Council workshop weighs Project Hope funding, hears Job Corps pitch

[0:33] Courtney O'Donnell: We are live. My name is Courtney O'Donnell. I'm the assistant city manager. Council Chair Hawes could not make it tonight, and so I guess entertain motions for a temporary chair for tonight's workshop. I [0:51] Carolyn Fish: would like to nominate Counselor Carson or cheer for workshop. [0:57] Courtney O'Donnell: Any other nominations? Any objections? All right, sure. All right, temporary chair Carson, take [1:08] Daniel Carson: it away. Thank you, Assistant Manager O'Donnell. Welcome to the regularly scheduled city council workshop. Today is Monday, September 28, 2026, and it is 5:45 p.m. Around the table we already have Assistant City Manager O'Donnell, who introduced ourselves. Counselor Dean, I am Counselor Carson. We have Councillor Walker, Councillor Flume, Councillor Bank, Councillor Fish, and Councillor Mallar. We have three agenda items and an executive session on the agenda this evening, and that first item is job for recognition. So Maller, I'd like to have the executive session first because it could [1:47] Wayne Mallar: be lengthy, and I'd rather not miss out and be pushed on that one. If that's the will of the [1:54] Courtney O'Donnell: council, you can certainly do that. We are, we've asked people to keep it brief on purpose to make sure that we do have more than a half hour of time, but if you think that's fine, but usually [2:05] Wayne Mallar: we run into issues. You can always manage updates too if we run out. You can if you say [2:13] Daniel Carson: that, I'll agree and withdraw. All right, and Councillor Leonard is joining us at the table. [2:24] Courtney O'Donnell: The job corps recognition. Oh, I believe that we have a staff member coming up for that, actually. [2:29] Robin Stanicki: I apologize. Share a question? Yeah, if you can, sorry, I do also have someone that has come here to speak with us from job corps, so I want to make sure to give them a little bit of time as well. But my name is Robin Stanicki. I'm the community development officer for the city of Bangor, and I just wanted to explain why I brought this resolution forward for your consideration and the meaning that it has specifically to me. So 26 years ago, in 1999, I boarded a bus, a Greyhound bus that stopped here in Bangor, Maine, so that I could do something called job court. I didn't know what it was. I needed some direction in my life, and I said this looks like a program that I could use. When I was at job corps, I was selected to participate in a partnership with the city of Bangor that gave students an opportunity to work for the city. In 2000, the city of Bangor hired me, and it was my first job here. I don't think that anyone involved in that program actually understood like what that was for me, or could have known where that opportunity community would eventually leave but Bangor became more than the place than where I attended Job Corps it became a community where I could contribute where I could build relationships and where I could begin to imagine the future for myself and eventually after a career that took me through public health and military and federal service and other work in public service I came back to work for the city of Bangor and today I have the privilege of serving you as our community development officer so i believe that the partnership has value because it's more than workforce development job core students are already members of our community while they're here and the question is whether we continue to create opportunities for them to feel like they're members and they contribute here to serve and to see a future for themselves here So I think of the 19-year-old that's sitting at Job Corps right now, wondering how they fit into the city of Bangor and what their future could look like. So I'd like to offer some words from the Workforce Development Manager, Tyler Neitz, who's here, and I'd like for him to just talk to you a little bit about what our MOU does and some of the plans that we have for the coming year and maybe you could ask them. [5:06] Tyler Knight: Thank you for having me. My name is Tyler Knight, Workforce Development Manager is one of the titles, Career Transition Services Manager is the official, but effectively my position at JobCo is to leverage the opportunities that we see out in the community and employers and organizations every day for our young adults age 16 to 24 to be able to have a future. Our students come in as we've seen he describes coming in off of off of a bus or off of one of our transport vans trying to figure out what that future looks like and one of the biggest challenges that they face beyond whatever socioeconomic barriers they have coming in is stereotypes right as many folks do and that's part of what we see a burgeoning partnership or rather redevelopment of the partnership with the city of bangor as being a benefit shifting this perception of job course students Being social or economic