood built this country, such as Latin Americans. Our councillors storm out in fake cries of civility when the most basic combinations of state-sanctioned murder are issued. Our city allows art dedicated to the advancement of our civil rights to be destroyed and then defunds it. Black, brown, immigrants of every lineage and background, the people of Maine, do not have time for our tepid politicians to face justice with their makers. We must act now. We must hold them to account today before the time-honored American tradition of ignoring marginalized voices claim more lives. lives. Bangor leaders, live now with blood on your hands or turn to solidarity and community. Get ICE out of our communities. Create a steadfast, enduring policy of non-cooperation with ICE. Use your platforms and privilege to undertake our voices, or I promise you, the blood on your hands will never wash off. It will stain your pillowcase at night, every hand you shake, and your dreams at night. Thank you. Thank you.
[42:35] Joyce Mallory: Good evening, City Council. I'm Marlena Brochu, citizen and property owner in Bangor. I'm a mother of three in the Bangor school system, and I run a non-profit for families affected by a rare children's brain condition. Like so many families here, we're struggling with skyrocketing property taxes, crushing energy costs in schools that have fallen to 42nd in the nation. The council is being asked to approve 11.2 million for just 30 units of housing that's over 373 000 per unit that same money could cover the full year of education for more than 680 of our local students what concerns me most are the results our per capita spending on homelessness is now similar to and trending higher than other major cities yet bangor's homeless rate is already as high as san francisco's in the winter and worse than New York City's in the summer. We've already tried this approach. During COVID, we gave housing to the homeless at the Ramada Inn for years, and they destroyed the hotel, costing millions to repair. We're currently spending $20,000 a month on just four metal porta-potties. Even more important, the federal government has now changed course. It has updated its regulation to make treatment for drug addiction a priority before providing housing. The old housing first model has failed. Bengal should follow these new federal guidelines and shift to a treatment first approach. We need to stop enabling addiction and worse and wasting taxpayer dollars on strategies that have already proven ineffective here and elsewhere. We should be using our limited resources to help citizens who have contributed to our community for years and have fallen on hard times and in desperate need of this housing and support. Instead too much of our system serves the chronically homeless and drug addicted, many of whom are from away. We must fix these priorities so that local families and deserving residents come first. If other cities haven't been able to fix this problem despite massive spending and our own past effects have failed, why are we doubling down on the same strategies? We deserve clear, measurable outcomes, reduced chronic homelessness, real progress on addiction and mental health, and people actually moving towards independence before we commit this much of our limited tax dollars. Our children's education and our hardworking families should not come second. I urge you to pause this project, demand real accountability and metrics, and prioritize prevention, treatment, and our local citizens' future first. you
[45:22] Charlie Longo: Thank you madam chair honorable members of the Bangor City Council my name is Charlie Longo and I am a proud resident of Elm Street. There is a tendency in public discussions about homelessness to treat unhoused people as a single group. We talk about the homeless as though everyone's sleeping outside shares the same circumstances and the same behaviors. But anyone who spends enough time paying attention realizes something very different. The person sleeping in a tent while holding down a job is not the same person struggling with severe addiction. The individual waiting for housing assistance is not the same person repeatedly harming those around them. Yet in public perception they often become indistinguishable. People rarely judge a group by its average member. They judge it by its most visible member. A discarded syringe or a pile of trash quickly becomes the story that people remember. The tragedy is that the people most harmed are often other unhoused individuals. They are the people trying to keep a job while carrying everything they own in a backpack. They are the people trying to get clean while living in an environment where drug use is visible around every corner, and syringes make relapse feel only a moment away. They are the people working towards stable housing. What is remarkable is how quickly the behavior of a few can threaten the stability of many. Public frustration grows, trust erodes. Before long, the distinction between those causing harm and those trying to rebuild their life disappears. This creates a paradox. Policies born from compassion can sometimes end up protecting the very behaviors that make life harder for the people they intend to help. A truly compassionate approach requires separating homelessness from harmful conduct. That means continuing to offer shelter, treatment, outreach, and support, but it also means recognizing that when someone repeatedly creates unsafe conditions or victimizes others, intervention becomes necessary. The purpose of that intervention is not punishment, it is protection. The goal should be to protect the many who are trying to move forward from the few who repeatedly prevent them from doing so. The question is not whether accountability and compassion can coexist. The question is whether compassion is truly compassion if it fails to protect the most vulnerable people from the small number of individuals who repeatedly make their lives more difficult. Thank you for your consideration and your, for your service to our community. Appreciate you. Thank you.
