Lewiston Council Adopts School Budget, Approves Property Sales Amid Heated Public Comment

[2:01] Carl L. Sheline: Hello and welcome to our Tuesday evening 6 p.m. workshop. We are joined by Brenda Kelty, an AAG, who has come to conduct some FOA training for us. Counselor, she will present and then there will be time for questions afterwards. [2:17] Brenda Kelty: Hi. Thank you, counselors, for having me here today. I'm an assistant attorney general in the AAG's office and I'm also the public access ombudsman for the state of Maine. So in that role I handle only Freedom of Access Act related issues and I assist both agencies and requesters with navigating the statute, provide trainings and make recommendations for improving that law, which could use some improving. I don't think it'll ever be perfect, but anyway. So I just want to set some expectations for today. I understood that there was a request for training from my officer from me way back maybe in February and then Councillor Chittim contacted me in February following a request to have me come in for training and we spoke on the phone about a particular question that he had at that time and then he let me know that he was going to follow up, which he did, with more questions. So Counselor Chittum gave me a list of questions that he already wanted me to address in this session and then Mr. O'Malley told me that I had 30 minutes so realistically I can't do, I can't do a follow-up training in 30 minutes and I can't certainly try to do that if I have already pre-selected questions. So I really was struggling with how to, how to proceed because the last thing I want to do is waste any of your time but I also want to try to address whatever it is that prompted a request to have me come in. I know you get trained and I'm assuming that everybody's training is current and you have legal counsel also to address questions so I'm kind of coming in with a, just a little, not really knowing exactly what it is you need from me today. But I did, based on the questions that Counselor Chittum sent to me, try to focus in on some of the questions around public records and what is a public record and how to work with that question. If there's something else that is really burning and you really want me to talk about it, 'd probably be good to let me know that now because we only have 30 minutes and I [4:46] Carl L. Sheline: want to make sure I'm allocating time. Hearing that from the AG here, yes, I guess we'll take questions now or at least she can collect questions. [4:58] Scott A. Harriman: Councillor Herman, thank you, thanks for being here. I had question about how FOA applies to activity on social media, specifically big topic, yeah, is there [5:12] Brenda Kelty: something very specific about that? My specific question was about posting [5:18] Scott A. Harriman: things on social media in places where the person the official posting it doesn't have control over whether they get deleted or not and what their responsibilities are in those situations as far as preserving records so I don't understand why there's no control over it so if I post something on my let's say Facebook if I post something on my Facebook page I own that page and I can control you know I 'm the only person who can delete that thing right if I post something on someone else's page or in a group, for example, I no longer have control over whether that message gets deleted. The, you know, if I post it on another person's page, that person can delete that message, and if I post something in a group, the moderators of that group can delete that message. Okay, so I'm just [6:14] Brenda Kelty: curious about our responsibilities there, and can I also just ask, have has there been a specific complaint or issue with this and you've already received advice? No, so nobody's addressed this with you, with the council, how did how to handle social media? No, okay, it's a big topic and it's worthy of up specific training because it's complicated. So I'll, I'll touch on it, but I can't, I mean, it really, it really deserves a lot more time than I'm going to be able to give to it, but it's an excellent question, and if there, it's probably universally a question, so it's relevant and timely probably, and I think it's, it is definitely not your only your question, so thank you for putting that forward. Is there anything else? [7:04] Carl L. Sheline: Tell Senator Agin to give your hand up. [7:06] Joshua L. Nagine: I just put it up, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for coming. I just have a general question around open meeting laws. When you have a group of people who desperately need to work together in order to represent the constituency and have maybe disparate views, different disparate opinions, how do we conduct basically the concept of a retreat, right, like how do we, how do we do something where we can build relationships within the council that is but yeah with candor that doesn't [7:51] Brenda Kelty: violate the open meeting law? That one's a little easier to answer. Any others, any [7:59] Carl L. Sheline: other questions for the AG at this time? Okay, all right, it's all back to you all. [8:05] Brenda Kelty: Right, so I, in