outcasts or people who have done things incorrectly for much of their lives. Instead, seeing them as people who have not only just as much value as anybody else, but potentially more because we are keeping young people not only in this community as wonderful people, but as trained and highly developed individuals who have had opportunities to lead, to learn, and to be able to grow throughout their time at Job Corps, whether they're there for six months or they're there for the full three years, up to three years that a student may have. We want to keep them in the state of Maine, ideally in Bangor, and with the community with the city directly to be able to leverage our students to be able to have growth, investment, and opportunity, and also help the city through an on-demand workforce and a group of young adults who are really hungry and ready to learn, who we feel can be just incredibly beneficial and provide those brighter futures that I was discussing a moment ago. I'm happy to take any questions. I didn't come prepared for this feature, so any questions, I'm happy to. [6:53] Susan Deane: I'm just wondering, how many individuals do you have circling in and out throughout the [6:56] Tyler Knight: year? Sure. So we are concurrent enrollment. We are frequent every day. Every Tuesday, we have new students come in. As of today, I believe we're at 176. Job Corps had the big national pause last year. Our capacity is 273. While most centers got down to zero, we stopped at about 100. We were very, slow and methodical in sending students home as we waited for the court cases to resolve. So we're at 75 at present. And we typically bring in anywhere from six to ten new young adults either as first-time job core enrollees or advanced training students who come in for advanced baking and pastry or our one-of-one advanced marine pipe fitting program every single week [7:36] Carolyn Fish: Counselor I'm very happy to see job core still around many eons ago it was my first job I was called Knox got consortium back then we were in a little building the Isaac Newton built in non-privately worldwide and my job at the time was working with the youths that had fallen out of school for whatever reasons and we try to get them either back in school help them with some training and some skills a lot of times it was because their home environment and later as it progressed I know there's been many individuals i think my second cousin from brockton had unfortunately a tough lifestyle and came there was a job corp in presque isle or up in the county somewhere and does that still exist yeah so once he got out of that environment and he also had some disabilities but he was able to be connected to a trade that he loved and this again was probably 20 years ago for that individual and he was loved that trade and to this day is productive is his community back in Massachusetts and has a family and I think Job Corps is great rate. So whatever we can do to support those individuals there and support them to continue to have a training and education, whatever we can do to be supportive. [8:56] Joseph Leonard: Well, thank [9:00] Susan Deane: you so much. All right. Next [9:09] Daniel Carson: on our agenda, we have a discussion on project. [9:13] Courtney O'Donnell: Yes, I believe. Yeah, public health service instructor, [9:22] Jen Genderman: Hi, Jen Genderman, Director of Bangor Public Health Community Services. Coming back with some of the other things that you have sent forth to have me take a look at or do. So one of them was bringing this in front of the Homeless Advisory Committee. I did do that last week. We had a conversation about the program and they are in full support of the program with the 50 split between opiate settlement funds and community development block grant funds the other thing that I did was have a conversation with Robin around I think the conversation we had last time was concerns about its alignment with a consolidated plan it is in alignment I believe it's goal four and I have that with me this evening and the resolve in your packet for the council meeting later today is with the 5050 split. So I believe the write up might be the same one that we've been using, but in the packet, the resolve has actually been [10:26] Courtney O'Donnell: changed to the 50 rules need to amend by substitution if you wish to use CDBG for the funding source. So that would be [10:34] Jen Genderman: available if you want it to go in that direction. [10:38] Michael Beck: So this is the this is for two years of the program that we're [10:43] Jen Genderman: doing tonight so what would happen is those community development plot grant funds would be available for the two years split at 63 000 the first year 63 000 the second year it would be available for that we're not making a commitment for two years we're just saying we would have [10:59] Carolyn Fish: those funds available for that second year okay good i guess my question is if we wanted to we [11:06] Michael Beck: could do