[48:26] Adam Baker: Adam Baker, Bangor resident. All my words are my own and do not reflect any committee that I am a part of. I am here with a lot of people to just call that you condemn what happened today, day in Biddeford with ICE. It is completely unacceptable and it's just racism. That's all it is. And no human life should have to go through that, especially when they're legally here. And I don't want Bangor to be the 12th shooting. So I urge you just to come out and condemn what happened today. Thank you. Thank you.
[49:15] Mike: Hey, I'm Mike. I'm a resident of Bangor. Built probably 400 housing units in the last 20 years. I want to put your Yellen project in perspective for you. We just built 60, three-bedroom, two-and-a-half bath townhouses. The city gave us nothing, all with private money. The project came in at $11.5 million. We're doing a 26-unit project right now, two bedroom one bath coming in at 4.5 million dollars. So as a taxpayer i kind of like to know where the extra money is for 30 units for 11.2 and they don't even think they can build it for the 11.2 million. So it's a it's a bit of a stretch for a contractor. i don't know if there's any contractors up there engineers but it's quite a stretch. Thank you thank you good
[50:17] Jeremy Russell: evening council my name is Jeremy Russell I was born and raised in Bangor and for the last seven years I've worked in the very heart of our city in downtown. I'm also the father of two young children and every decision we make today helped shape the Bangor they'll grow up in. I want to begin by saying this I don't question anyone's intentions. I believe everyone here wants what's best for Bangor. What I don't want to debate anymore are the results. The results are all around us. Recently a counselor responded to a resident on facebook by saying that they had been in downtown bangor until about 8 p.m the night before and that downtown was quote unquote beautiful clean and safe. Respectfully i'd like to find that view because it's not the one that i've had. More importantly i don't believe the results we're seeing suggest our current approach is working. What concerns me most is that we're beginning to normalize that decline. What would have shocked us five or ten years ago is now treated as the new normal. i've watched that change happen with my own eyes and it has never ever been this bad. We continue to invest more money more time and more resources into the same strategies and hoping for different results yet many residents still feel the city is moving in the wrong direction. At some point we have to be willing to ask an uncomfortable question is what we're doing actually working. Compassion absolutely belongs in this conversation. We should care deeply about people experiencing homelessness and addiction but compassion shouldn't stop there. What about compassion for the families who no longer feel comfortable bringing their children downtown or the small business owners working every day to keep downtown alive. What about the parents who saw the recent viral Facebook post showing a homeless man's blankets and belongings hanging across a children's playground. What about the children who arrived that day expecting to play and instead had to turn around a truly compassionate city compares about all of them equally right now. i'm not sure that we do. compassion without accountability can become enabling. i understand the good intentions behind many of these policies, but we cannot allow our hearts to tell a different story than what our eyes see. if our policies aren't producing better outcomes, then we have a responsibility to reevaluate them. if what we're doing isn't working, then we owe it to everyone, to those struggling with addiction, to families, to business owners, and to the future of bangor to have the courage to change course. for decades this wasn't our reality. bangor didn't become this way overnight, and it doesn't have to stay this way. if our city can change in one direction, then it can change in the other. but that only happens if we're willing to honestly evaluate what's working and what's not. otherwise we're not changing course, we're simply continuing to normalize the decline. thank you for listening and have a good evening. thank you
[53:12] Richard Chaucer: good afternoon, richard chaucer. i'm a resident next door to the whatever millions of dollars you paid to renovate the schoolhouse apartment pipe apartments. what that gentleman said with the glasses is right on key, and this other gentleman before me is right on key, and the other, so many comments are right on key. this lady right on key. I'm dealing with something, I have a resident, a tenant in that building, he's done many things in that building to improve the looks because you have to admit it looks better than it has been in the last few years outside. hardly any needles we find, we found less conglomeration and people steep in their fecal matter. The challenges we're finding now is that when we do the research and how these entities received these contracts, these agreements, this entity here is a national company and national coming. we've done some more research next who owns it more this money's going to in a tax they're being sent more overly than that. we've also found out that some of the people they put in place to run these development areas, I'll put it out there, I don't care for what that person did to me, they have an entity down In North Carolina they have an entity in High Point they have an end two of them one of them they were nailed to a cross for and the same entities of persons up here and I went and I called the home office and I asked them how can we have this person here let people in to have handicaps individual challenges into a property so you say one thing but you don't follow through with it and how come we have nepotism on who gets improved leases and who doesn't I know a couple individuals and I'm not gonna cry they have the challenges all right people get afraid because they don't know this person has been going to this one agency CHCS to get help and they keep sending him around sending him around he has an agreement he has a contract but the services aren't in place what I'm saying folks toning it down is not only do we have to build the housing we have to have the personnel to implement them And we have to have these organizations teaching these people what they're going to be doing, what to expect. Too many people get burned out and they leave. Then they turn around and blame you guys and everybody. No, that's all I have to say.