looking, we're gonna talk about the public records question and what is a public record. But I don't, before we get to that, I really want to try and set the context, because the question of public record doesn't just exist on its own. The big context is, how is your city handling information governance in the big picture? Because what you're doing is plucking some piece of record out of this whole scheme of how are you dealing with information governance, and we know, and of course this is why the records are so interesting, and of, you know, so much people want to see them, is because information is an asset, and you all are not only creating assets but safeguarding assets for your organization, for the city. It has a great, there's great value, and at the same time there's also great risk involved with records. And so the question really is, handling of your records in the big picture, an incidental consideration kind of off on the side or after the fact, or is it something that's been made more primary, so that later on downstream, when you get questions about producing or whatnot, or am I supposed to retain this, or you know, that is not a big surprise at that point, that you hopefully have some sort of scheme that has informed you about the records that you're handling and creating and what to do with them, right? So information governance is the much bigger picture that this fits into, and you know, a lot of it has to do with organizational maturity. How clear are the policies related to how you're handling your records how well trained are people on this is it uniformly and standardly applied across city government these are all indications of mature organizational maturity and my experience has been because I deal with all municipalities although I'll say as an aside it is my goal to go to every city or town hall in the state of me because I've dealt with so many over the phone and through email and now when I you know I'm like let's go here let's go there I want to see their town hall. But people are at all levels of operational maturity across the state of Maine, and nobody's perfect. This is something I've experienced could be worked on at every level. So, and I don't personally know what your policies are like, or what your training is like, or how much you've really delved into this more foundational question about how we handle our records versus, oh my god, what do I do now, I got a follow request for something, right? So in this sort of scheme, the more mature Organizations are going to have a more coordinated approach. There's going to be a more top-down leadership drive to make sure that all everybody in city government, so staff, employees, elected officials, everybody, appointed officials, understands what their responsibilities are and how to meet those responsibilities, that there are standards, and that you can satisfy not only compliance, your compliance requirements, but you can manage risk at the same time and optimize the value of the information. So it's not just about FOA, it's about how you handle information across city government. FOA, but we're gonna get to FOA, but I just want to set the context for that because many of the problems we have with public records, really the problem really lies with records management and not knowing what to do. I retain this, do I not, you know, those questions can get answered in a different way with good training and good standards and good policy so that when it comes to FOA, it's much less of a problem. But I just want to put things, the pieces into context a little bit here. So when we're talking about this coordinated approach and sort of bringing in all the elements that are under your information governance, we're talking about record management. In other words, what do I have, what do I have to retain, how long do I have to retain it, how do I retain it, and when can it be lawfully destroyed? Records management, but there's also data privacy involved, and I'm sure your IT is like all over this because we are in an environment where our data and our information is constantly at risk, and it's not just yours, it's the city's, it's your taxpayers, it's right. So across your organization, security and access controls internally, how do you segregate confidential information so that only the people who should get it are able to get it, right, and then the other big thing that comes up that's all related under the same umbrella is e-discovery, and because that's where we are now, and so litigation concerns, potential litigation concerns, and how are you able to access the information in order to meet discovery requirements. Things are getting very sophisticated, the requests are getting very sophisticated, the discovery is getting very sophisticated. And I know even in our office, the, you know, expanding the platforms so that we can handle the information doing, even our office needs more operational maturity. But putting all of that into that picture, now let's look at the record management question only. So I'm setting aside security in data breaches and all that other stuff, but it's all related. Here we have record management, and if you, if you're not familiar with what your