all cpg funds the first year and see how it goes and then talk about whether we want to do [11:12] Jen Genderman: will be the second year that would be an option again. One of the concerns with going down that route is that it then reduces the amount of the public service dollars available in community development block grant to be able to use for other purposes, right? I guess what I'm saying [11:30] Michael Beck: is that for splitting the 50, you know, that to me it sounds like we're doing for two years. Year one would be CDBG, year two we, I mean, this is where I guess I'm getting confused. The amount of money we're approving tonight, is it for one year of the program or is it for two years at [11:44] Jen Genderman: this point? It's just one year, but CBDG would make a commitment to have the 63,000 for the second year. Yes, it's just one year that we're committing to. That's all that Main Housing has proposed to us at this time. [12:00] Michael Beck: I get just a follow-up for the body here. I know I was against both pots of money we previously spoke in that time. You know, I've had some conversation about CDBG funds and it does make sense, but I'm still stuck on the opioid settlement funds, just because, you know, the community wanted it just a really open and transparent process and say and how the money is spent, and we had just recuperated some of that money previously that the public didn't really get a say on. And so I'm, I'm okay with CDBG funds. I'm not okay with the opioid settlement funds. I haven't touched on that piece. I just wanted to share with the body where I'm, I've landed on that, counselor. And then counselor Dean, I just [12:48] Joseph Leonard: want to concur that I do really like the program and I think we should give it a shot. It makes sense to me on paper. I do have similar concerns with counselor Beck regarding using opioid settlement funds for this. I'm completely open to figuring out what other diversified funding 100%. I think this is a project that's absolutely worthwhile pursuing. I do think that there will be a lot of pushback if we were to use opioid selling funds for this particular program in of itself. So whether it is going more all in on CDBG or if we wanted to dip into the unassigned fund balance, I'm open to all those conversations, but I think it's going to have to be a hard no for me when it comes for opioid solvent fund usage. [13:40] Jen Genderman: I just respond to that. Just I just want to mention I hear absolutely what you're saying, but I just want to sort of point out that this money is shifting from intensive case management for HIV. This project hope is intensive case management around homelessness. So when the money was allocated for intensive case management to support the HIV outbreak and people who are associated stated, we're almost doing the same exact model with the funds, but with a different issue at the center of it. Someone doesn't have to have HIV. So I just wanted to kind of make that association between the funds. [14:20] Joseph Leonard: May I just respond to that really quickly? I completely hear you. I really, do. I am recalling, though, that even when we did pass the funds for the HIV program, that was already a very contentious vote that we did. It had a lot of public pushback. I think it was the right decision at the end of the day. We went through the process, but I think that's the issue that I have right now is that because it is a very similar program and like, I'm not trying to, again,, I like the program. The program is completely a viable thing for me, I think, for all of us. I truly do believe that. The process, though, of the utilization of opioid settlement funds, it's not really there, though, because it just isn't. And if we wanted to go the route of using opioid settlement funds, I think we do have to respect the citizens in that we need to be really open and transparent with how we use those funds. I just feel like using these funds for this is just going to open up a can of worms that none of us really want to engage with right now, regardless of using those funds for this particular project or any project without going to the public. That's just where I'm at. I like I completely understand that it's the same sort of services that were being used prior but [15:56] Susan Deane: my concerns are still there yes thank you i can appreciate both of your viewpoints and i'm very comfortable with the cv g funds the opioid i'm i'm on the fence with that one i am definitely not in favor of again assigned fund balance for the reason that is taxpayer money and if you think we're getting any pushback now we're going to get a lot of pushback to fund this project so we need to find a way to fund it that does not impact the taxpayer which the opioid settlement and the cdbg does not Really impact, so I am more inclined to go up with that then I would be any other funding, but I would be open to looking for other sources because I would really hate to give up the 300,000 for main