[55:42] Susan Hawes: And we have about five minutes left for the hour that has been allotted.
[55:57] Hal Wheeler: You. Jesus told a story once about a man who owned a vineyard, and he went out early in the morning
[56:05] Susan Hawes: to hire men to work in it. Sir, could you let us know your name, and do you reside in Bangor, please?
[56:14] Hal Wheeler: It's not Jesus. My name is Hal Wheeler. I live in Bangor. Thank you. Anyhow, this man went out to hire workers for his vineyard and he agreed to pay them a certain amount of money. A few hours later he went out and hired more men to work in the same vineyard and in the middle of the afternoon he went out and hired more. Came time for the end of the day and he paid everybody the same amount. Those who had worked since early morning were pretty upset. They said, how come the people who only worked a few hours get the same money that we get for working all day? And the vineyard owner said, well, I paid you what I promised to, so you have no complaint. And furthermore, it's my money and I can do with it as I want. OK, end of Bible story. Story. We apparently have a city solicitor and a code enforcement officer who follow that philosophy in reverse. And I'm speaking, of course, about the house owners, vacant house owners, who have paid thousands and thousands of dollars in vacant property fees, while one paid only $500. I don't care about that one paying $500, but I am still waiting for an explanation from the city attorney and the code enforcement office as to why an exception was made for one individual while others were hounded and told they were going to be taken to court if they didn't pay. This is a terrible miscarriage of justice, and I can tell you that unless something is done about this, there's going to be a class action suit against the City of Bangor. I know the people who are planning it. So either take the hard way or not, it's going to be your responsibility to explain and make this situation right. Give back the money to those who paid it on time and in full amount. There's no other way except this. Thank you. Do.
Consent Agenda
[58:50] Susan Hawes: We have a gentleman on remote. Seeing no one else, we will move on to the consent agenda minutes of Bangor City Council regular
[59:13] Lisa Goodwin: meeting of June 22, 2026. 26-228 order authorizing the execution of a municipal quick claim deed for real estate located at 177 Larkin Street. 26-229 order authorizing the execution of a municipal quick claim deed for real estate located at 187 Laurel Circle. 26-230 order authorizing the City Manager to accept $6,440 in funds as a result of a state criminal forfeiture. 26-231 order authorizing the City Manager to enter into a lease agreement with Varney Aviation LLC for building number 457 at Bangor International Airport. 26-232 order authorizing the City Manager or her designee to sell the property addressed at 45 Allen Street to Rent 207 Properties LLC in the amount of $60,000. 26-233 order authorizing the City Manager or her designee to sell the property addressed at 299 Essex Street to Tong Lu in the amount of $35,000. 26-234 order authorizing the City Manager to execute the lease agreement with Bangor Nursing Housing and Rehabilitation Center for Office and Clinic Space for Bangor Public Health. 26-235, resolve, ratifying staff action to apply for the John T. Gorman Foundation Direct Service Grant Program for up to $30,000 of funding housing stabilization activities. 26-236, resolve, accepting and appropriating $1,869,733 from the Maine Department of Health and Human Services for the Maine Prevention Network for fiscal years 2027 and 2028.
[1:01:06] Joseph Leonard: Madam Chair, I would like to move passage of the consent agenda. Second. The consent agenda has been
[1:01:13] Susan Hawes: Moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Name none. The consent agenda will have passage.
Referrals
[1:01:23] Trace Willett: Message referrals.
[1:01:28] Lisa Goodwin: to committee and first reading 26-237 ordinance amending chapter 33 code of ethics to add sections 33-22 response deadline and 33-23 Council response to an ethics board advisory opinion first reading move these items be referred second it
[1:01:49] Susan Hawes: has been moved and seconded that the item be referred to committee and first reading is there any discussion being none they
[1:02:01] Lisa Goodwin: will be referred and finished business 26-222 ordinance amending the code of the city of bangor to modify the duties and responsibilities of the legislative committee counselor carson
[1:02:14] Teal Vasquez: thank you madam clerk on february 25th 2026 the bangor city council established a standing legislative committee to liaise with the city's state legislative delegation and other elected officials on legislative matters of city interest, provide the city state legislative delegation and other elected officials with input on legislative proposals and seek sponsorship of legislation in the city's interest council wishes to include additional duties and responsibilities within the scope of the standing legislative committee to permit the committee to engage in conversations with candidates for office partners and other stakeholders on topics falling within the purview of the Committee. This item was reviewed and unanimously recommended for approval at the June 15th, 2026 Legislative Committee meeting. Madam Chair, I move passage of Council Ordinance 26-222. Second.