record retention requirements are and why you have those, that is, that's the place to start. You need a training on records management so that, so that you understand and everybody understands what it is you're creating and what you have to do with it, and just so you, so you have a little bit of foundational knowledge. Their records management requirements in the state of Maine are guided by the statute that covers the main state archives, so archives controls that, implements it. They have a records management division and they promulgate record retention schedules that list the different kinds of records and how long they have to be retained, how they're retained, and when lawful destruction can happen. And these schedules are based on, it's a value-based retention, and this is also something to be thinking about with your own records, so operational need, legal requirements, audit or regulatory requirements, and then historical and archival requirements. So for instance, all of the governor's emails are considered archival and the entire tranche of governor emails ends up over at archives and they're currently updating their systems so that it's all going to be searchable at some point online, separating out confidential information, but more searchable. So certain records have no lasting value and they are transitory and you don't keep them at all. There's no, there's no requirement to keep them, like a notice that, I don't know, that the particular division is going to have a brunch goes out in, you know, government email, it's transitory, it doesn't really, it doesn't really have any value beyond a notification, something like that doesn't have to be kept, it can be destroyed immediately. But then we have other records, it's much more complicated and really complicated questions about that. So again, I'm starting in this place because this is foundational to production in response to a FOA request. If you don't know what you're supposed to be keeping, if you don't know how to keep it, if you don't know what to do with it, then it's a, it's a much more urgent and Difficult question down the line when it, when it becomes a request for production. Are there any questions about that so far? Okay, I'm rushing, I'm so sorry, but so then the question, let's get closer, is this a public record? This thing that I have, is this a public record? And if you're asking that after you receive the FOA, you're possibly late in the game. You should probably know based on your overarching information governance structure whether or not this is a public record and if it had to be retained and how long, and all those questions should have been answered already. So instead of waiting and wondering, I suggest that you always ask when you're creating a record or you're receiving a record, do I know what to do with this kind of record? Do you know what to do with this kind of record? And I think this goes directly to the social media, for instance, which is a good example. And if you ask that question, here are the following questions, you know, is there a city records management schedule that applies to this? Do I know who to consult with on these record management questions? Who, what resources do I have? Is it subject to a schedule that exists? If I am keeping it, what repository am I keeping it in? What format am I keeping it in? My flat, am I flagging it for confidentiality? Am I flagging it for lawful destruction pursuant to his schedule? And if it's not in a schedule, what do I, what in the world do I do, right? If you are having those kinds of questions, yay, that is so good, because you are way upstream, you are handling the records management in the in, and you may not have all those answers. The question is who do you talk to in city government who's going to help you with this and is going to be creating standards, for instance, with the social media. So these are great questions to have, and I really encourage you to let yourself wonder that when you're creating a record or you're receiving something and you're just really not sure what you're supposed to do with it. I mean, ultimately you're going to want good solid training and a good basic understanding of what to do, but you might not know everything, and so that's where it's who do I turn to, who's in charge of this. So public record. First, the Freedom of Access Act has to be liberally construed, which means you're going to lean more toward finding something public than not. You're going to lean that way. It has to be applied in a way that promotes the underlying purposes of the statute. What are those? Very simply put, open deliberations, open actions, government accountable to the people. It's a pretty sweeping ideal of how representative government should work. Those are the underlying policy goals of FOA, and then you have to strictly construe any exceptions. So if there is a confidentiality exception, it's strictly narrowly construed. All right, so that's the context of how you have to deal with FOA. And what's the definition of a public record? Yes. [21:35] Joshua L. Nagine: Anything that has to do with city business and any aspect. [21:40] Brenda Kelty: Transaction of government business, the