housing. I mean, that's a, that's a big gift, and I think this could be very useful. Are there any other pots that we have not looked into? So for me, the two that are currently being discussed would be more my favor. Question, as far as those that would or could be housed, are they all people that are currently unhoused or are some of them possibly on the brink of this is specifically [17:32] Jen Genderman: for people who are unhoused. We have a housing navigation program that you all funded with city dollars. That's more eviction prevention. Someone who's on the cost of eviction can work with one of our staff members to understand what their options are, or if there's like some resolution and some landlord engagement that can happen. So this would people who are unhoused. [17:51] Susan Deane: You know, these unhoused, of these unhoused, and I know it's a guess, but what percentage would you guess would be using illegal substances? I [18:06] Jen Genderman: don't know. I mean, what, I wouldn't know that answer. All I can say is look at the research, and the research says that people are experiencing homelessness have a higher likelihood of complex mental health and substance use disorders. Other questions? [18:24] Wayne Mallar: Comments? Yes. I'm curious, the CBG funds, if we use it for this, what other group are we taking them away from? [18:42] Courtney O'Donnell: Robin, are you able to speak to CBG funding and how that funding is allocated? Do you mind coming to the table? [18:49] Robin Stanicki: So with this type of project, because it is services rather than funding something that's a building or that type of project, we're limited to using 15% of the amount of money that we get in a year. So for this year, our cap is $164,000. Now we did approve one public service project this year in our general budget, which was only for 25,000 for PCHC to do a healthcare services project. That leaves the rest of that cap unused. I left it in an unassigned fund balance, if you may recall. If we used the 63 out of it this year, we could hold on to the remaining for throughout the year if there's another project or another need. We could use the entire piece. You could elect to go to the full 164, but we would just then need to know that. From now until June, we're kind of locked up with that, but it is an option. This was just one way that Jen and I discussed we could split the risk down the middle with CDBG and still have money left over to be responsive to something that we don't know is [20:11] Jen Genderman: is coming around yet. Thank you, and one of those, can I just add one of those considerations is the main housing has not released information on warming shelter funding, [20:28] Wayne Mallar: so that means that potentially the money that's in that CBG could be used for warming shelters. That's being held, that's 15, or can't that be used for warming shelters? I believe it could be. Okay, and I have an issue with using any CBG money. I think we don't know what the future is going to bring to us, the near future, and I'm not in favor of Project Hope. Questions? [21:02] Daniel Carson: Let me start directing [21:04] Michael Beck: country council back. Yeah, so do we have to give all 100 with 126 30 give to all front like there is no, here's your one and then they come back and install, there is no opportunity for a second conversation on quantity. Okay, any other questions for Director Gunderman? So any [21:26] Susan Deane: other counselor Dean, if we do not match this 30%, this will not go through. There [21:35] Jen Genderman: is about a city match. I'd have to go back to the group that I've been working with of emergence of the, sorry, of the eshop shelters and have a conversation, but I don't know how at this time. I don't have a resolution. Can I bring up one other [21:58] Susan Deane: my mind keeps going back to that 50 000 that was thrown about for no more than 50 000, which is, was really not anything official, but with those that are opposed to using 63 of opioid, be more in line to use in the 50 and then perhaps a little bit more from CD BG, or is it just using opioids, opioid settlement in general, that is the problem, counselor? Sure, for my part, you know, as [22:31] Michael Beck: this body knows, I was opposed to allowing that community to collapse. I wanted it renewed, and this is exactly the scenario I envisioned why I wanted to renew. I appreciate that our committee on homelessness likes the program. I agree, the program, I don't have a problem with the program. It's just it seems like it didn't feel like opioid settlement funds, or I should say it doesn't feel like substance use disorder was on the forefront of this proposal. That's my problem. When we, the body, discussed in Gov ops, I mean, I was the first one to bring up substance use disorder, and I feel like that should have been the lead off with this. And so I don't want to turn around and tell this recovery community once again we've invested money into something because we