[1:03:12] Susan Hawes: Ordinance 26-222 has been moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion?
[1:03:21] Wayne Mallar: Councilor Mallar? I have a question. I need clarification on the part that says as conversations with candidates for office. Does that mean conversation with candidates for the office of city council member may?
[1:03:39] Joseph Leonard: i address answer to my understanding no it was specifically for non for partisan elections not non-partisan elections and i agree
[1:03:54] Wayne Mallar: with that but i think we have to clarify it for the average person and i think it leaves a question as it's written so should we amend it to clarify i'm better to do it now than later that's the walk excuse me walk yes that's constant i'll wake up in a minute
[1:04:36] Susan Hawes: i'm scratching this looking
[1:04:48] Richard Chaucer: your judgment's not here no it's not it's just to
[1:04:58] Abigail Schultz: see him it looks like an incomplete version
[1:05:02] Susan Deane: version is uploaded online it is incomplete meaning
[1:05:13] Hal Wheeler: yeah
[1:05:17] Susan Hawes: if he just wants to put in there
[1:05:20] Joseph Leonard: it would have to be the actual legislation so it would be that specifically
[1:05:30] Teal Vasquez: I want to withdraw my motion. You're going to withdraw? Yes, I'd like to make a new motion to postpone discussion of council ordinance 26-222 to the next council meeting where hopefully I'll be able to actually have the text of the ordinance so that I know how to amend it. I will second that. Okay.
[1:05:56] Susan Hawes: ordinance 26222 has been moved and seconded to be postponed to the next council meeting when hopefully we will have the full text needed is there any discussion okay could we have roll call please council
[1:06:17] Lisa Goodwin: Of Beck? Yes. Council Carson? Yes. Council of Dean? Yes. Council of Falloon? Yes. Council of Fish? Yes. Council Leonard? Yes. Councilor Mallar? Yes. Council Walker? Yes. Council Hawes? Yes. Nine yes, zero no. Ordinance
[1:06:35] Susan Hawes: two six two nine, yes, zero or no, will be postponed to the next meeting. Next item, 26-223, ordinance amending chapter 165 land
[1:06:48] Lisa Goodwin: development code by adding flexibility for manufactured home parks existing as of January 1,
[1:06:54] Carolyn Fish: 2026. Council of Fish. Thank you madam clerk, madam chair. I move for passage of ordinance 26-223. Second. This ordinance amendment would amend the land development code by allowing manufactured home parks existing as of January 1st, 2026 to use more flexibility development standards. Currently the alternative development standards listed in this chapter only applied to parks existing before September 13th, 1971. This poses issues for parks that were developed in the decades that followed 1971 since they have to follow the standards for new parks, and in some cases this is preventing the placement of homes on vacant lots, which affects the supply of affordable housing. This item was reviewed and unanimously recommended for passage at the planning board meeting on July 7, 2026.
[1:07:58] Susan Hawes: Ordinance 26-223 has been moved and seconded. So any further discussion?
[1:08:11] Michael Beck: So I had just had some questions about it and I actually sent them previously and I appreciate Director Craig got me some answers on it because I was trying to understand the change that's happening here. Currently under the standards, you know, the minimum lot size 5,000 square feet, but by making this change and taking the date from 1971 all the way up to 2026, we've now cut that in half for every single moment. home park in existence in Bangor to 2500 square feet, and in talking to some of the residents at Cedar Falls Mobile Home Park, there are some concerns about just the aid, you know, being condensed, but two, the width of the road being reduced, and then three, the removal of the ten percent of the park area being set aside for recreational areas. And so my understanding, so this had to be done to move the affordable home project forward in Cedar Falls with, you know, I think Bingo Housing was going to go in and do a bunch more units, which are sorely needed in the city. But the lingering question, and all of this for me is, you know, we're, we're changing the standard and cutting, you know, making all of these parts more condensed, but for new parks going forward, they would have to come in under, you know, these more spread out and more, you know, there's more restrictions for new parks. So, I guess I'm trying to decide to the city, where are we trying to go with this? Of, you know, where all the old parts can be in this, you know, more condensed situation, but are we the city saying only about going forward? New parks are going to have this restriction, and does that make it more difficult to get new parks? Because obviously we have to make this change for the old ones, you know, what are we going to be back here again doing this again when we have another developer comes forward and said, hey, I do a park, however, you know, I can't work with these restrictions. I guess I'm trying to navigate, you know, the how do we, you know, not just make a blanket change for every single mobile home park in the city, but also, you know, if there's a reason to this, I mean, why do we have all of these restrictions from before the first place? Why was there a date, a cutoff? So there's a lot that's unanswered for me here. I'm just worried about unintended consequences, and the planning board didn't get into any of this, a substantive discussion. All they talked about was whether or not we should have a date. And so I'm still kind of left cloudy on this about, you know, what, are we, what are we doing by approving this? What, are the unintended consequences for all the parks and for the potential of new parks?