content has to concern the transaction of government business. What else? There's two more things. Any format, any medium, and then finally, it has to be in the custody or possession of the agency or official. So it's those three things, transaction of government business, any format, any medium, in the custody or possession of an agency or official, that is a I think the legislature was intentionally on the vague side because there's no definition beyond that in the statute. And so we do have questions about is this really a public record or is it not a public record, you know, is it in your custody or possession. There's a lot of lack of clarity there, but I think the goal is to write the statute in a way that can capture the vastness of the intent, you know. So there's our definition. Here's what FOA doesn't do related to public records, it does not answer every scenario or every question. So you really, you really have guidelines in the statute, but you can't turn to the statute for every specific thing and think you're gonna find, oh here's, you know, this is what it is. There can be shades of opinion that differ on certain things. It can get complicated that way. So FOA is not neat and clean across the board. It's not punitive, it's a remedial statute. So if you're looking to use FOA to nail somebody, it's not designed that way. I mean, there's not, you know, the enforcement really is around how can we correct what wasn't done right. That's primarily the focus. Once you start talking about serious bad faith, then you've got some other things in there, but it's, it's what we call a remedial statute. It's not discovery, and it's not a forensic audit. So I see this a lot lately, just FOA requests that basically is just extensive discovery requests or extensive like forensic audit i mean we want all your metadata we want this we want that and faux is not really designed for that it's not a good alternative to the discovery process as set forth in law but it gets used that way and it doesn't define every term doesn't make everything black and white so it's good to know that and I don't think it can ever it's just there's just too many situations so there are some limitations with the statute itself but we have a definition that's broadly sweeping for public records now I'm happy to try to move into the questions just to make sure that we're gonna oh we don't have much time so I would start with councillor Chittum if you want to go ahead and give your questions maybe [25:02] David B. Chittim: we can try and get those sure thank you yes and I had an email these to you earlier I was going to walk you down a path of to the point of absurdity but I'm not going to do that anymore I guess the first question and the key question relates to a request that we had for notes that we were taking while sitting here on the dice during a public meeting from what I've inferred from what you have said I am the arbiter of whether that is a public record it's in my possession and so i decide that writing meat and potatoes on my agenda is not a public record, but this new program is going to cost us 400,000 is a public record. Am I correct in my statement that I'm the arbiter of what is public record and therefore what I need to [25:59] Brenda Kelty: surrender? No, I mean, I don't know how Lewiston is handling that. I would think first of all you have a process, right, and so your request is going to probably go through your public access officer. You're going to be asked to produce records that are responsive to the request, and then we are going to produce records that are responsive to the request, and someone is going to do a confidentiality review. I don't know if they ask you to do that. You've got legal counsel, I would think probably it's going through legal for confidentiality review. I think if you got asked for something and you weren't really sure whether or not you had to produce it, that's a conversation to have internally to determine, you know, what it, what there is, this actually a public record, and I'm sure you could dispute something, but hopefully you'd have a team approach that would help to answer about what's the best position to take on this for the city and the taxpayers and the requester. So no, I don't necessarily agree That you're the arbiter. Hopefully there's a process around you, because that would be a huge responsibility without any consult to decide, you know, whether or not the question that I would think you're getting is, do you have a record that's responsive to the request? Then I would hope there's more team approach to what do we do with this if we're really not sure that it's a public record or really not sure if [27:36] David B. Chittim: It's confidential. Your earlier statement that the statute is to be construed liberally and exceptions conservatively, that being the case, then as an elected it official, at any point during my life, if I am committing anything to paper or video recording or voice recording that relates to city business, I am then obligated to retain that per the retention policy and surrender it to the FOA officer upon request, is that right? So this statement, this is [28:14] Brenda Kelty: What, where