assumed substance use disorder is with it, rather than giving an open and transparent process like they did with the Opioid Settlement Committee. Where is if they had weighed in on, say, you know, yeah, this is great, like they did with the HIV case management and that to me was an easy connection to make it 's you know using shared needles is a number one way that virus spread so it just the connections just there and yes there's a connection with homelessness but it's homelessness first and then substance use disorder if they happen to be in that bucket as well and i just to me that's not the spirit of that money and i guess i would have liked more input from the recovery community on that the recovery the feedback i've received from the recovery community is don't use opiate settlement funds for this. They go back to the table, let us have a say in this, let's figure out a process, which I know staff is in the process of coming up, whatever that process is, when we had the other conversations. So that's just that's where my pushback is on those funds. I [24:29] Wayne Mallar: probably had a different perspective. [24:33] Carolyn Fish: I think we missed the bowl the first time around. I mean, hindsight's 2020, but we had a good pot of money from the opioid settlement money when we had, you know, sat down and tried to figure out how to disperse it. And now looking at the problem we have in our community, I wonder if we couldn't have thought more about a, you know, out of the box with a better solution. It might have used more of that money, but the 50 000 increments I don't think was sufficient enough. They made little impacts, but you know we really need a type of rehab and recovery center, and that money I think could have been a great, you know, a great base for something bigger. And this is to me is another way that we're just taking a little bit more money again and putting another band-aid there, and really not hitting the issue of recovery and rehab for those that are on our street. Yes, they are homeless, but we really need to get these people into recovery and rehabilitation, and I think that's what the opioid money was Originally intended for, so again, we're taking another piece out of the pocket, and you know, and we had a chance, I think, and we did the best we could at the time, but now that I look back, I, you know, hindsight's always pretty funny, Director. I just [25:52] Jen Genderman: Add that another really important piece I think sometimes gets left out of the conversation is prevention. There's recovery, rehabilitation, treatment, but there's also prevention. And what we know in the research is that homelessness is both a result of and a risk factor for substance use disorder and opiate use disorder. So not only is this a possibility of getting somebody who is struggling right now with addiction going through a process where someone is intensively helping them through to get housing, to remain stable in that, for people who aren't struggling with addiction right now, this is also a prevention strategy. So I also want to be mindful that yes, recovery, rehabilitation is absolutely important pillars. I also, from a public health perspective, we can't lose sight that prevention is really important to this equation [26:42] Susan Faloon: as well. Thank you. I like this program and I just feel like we are missing a real opportunity if we say no to this, and it's going to end up going to another community, and you know, we're still going to be paying as taxpayers. So like either way, you know, and so, and also I want to say that like we're going into winter and we have the potential to house up to 45 people this winter. We don't have to wait for something to be built. And I will just throw out another potential option for financing is that we've got three buckets of money we can be taking from. We can divide it up and we're not taking a huge dent in either bucket of money, and then we could move this [27:31] Joseph Leonard: forward this year. Just a thought. I just wanted to clarify, are you suggesting hopefully selling funds on a signed fund balance and CTPG? Yeah, if we just split it between all three of them, that [27:46] Susan Faloon: way we're not sort of wiping out any one bucket of money, or I mean, you know, that amount isn't going to have any real impact on property taxpayers, sir. [28:00] Wayne Mallar: I still would like to what effect is it going to have on the warming shelters that we're going to have to become involved with? Are we preventing us giving money to warming shelters by having this program? I'm more concerned about the warming shelter than I am this program, and I think we've got to consider that because that's going to be facing us very soon. [28:25] Daniel Carson: I'm going to call on myself. I think that's an important point. I will say that I believe, and maybe other people heard this, but Together Place reported that they had already secured funding for their warming shelter. No? No. I thought that was part