[1:11:17] Joseph Leonard: If we were to, an idea popped into my head, if we were to, for example, make a recommendation to send it back to planning board for them to have a discussion on this item what would what would the ask be for them to give them very clear guidance for us because obviously I mean you bring up some really valid points and you know I would be Well, I would be hesitant to pass this tonight until we get a clearer answer on that. Maybe Director Krieg, if she's here, might be able to provide some of that for us. But would there be something that you would guide us with?
[1:12:01] Michael Beck: Well, I would just throw this one thing. But the reason why we're hoping to come up with some kind of resolution to this tonight to move this forward is if we were to postpone for any reason, from what I understand for the planning board, it'd be a six-week delay on this project at the very least. And they're ready to go where they're waiting on us. I think is where they're at Good
[1:12:22] Craig: evening and Craig director of community and economic development Yeah, there is a pending application for Cedar Falls to do an expansion. They kind of got caught in kind of the hole between what happened after 1971 and then the major rewrite that the city did in 91 where you did a complete land development code we write and so it was built during that time period and it was always built to do this expansion there was always anticipated that as you know the marking conditions were there that they would expand and because they got caught in that after 1971 date they weren't able they wouldn't be able to expand at the at the same density as what they have right now so as you know we're staff is working on another complete rewrite of the land development code and the intent is that at that time to clarify so that we're not playing around with these dates my assumption is in 91 the city was just looking at the older mobile home parks and didn't want to throw them into a nonconformity. but they, sort of caught, they caught Cedar falls in the middle of that. so whatever you decide, if you want it to go back to planning board, we can certainly do that. and then this application would just stay pending until we came back with, some recommendations from the board.
[1:14:08] Susan Hawes: What's the committee's pleasure. I
[1:14:16] Joseph Leonard: Would be hesitant to, I don't really want to put this developer on the back burner. That's, I don't think fair to them in the process. At the same time though, I do want us to go forward into the future knowing that we need to avoid issues like this again. Do we, oh, I'll concede to Counselor Back if you don't mind, Chair. This would be a question for the director. That's okay.
[1:14:45] Michael Beck: So just hypothetically, we approve this tonight, as you said, we're going to doing a whole rewrite again. You know, if during that process they were to discover like, oh, we went too far with the mobile home park, we actually should change it, could we run into a situation where we either roll back the day or make the change, but Cedar Falls would still be grandfathered in because they
[1:15:06] Craig: would still have non-conforming protections. Yeah, okay, so really there would be no harm in moving
[1:15:11] Michael Beck: for this forward today. It's not permanent, we could have options to undo part of it. Okay, so that would absolve all objections. Appreciate that. Any other comments, questions? Has been moved and seconded.
[1:15:33] Susan Hawes: 26-223 should we do a roll call please absolutely back yes councillor carson yes. Councilor Deane? Yes. Councilor Faloon? Yes. Councilor Fish?
[1:15:46] Lisa Goodwin: Yes. Councilor Leonard? Yes. Councilor Malheur? Yes. Councilor Walker? Yes. Councilor Haas? Yes. Nine yes, zero no. Okay.
[1:15:55] Susan Hawes: Ordinance 26223 has passage. Nine zero. Next item, please.