I would like to see a city of Lewiston policy instructing counselors that these are the kinds of records that we expect you may be creating in the course of the work that you're doing, and these are the ones that we consider public records that need to be retained, and this is how to retain it. We want, we want everything on the server, that's a simple one, right? We don't want, if you, if you had to do some communicating outside of your Lewiston email address, copy it over to this address. We Want everything on the server, or we want everything downloaded into these particular files. We want everything prior to the end of your term moved over here so that it's in our possession, right? So those are the kinds of, I mean, really specific instructions on how to handle the records that you're potentially creating. And then I guess the conversation would be, well, is my tape recording of council meetings a record that's a public, not just public record, is it a record, a city record that needs to be Retained, right? So I would hope it, especially if these are questions that you don't have a policy for, you haven't had those conversations, it would be really good to do that, you know, then you won't be wondering what am I, what am I supposed to do with this? And the big problem I do see, particularly in smaller municipalities, is we have volunteers, right? Volunteers are taking on these positions of responsibility, and then they leave, they end their term, and no one knows where anything went. Where are their emails? Where are the records? Where right, because they haven't really received any training on exiting and making sure that the municipality is retaining, because the municipality is responsible for the records, right? So that, and I see that even in state government where one official or one, you know, somebody leaves and there's not a good process for capturing and properly retaining, so it's all somewhat [30:45] David B. Chittim: Somewhat related question. Well, it raised more, but I'm gonna let other counselors address the time we have left. [30:58] Brenda Kelty: Yeah, the social media posting on social media, this is very difficult. One of the difficulties with social media is capturing the records, because in order to retain you have to capture, and if you're not, if you're, what, here's a potential problem. You are creating something that could be considered a public record, but you don't have the capability to capture it. Should you be creating that record because you can't capture it and you don't have any control over it? There's no easy answer to that. Because on the other side, you're probably attempting to communicate, and we need, we need communication and we want to communicate, but on any platform where there's an issue with capture, that's where you need clear instruction from the city about what, you know, do I do this, should I not do this? And it's not just Facebook where it's posted somewhere else and you don't have the controls. There are other apps and other platforms that are problematic in that regard. So that's a caution, like if you're Thinking about being on something that you can't capture and retain and it's a record and it's a public record, you're really in, you know, not a good place. And I and I don't know, I don't know, you know, you don't have control, you can't get it, so what do you do? Yeah. [32:35] Scott A. Harriman: I wondered if elected officials anytime they post something, whether it's up making a post or writing a comment on social media, should they be taking a screenshot of that and saving it [32:48] Brenda Kelty: Somewhere. Here's the, here's the issue. I know in the state of Maine would there was a pilot project recently with a couple of agencies decided to implement social media capture with a, you know, a very expensive platform which essentially watched everything and, you know, took care of capturing everything and storing it, and then it was accessible. I other than that, I don't know how you do it. How do you do it? I mean, technically it's just without that kind of platform assistance, and that's going to be An investment so we're at, we're in an in-between place there because, of course, you want to be able to communicate and we do use social media to a large extent to reach the population, but screenshotting every post, I mean, it's tough, that's tough. So again, this is a place where I say the city needs to make a decision about what to do about that and whether or not it's worthwhile to invest in technology that will do it for you. So yeah. [34:01] Scott A. Harriman: My concern was not so much about, you know, if I post something on my own page where I have the control over it, but if I post something in a, say, a community group or on someone else's page, they can delete that at any time. So it seems like, yeah, I need to take a [34:16] Brenda Kelty: screenshot of it to save it, to save it for yourself, right? Yeah, maybe that's a solution, but truly the state of Maine had to look at, do we have to have a program that's gonna just capture everything, even just because it needs to be accessible. [34:33] Carl L. Sheline: Yeah. I mean, I would think that would be akin to me when I do a