of the conversation. [28:41] Jen Genderman: No, they have submitted an application along with the brick church Bangor area homeless shelter and the mansion to main housing that was due a couple of weeks ago and they're waiting on what that funding. So their funding that they had secured was to kind of open their doors for their drop in space and some other programming. [28:59] Daniel Carson: So they were in that process. Other questions? [29:05] Wayne Mallar: So, would that give us time to consider if we how soon are they going to get the word on who receives that? [29:14] Jen Genderman: I don't know. We're waiting patiently. [29:17] Wayne Mallar: I just don't want to see us get in a fix and have to cough up more money for a warming shelter. I might consider the program if we wait until we determine there are going to be sufficient warming shelters. [29:31] Michael Beck: Their questions. [29:37] Susan Faloon: Comments, Counselor Floon. Thank you. It doesn't seem like we really have a consensus here. I'm wondering if we shouldn't postpone this again. What [29:54] Jen Genderman: information would you like me to provide to you that would help you with any further conversation? I [30:01] Joseph Leonard: don't think it's necessarily so much information. I think it's more so because again I think I think there is a majority consensus that we like the program. I think really the vision strategy that we need to figure out is what are the matching funding resources going to come from at the end of the day? And there are differing opinions regarding how people feel about certain funding sources. And so I think what we really need to figure out is... Do want this program and there's going to have to be it looks like some sort of compromise in regards to how we go forward with that what that effectively is I don't know maybe it is eventually gonna have to come down to like myself but that's really what it comes down to it's not necessarily informational on the program itself it's more so what do we as councillors feel comfortable with in terms of finding the matching funding sources and for me that's CDBG and not assigned fund balance but Again that's just yeah. [31:25] Daniel Carson: Thank you. So of course, as Councillor Faloon said, it's we're sort of at an impasse here, no consensus. So I don't know whoever has that order on the council this evening, I don't know. Somebody may want to consider postponing that, adding some future discussion at a workshop somewhere so that we could further debate the various thoughts of money joy. All right, anything else on that before we move on of assistant city manager updates next? [31:57] Courtney O'Donnell: Yeah, I'll keep this brief. I just have a few. The first is a quick plug for evaluations for clerk and assessor due by the end of the week. And then I did meet with the Office of New Americans. You guys may have seen that they released a recent report on the economic impact of immigrants in the state. And as part of that, they're actually meeting in different regions across the state to make sure that their work plan sort of aligns with the needs on the ground. And so they are coming to this area in Bangor specifically to meet with different stakeholder groups. Groups, so they intend to meet directly with the immigrant community. They're also hoping to have a business, actually host a business specific meeting, and then there's going to be a broader meeting with various stakeholders, which they have asked for recommendations of what those stakeholders should and could look like. So if you guys have ideas, please email them to me, and I am going, I am taking this as well to the acre committee tomorrow night for their suggestions as well on folks they think may need to be invited to that. And then there is also opportunity for a municipal based public meeting around this subject as well. She said that looks different in different communities. Some decide to have a very specific meeting in their city hall with their elected officials about it. Others have elected to just participate in that broader stakeholder meeting. And so I guess I'm just looking to you all to kind of tell me what your desire might be around conversations related to that report in the office of new americans and sort of the work plan that they're looking to do to support immigrants in our area and across the state. [33:37] Daniel Carson: All right, great council. Super, you're gonna know counselor fish when I go and said I didn't see. [33:44] Courtney O'Donnell: Dates, do we have dates for when these meetings are occurred? They're looking to do them this fall. Okay, and to be fair, I just met with them last week, so I wasn't sitting on it, I promise, I just didn't see dates. Yeah, and so we'll need to work through that. My first, the first ask was just whether or not we wanted to have a municipal specific meeting or if you're okay participating in that broader discussion, and then you have like maybe a week to 10 days if you have suggestions on