[1:16:05] Lisa Goodwin: 26-224, Resolve Accepting and Appropriating a Housing Opportunity Program Municipal Ordinance development grant from the main office of community affairs in the amount of ten thousand dollars councillor maller thank you i move resolve 26. thank
[1:16:25] Wayne Mallar: you. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I move Resolve 26-224. Second. This resolve would authorize the City Manager to accept and appropriate a grant in the amount of ten thousand dollars from the Main Office of Community Affairs Housing Opportunity Program. At the April 27, 2026 Council meeting, the City Council gave staff approval to apply for reimbursement from the State of Maine for costs related to implementing LD 1184 and other housing related laws. The Planning Division submitted a grant application to the maine office of community affairs to seek reimbursement of the cost to implement ordinance amendments to comply with ld 1829 ld 2173 ld 1829 and ld 8 2173 require municipalities to reduce lot size minimums and relax density limits among other stipulations this application would include designating funds for public outreach to inform community members of ordinance amendments the main office of Community Affairs has awarded the city a grant in the amount of ten thousand dollars this item was reviewed and unanimously approved for the approval at June 15th, 2026 Business and Economic Development Committee meeting. Resolved
[1:18:03] Susan Hawes: 26244 224, I'm sorry, has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, the resolve will have passage. Next item, 26-225, resolve
[1:18:23] Lisa Goodwin: accepting and appropriating Grant funds from United States Housing and Urban Development for the purpose of funding the bangor rental assistance program in the amount of one million one hundred and forty four thousand eight hundred and seventy nine dollars counselor back thank you madam clerk
[1:18:38] Michael Beck: This resolve would accept an appropriate one million one hundred forty four thousand eight hundred seventy nine dollars in grant funds from United States Housing and Urban Development, HUD, to fund the Bangor Rental Assistant Program, formerly Shelter Player Plus Care, for operating year September 1st, 2026 through August 31st, 2027. This program provides rental assistance to qualified individuals and families who live in Bangor and other communities in Penobscot County and promotes housing stability. Participants needing case management services are assisted by the Shelter Plus Care housing specialist through referrals for life skills such as healthy living, financial literacy, and employment. These funds are granted through the main continuum of care notification of funding opportunity competitive process. Currently, the approximate number of apartments with grant agreements includes 73 households, 14 one-bedroom apartments, two-bedroom apartments for families with children, and 57 efficiency apartments. This item was reviewed and recommended for passage at the Government Operations Committee meeting on July 6, 2026. Madam Chair, I move passage of resolve 26-225. Say resolve 26-225 has been moved and
[1:20:02] Susan Hawes: seconded. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, oh come on up, Hillary
[1:20:17] Hillary Simmons: Simmons, resident of Bangor. My question is in the verbiage here, it says Penobscot County. How much of this 1.1 million goes to Bangor residents and how much of it goes outside the city of Bangor? Do we have any figures as far as that? Hi,
[1:20:44] Jennifer Gunderman: this is Jennifer. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Hi, thank you for that question. Jen Gunderman, Director of Bangor Public Health and Community Services. I don't have the exact data in front of me, but I can tell you probably about 85 percent of the people who are given vouchers reside in Bangor, and then the other percentage reside in the very direct surrounding community, such as Hamden, Old Town, Brewer. Most often what happens is someone may be in Bangor and then an apartment becomes available in another town. Can
[1:21:26] Hillary Simmons: I ask one more question? How much of that 1.1 goes to administrative costs? None. Could I get the data emailed to me by chance in regards to that, the percentage? Thank you.
[1:21:44] Richard Chaucer: I have a comment to Richard Chaucer, resident of Bangor, Maine. This is in regards to this new funding implement. I'd like to know if there's somewhere we can add to this process that we know exactly detailed where these funds are going. What I mean by that is exactly what are the, it's called supported services, which services are going to be supported? What is in the goal to meet these demands? Do we have some people in a pipeline to fill these shoes? And when we also talk about the case management services, are we going to have a mold of communication where these are being met, where a case manager comes in and they're going to have the resources does they need to activate this, to activate these? And what about, is there as a tax incentive or a tax reimbursement with any of these for private entities? I pass, thank you.
[1:23:07] Susan Hawes: That's not wrong anymore.
[1:23:11] Jennifer Gunderman: Oh, hi, this is Jennifer. Would you like me to respond? Yes, please. Oh, sure. So part of this year's funding, there is a requirement for people who are getting housing vouchers to be linked with supportive services. And often we use our community organizations and resources for case management, for resource navigation, for employment support. So we'll be continuing to use the organizations in the Bangor and Bangor area to provide those supportive services. And once somebody will be provided with a voucher, we really will start to talk with them about how to gain self-sufficiency to no longer need the voucher.
[1:23:59] Susan Hawes: Thank you. Is there any further discussion? Okay, resolve 26225 does have passage.
New Business
[1:24:13] Lisa Goodwin: New business. Public hearing, application for special amusement license of Bangor Grand Aviators LLC, doing businesses Blue Sky Lounge, 357 Audlin Road. Council of Beck. Thank you, Madam Clerk.
[1:24:26] Michael Beck: Madam Chair, I move that we open the public hearing for the application for special amusement license of Bangor Grande Aviators LLC, doing business as Blue Sky Lounge, 357 Oblin Road. Second.