news interview, either for TV or print media. I'm not required to keep that, and I am not in custody of that, correct? [34:48] Brenda Kelty: You're being interviewed by media. You're not creating the record. You don't have the record, you could always ask for it to make sure it may be something then want you want a document, but based on the definition of public record and you don't have custody or possession of it. So the other question was the open meeting retreat, you know, I understand the desire to have a little bit more open, candid, maybe say things that could be uncomfortable or may challenge somebody within the context of hoping to bring something forward, you know, to or to build trust or to do all those things, but if you're discussing the government business, it's a meeting, it's an open meeting, you can't just close it because you want to be more candid, and this is the same thing with executive session, we can't just go into executive session because it's sensitive. So I would say no, I mean, and I've seen situations where public bodies have gone into a retreat setting and posted notice and location and opened it to the public, you know, and no and there was no public, nobody came, but went made sure that it was accessible, so I would say I'd say no, you [36:33] Carl L. Sheline: you can't wrap this up, is there any final thoughts from counselors [36:43] Joshua L. Nagine: counseling aging, I just wanted to again say thank you for coming, I appreciate it [36:49] Brenda Kelty: I wish we had more time. I know I'm so sorry to rush through, but I'm always available and Brian has my email if anybody wants needs something from me or wants to follow up on something. I'm happy to do that, so thank you all for the work you're doing. [37:05] Carl L. Sheline: Thank you for coming. Good night. Give Aaron Fry our best. Administrator Kinrath, I believe we're heading to executive session requested. [37:24] Bryan Kaenrath: actions to enter into an executive session pursuant to mrsa title one section 4056c to discuss an economic development issue of which the premature disclosure of the information would prejudice the competitive bargaining position of [37:36] Carl L. Sheline: THE CITY. MADAM MOTION PLEASE. SO MOVE COUNCILOR CHIDDOM. SECOND BY COUNCILOR NAGINE. ALL IN FAVOR YES. WE'RE UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU. WE'RE HEADING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND WE ARE DO OUR BEST TO GET HERE UH BACK BY SEVEN. HELLO AND WELCOME TO OUR TUESDAY EVENING COUNCIL MEETING. APPRECIATE YOU ALL BEING HERE. I THINK WE HAVE IS GABRIELLE RUSSELL HERE. YEAH OKAY YEAH WE HAVE GABRIELLE Russell who will lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you very much Gabrielle. Madam Clerk, I believe we're ready to begin. Yes, thank you Mr. Mayor. All [1:06:56] David B. Chittim: roll call votes for this meeting will begin with the Councillor of Ward 4. I [1:06:59] Carl L. Sheline: understand we have minutes? Yes, sir, of the May 19th meeting. May I have a motion to accept the minutes? So moved. Councillor Chittim. Second. Seconded by Councillor Najin. Yes, Councillor [1:07:09] Scott A. Harriman: Herrmann. May I just ask if the two corrections were incorporated into there [1:07:13] David B. Chittim: that I mentioned yes councillor Harriman sent an email noting that the during second public comment the speaker wasn't identified so we added that in and then we just clarified councillor Harriman's comments regarding the absentee ballots in the school budget election under other business yes Thank You councillor [1:07:30] Carl L. Sheline: Thanks I think we're madam clerk yes Thank You councillor madam clerk please call the vote [1:07:37] David B. Chittim: Council from Ward 4? Yes. Ward 5? Yes. Ward 6? Yes. Ward 7? Yes. Ward 1? Yes. Ward 2? Yes. Ward 3? Yes. Motion passed by a vote of 7-0. [1:07:48] Carl L. Sheline: Thank you very much Madam Clerk. We are now up to public comment. Any member of the public may make comments regarding issues pertaining to Lewiston City Government. This period is reserved for non-agenda items. Public comment is also allowed during individual agenda items. Public comment is limited to three minutes per person. Please state your name for the record and please indicate If you are a loose and resident for our council rules This period is reserved for Lewiston residents only because this is the business meeting of Lewiston City Council All questions should be directed to the mayor who asked staff to follow up at a future time It is illegal for the City Council to allow comments related to personnel matters All personnel complaints should be made directly to the city administration office [1:08:28] Chrissy Noble: Good evening, Rensoul, Ward 5. Over the past few months, the residents have witnessed not only our city declining, but this council declining. Our city attorney once told us that individually, we didn't hold a lot of power, but together you could be very powerful. You guys don't have to like each other. You don't even have to respect each other, but you do need to work together. I don't know what you think you're going to accomplish with all the arguing and just not getting along. It needs to