stakeholders and things that you'd like to make sure that they receive an invite for. Okay with [34:19] Michael Beck: acre meeting tomorrow, can we ask their opinion? Well, that's my intent. Yeah, so yeah, when you bring that up to them, I guess you can see what they think about the municipality, you know, having one of their own. [34:30] Courtney O'Donnell: Oh, yeah, I mean, the broader stakeholder one would actually be a good one for like a representative from that committee to attend, is my understanding. The municipal specific one really is like to get the perspective of elected officials and city staff and whatnot specific to municipalities and what we're seeing and managing any challenges, things that we're seeing. Being, and again, different communities have decided that they're okay because fitting in that broader one and others who want to have that specific meeting, it's really up to you guys. They need to know relatively soon, so I guess I can, if you guys don't have strong feelings [35:08] Joseph Leonard: I can err on the side of caution, but I mean, as long as it doesn't interfere or burden and staff schedule, but that's really my only concern. Other than that, it sounds like a good usage of time, but again, like, as long as it, you know, doesn't give you guys anything [35:34] Carolyn Fish: Yes, I think it would be interesting to have, you know, the city staff or, you know, counselors or whatever to be able to also participate with the stakeholders. It'd be interesting to see what they have to say, and maybe things we could add might help the stakeholders as well understand something or see something from a different perspective, so it might be good to have that. [35:55] Courtney O'Donnell: Jointly, my thoughts, I know that I'm okay with that. I just want to make sure if you guys were really wanted to have that meeting, you know, in a room like this, in a public meeting session, we could do that. But I definitely agree, I think there's value too in staff hearing what other stakeholders have to say and hearing that feedback as well, and also participating in that. So is that okay with everyone? All right, take that as consensus. And then just one other quick, or well, one very quick thing I've got. Some inquiries on the homelessness crisis policy. I just want to make sure you all knew that was actually scheduled to come before gov ops on October 5th, and so we'll make sure you guys get lots of information in time for that meeting. And then I just real quick, you guys may remember the plan was originally, or always, to actually create a historic timeline on that back wall here in chambers around Bangor's history. And so I've been working with the Bangor Historical Society pretty closely and we're we're getting close to kind of finalizing the design. So it will have information, photos and artifacts as well, as well as QR codes that will actually lead to more information online, because they're curious, because we can't fit everything on the wall that we would like to. And we are working with a number of different groups, including Penobscot Nation, the Bangor Chinese School, the library and others, to try to make it as robust as possible. And also keep in mind that especially like the end will be like kind of more current day. And so we'd like to be able to swap out photos and keep it fresh and people interested in and what that looks like. So I will send along those plans once we get closer to finalizing them. That is another thing I've asked Acre to take a look at to make sure we're not missing anything big. But certainly when I send the design plan along, it, you know, you have a big red flag, you just let me know and we'll figure out how to incorporate that. So that's it, that's all [37:53] Michael Beck: I have. All right, any questions or comments about that? Counselor Beck gets a comment of just, yeah, I know you put a lot of work into that and we're all excited to see it. So thank you for all of your efforts on that. [38:05] Daniel Carson: Yeah, that'd be good. If not, I'm looking for a motion. [38:17] Carolyn Fish: I move that we go into executive session, MRSA 4056E consultation with legal counsel [38:25] Courtney O'Donnell: pertaining bank or law. [38:28] Tyler Knight: Move the second. There's a second. [38:30] Daniel Carson: Is there any doubt? [38:33] Michael Beck: We'll probably you want a roll call vote. Well I mean for executive session you have to. All right. [38:38] Daniel Carson: Counselor Beck? Yes. Counselor Fish? Yes. Counselor Mallard? Yes. Counselor Leonard? Yes. Counselor Dean? Yes. That's the Walker? Yes. Counselor? Yes. And I will be a yes. We are in the executive session. We are live still. [1:00:52] Wayne Mallar: We've been losing all the way around. [1:00:57] Daniel Carson: All right. We've just come back from executive session. Anybody have any more business for the council workshop? Seeing nothing. With that, it is 6.45 p.m. and we are adjourned. Stay tuned for the regularly scheduled city council meeting.