[1:24:39] Susan Hawes: The public hearing is open.
[1:24:45] Michael Beck: Seeing no one approaching, no one online, I move that we close the public hearing. Second.
[1:24:51] Susan Hawes: Public hearing is closed. Madam Chair,
[1:24:54] Michael Beck: I move passage of the application for special amusement license of Bangor Grande Aviators, LLC, doing business as Blue Sky Lounge, 357 Odlin Road. Second.
[1:25:06] Susan Hawes: The special amusement license for Grande Aviators, LLC, doing business as Blue Sky Lounge, does have passage. Next item.
[1:25:17] Lisa Goodwin: Public hearing, application for special amusement license of Waterfront Concerts, LLC, doing business as Waterfront Concerts, 1 Railroad Street.
[1:25:25] Michael Beck: Counselor Beck. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Clerk, Madam Chair, I move that we open the public hearing for the application for a special amusement license of Waterford Concerts, LLC, doing business as Waterford Concerts, 1 Railroad Street.
[1:25:36] Susan Hawes: Second. The public hearing is open.
[1:25:42] Michael Beck: Seeing no one approaching, no one online.
[1:25:47] Richard Chaucer: Richard Chaucer, Bangor resident. I'd like a little bit more detail, if we could get a little bit more detail, out of curiosity. Applicates for a special amusement license, what falls under the definition of a special amusement? Amusement, what kind of, are we talking about acts or what are they, what are we actually talking about?
[1:26:06] Lisa Goodwin: It's musical entertainment of any sort, any, anything when they're serving liquor they have
[1:26:12] Richard Chaucer: to have a special amusement, to have entertainment. Okay, and also this is, it's also going to be in changing the code ethics guidelines. Do we have more like a security safety protocol because the area is located, they already have all that. I mean, I'm sorry, and you put it like that
[1:26:33] Joseph Leonard: Well, what you're talking about doesn't have relevance to what we're discussing here. Thank you, though.
[1:26:43] Michael Beck: Seeing no one else approach and no one online, Madam Chair, I move that we close the public hearing.
[1:26:49] Susan Hawes: Second. Public hearing is closed.
[1:26:51] Michael Beck: Madam Chair, I move passage of the application for a special amusement license of Waterford Concerts, LLC, doing business as Waterford Concerts, 1 Railroad Street.
[1:27:01] Susan Hawes: Second. The special amusement license of Waterfront Concerts, LLC, doing business as Waterfront Concerts, 1 Railroad Street, does have passage.
[1:27:11] Lisa Goodwin: Next slide. Public hearing application for special amusement license of Roca Azul, LLC, doing business as Roca Azul, Mexican Restaurant, 248 Odlin Road.
[1:27:21] Michael Beck: Councillor Beck. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Clerk, I move to open the public hearing for the application for special amusement license of Roca Azul, LLC, doing business at Roca Azul Mexican Restaurant, 248 Odlin Road.
[1:27:33] Susan Hawes: Second. The public hearing is open.
[1:27:39] Michael Beck: Seeing no one approaching, no one online, I move we close the public hearing.
[1:27:43] Susan Hawes: Second. Public hearing is closed.
[1:27:46] Michael Beck: Madam Chair, I move passage of the application for special amusement license of Roca Azul, LLC, doing business at Roca Azul Mexican Restaurant, 248 Odlin Road.
[1:27:55] Susan Hawes: Second. The special amusement license of Roca Azul, LLC, doing business as Roca Azul Mexican Restaurant, 248 Odlin Road, does have passage.
[1:28:05] Lisa Goodwin: Next item. Public hearing application for special amusement license of Seadog Ventures, Inc., doing business as Seadog Ventures, Inc., 26 Front Street, Council of Beck.
[1:28:16] Michael Beck: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Madam Chair, I move we open the public hearing for the application for special amusement license of Seadog Ventures, Inc., doing business as Seadog Ventures, Inc. 26 Front Street. Second. Public hearing is open. I
[1:28:33] Richard Chaucer: need to apologize. I had my addresses wrong. I support every one of these. I had my address wrong about the earlier one. I'm sorry.
[1:28:47] Michael Beck: Seeing no one else approach and no one online, I move we close the public hearing. Second. Public hearing is closed. Madam Chair, I move passage of the application for a special amusement license of Sea Dog Ventures Incorporated, doing business as Sea Dog Ventures Incorporated, 26 Front Street. Second. The special amusement license of Sea Dog Ventures Incorporated, doing
[1:29:09] Susan Hawes: business as Sea Dog Ventures, Inc., 26 Front Street, does have passage. That brings us to the end of the agenda. We do have, is there any comments from staff? No. Oh, at least I get a wave over here. Okay, none back here. Council Flew.