stop. Stop. You have an entire city depending on you. Get your shit together. Come on, guys. You're better than this. Thank you. [1:09:15] Unidentified speaker: Ronnie Parity, Ward 6. I'm here to address the council from Ward 5. You wrote something that is very, not, shouldn't have been written on Facebook. And that really disturbed me as a Christian. You put Jesus hates us. Jesus doesn't hate us. Jesus loves us. And to put that on Facebook, and to put the word hates, I thought you were a social worker, and to do that, it's it's awful. You know, it's awful what you're doing. Anyway, back to the mayor and his appointment for safety committee. Mayor, you're putting the same people that think the same way on your committees, and it's your friends, and the thing is that we need people on opposite sides of the fence to debate the issue and come to the middle. This is what the city needs. We're not talking together. We're divided, and you're not representing the whole city at all. Will you start representing the whole city? And if you don't like somebody, they still should be appointed to these committees. Thank you. And please don't write anything on Facebook about Christ or anything else that's a that's an insult to me as a Christian. Bill Londrigan Award six. I may run over a little bit and I've asked this lady if I could use some of her time. Councillors, you need to step up and take control of discussions and stop the mayor's continually interjecting his opinions or whatnot. What needs to be done, you know, the city councillors, you need to make the decisions concerning downtown violence. The police department need to identify the instigators and perpetrators of the crimes and violence and if any of them here are illegal then they should be turned over to the federal offices for deportation. If they are here legally they need to be entered into the justice system and the downtown agencies need to work with the down people to curb the criminal activities. Another committee, I don't know what good that's going to do. According to the revaluation, who in their right mind in a main community would select a Plano, Texas multinational conglomerate to do our revaluation. The only reason would be to place other states' real estate values on our community. They did not visit the property. They placed the highest possible value on the houses, hoping that the very people who would have the time, hoping that the very few people would have the time to appeal the process. Land valuation is even worse. Two-year sample of sales does not provide enough information for a true representation of land values. I have several examples. On the agenda there is an order for the disposition of 68 Jones Street. The city council is authorizing the sale at five thousand dollars market price. The city's realtor initially priced the property at 24 9, reduced it to 19 6 when realized it was a inadequate frontage for buildings, yet the revaluation process had that land valued at $42,900. Something's wrong. Example two, your 1.9 acre parcel of land in Ward 6, consisting of seven properties over 50 years old, was priced at $176,842 per acre. The individual per aqua valuation range from 156,452 to 215,000. Excuse me, sir. [1:13:50] Carl L. Sheline: I understand the person behind you wants to yield their time, but we actually don't allow that here. [1:13:58] Unidentified speaker: You did it the other night. [1:14:00] Carl L. Sheline: What this person behind you can do is take what you have and can identify herself and then continue reading, but that will be the way to do that at one of the last two meetings. I don't want to, I don't want to argue with you, so your time is in fact up. If you want the person behind you to continue reading that is their prerogative. Nope, [Unidentified speaker: that's fine, you] can also email public comment at lewistonmaine.gov please continue with public [1:14:31] Unidentified speaker: comment marcella claire ward 5. As a resident of Lewiston, I'm deeply disappointed by the comments and public conduct of Counselor Chrissy Noble. Public officials hold positions of trust and influence. Regardless of political differences, our community deserves leadership that is respectful, measured, and professional. Using inflammatory language like you got to be a and I am going to say effin instead of using the word a real effin loser to post rage bait and posting phrases like hashtag Jesus hates you does not reflect the level of civility and responsibility that many residents expect from an appointed representative. We can disagree on policy, gun violence, community events, or activism without resorting to hostility and rhetoric that further divides our city. Lewiston is facing enough challenges. We need leaders who bring people together, not push people further apart. Ward five deserves leadership that communicates responsibly, listens to residents, and represents the community with dignity. Because of these comments and the tone they set, I believe Councillor Noble should resign from her position effective immediately. I also want to speak from a personal experience. I tried to reach out publicly to my ward rep with a question about gun violence in our city. Rather