[1:29:38] Susan Faloon: I just want to say that my heart goes out to the person who lost his life today in Biddeford, effort in the family, in the whole community. I hope that we never ever have to face anything like that here in Bangor, and I hope that people can let the investigation play out and not make judgments on that. Thank you for everyone for being here tonight, and good night, Bangor. How's the Walker?
[1:30:09] Teal Vasquez: I appreciate everyone that stayed through the whole council session. I appreciate that, and all those that came for public comment. I also want to thank Bangor.
[1:30:20] Amber Webb: Parks and Rec for the July 4th fireworks, that was great, my family enjoyed that this year.
[1:30:26] Lisa Goodwin: Again, so good night Bangor.
[1:30:30] Wayne Mallar: Councilman, good night Bangor.
[1:30:35] Carolyn Fish: Council fish, with the Fourth of July having come and gone, I also want to thank Parks and Rec and all the work that our public safety people did in general with all the concerts and, you know, it is our 250th year anniversary this year, so it was a great month to celebrate that and
[1:30:55] Susan Hawes: with that good night Bangor Council Carson good night Bangor Council Beck I just wanted to
[1:31:04] Michael Beck: say thanks to Parks and Rec for, you know, not only, you know, how the work they did in setting up the parade route and the festival area for Pride, but also the parade route for the Fourth of July. Just two great events. So many people came to Bangor for the fireworks. What a wonderful display. So many people came to the waterfront to see it, but also just lately all of the great events that have been happening, you know, the concert series in front of the library, how wonderful it is to see everyone out in front of the library in Pierce Park enjoying the space, as well as other concerts that are happening, you know, Pop-Up Sick and West Market Square and so on. Just a lot of great things happening in Bangor this summer. I encourage everyone to go online and look at the calendar and see all the great things coming up and participate in it. When we live in a beautiful city, we're all here for a reason. We know it's beautiful. Yes, we have our challenges, but, you know, there's just a lot of beautiful things about Bangor and it's been really great this summer new and to get out there and enjoy them all so with that good night Bangor.
[1:32:08] Susan Deane: SRD oh good evening everyone I just wanted to thank our beautiful sun meaning sunshine we've had a gorgeous week and a half I had the pleasure of being on vacation and it was absolutely wonderful and I hope everyone gets a chance to enjoy our beautiful area get outside take advantage of nature walk clear your head and good night bangor i
[1:32:33] Joseph Leonard: don't get a name all right i want to echo all the comments of the fellow counselors i also want to give a warning to citizens of bangor this july 25th we are going to be the center of hopefully not a clown show when we are selecting who our next democratic nominee for senator is so there's going to be a lot of attention that's going to come to the city there's going to be a lot of people coming here to the city so i just want to give everyone a heads up that we are going to be probably packed With a lot of different citizens from all over the state, potentially from all over the country as well, please be kind to our emergency responders. They're going to be immensely stressed that weekend, and in general, please just show respect to them as much as possible. They're at, I don't want to say at their wit's end, but there's a lot that is going on, and I just want to say thank you, guys, for all that you do, both the fire department and the police department, and of course our public service and health and human services that we have here. Good night, Bangor. I
[1:34:01] Susan Hawes: just want to add on to the Fourth of July. I'm not sure that everybody knows that Tracy received a plaque. Is that correct, for 20 years of working? It's a long time, and that was, now that was in conjunction, in conjunction with the Bangor Breakfast Kiwanis, correct? Why not? It's good to move around as we ate. I'm aware of that now.
[1:34:40] Trace Willett: Yes, I'm aware of that. Trace Willett, Parks and Recreation Director. Yes, I was fortunate to receive a plaque from the Fourth of July Corporation, who have been indeed organizing the Fourth of July events for quite a number of years now on the waterfront. Certainly appreciated that recognition. And
[1:35:00] Susan Hawes: Tracy, did they also recognize Tony Benes? Or no,
[1:35:11] Phillip Henry: they
[1:35:15] Trace Willett: did. They was discussion about Tony and the effort he put in specifically. Certainly Tony and tires worker for that event down there. And going forward, perhaps we can have discussion about that recognition as well.
[1:35:33] Susan Hawes: I think that would be something well worth doing for sure. It was a great event. The waterfront was packed, so I think that was a good thing. The fireworks, for those who really like fireworks, were, yeah, look over there, because I don't really care, they were very pretty. They lasted a long time, and heard a lot of good comments, so thank you for that. And with that, thank you all for staying.