than engaging with those questions, her reply was I'm busy doing anything else. That is not what residents deserve from someone that was appointed. If you're going to hold public office, then do the work of listening to your constituents and help address the very real problem of gun violence in our city. Finally, I want to challenge each of you up there, every single counselor here tonight, put your differences aside and join us tomorrow evening at 7 o'clock at Calvary Church on Main Street. If you truly care about making this Lewiston safer, we have to be willing to come together, have difficult conversations, and work towards solutions. Lewiston and deserves better. Thank you. [1:16:55] Carl L. Sheline: If you can, if you would like to speak, if you would like to speak at public comment, you'll have to get in line, sir. Please sit down. Thank you. Mr. Agran, please continue with public comment. Matthew Agren, ward 4. I've been very quiet. [1:17:19] Unidentified speaker: About the mayor suddenly remembering that this time period is by rules for listen Lewiston citizens and taxpayers. It was very interesting because for most of the mayor's two terms, anyone could walk up to this podium during this time and offer their opinion on what was going on with the city and what they wanted done. This is part of the reason that the last council, for all of you who served on it, remember that we had to put a limit on public comment because there were so many outsiders who were here it was taking 40 minutes to get to the meetings. Using these rules, we've had the mayor want to stop survivors of the October 25th mass shooting from speaking out because they don't live here. But you know what they have done, they were taxpayers because both of those businesses paid taxes and they were there spending money paying taxes on that money. Given that we put in a time limit on public comment as well as a second period in case we MISSED IT OR CAME IN LATE, COULD YOU GUYS THINK ABOUT CHANGING THE RULES TO BE MORE LIKE THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE, WHICH HAVE A PRIORITY GIVING LEWISTON RESIDENTS AND TAXPAYERS FIRST SHOT BUT ANYONE CAN SPEAK. I HOPE THAT ALL OF YOU IN THIS LISTENING HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO READ THE POLICE CHIEF'S INTERVIEW WITH THE MAIN WIRE, WHERE SHE SPOKE OPENLY AND VERY HONESTLY ABOUT WHAT SHE SEES AS THE ISSUES THAT LEWISTON PD IS CURRENTLY HAVING. They're running into a lack of legal support and accountability keeping these young offenders locked up. Instead, they're released way too soon without any real punishment given. If we don't get this under control, how long will it be before somebody's innocent, non-involved person catches a round downrange and, heavens forbid, bleeds out on the street or in their own apartment or home. But this is not something that just the City of Lewiston can fix. We need the parents and guardians of these youths to step up and do the hard job of being parents and role models for these youths. We need our state rep who's sitting up there with you, standing up in Augusta, arguing for real change the way our state-run justice system isn't working for the safety of this community but it seems to be working against it. And finally we need all the outside federal assistance we can get because these firearms and drugs aren't all coming from here. Huh, we just have a dump truck stolen in Mass come all the way to Lewiston Maine where it took out a Lewiston police cruiser. Wonder why it came all the way up here. Very INTERESTING. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS DESTINY. I'M FROM WENDHAM. I ESCAPED OUT OF SMENGES. I'M A LUCIN SHOOTING SURVIVOR. ON MAY 5TH, I SUBMITTED A WRITTEN REQUEST ASKING FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THE REMAINING 1.9 MILLION RAISED FOR THE SURVIVORS AND VICTIMS OF THE LUCIN MASS SHOOTING. I HAD RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED A RESPONSE WITHIN 30 DAYS IN THE LETTER. AS OF TODAY, SOME OF YOU HAVE NOT REPLIED, AND I AM STILL awaiting your response. Why do some City Council members seem reluctant to provide clear answers regarding funds raised on behalf of victims and survivors? The Varian reactions indicate that some care about the survivors, others while others do not, and would prefer us to go away. When will the survivors, victims families be given a clear accounting of these funds and their distribution? The survivors, victims families, donors, and the public deserve answers. The decision, the decision of some city councilors re to refrain from responding to basic questions about the 1.9 million that was raised for the Lewiston shooting victims and survivors who were at Smenge's and the Bolognese on October 25th, 2023 is quite disappointing. The Maine Community Foundation can resolve this issue, and your support will be crucial in enabling them to do so. Continued silence only raises more questions about the handling of these funds. Ignoring reasonable questions does not build trust, it damages it. Thank you. Hi [1:22:18] Lisa Jones: everyone, my name's Lisa Jones and I live in Ward 2. We witness on a bi-weekly occasion the reasons for the very public decline of Lewiston. This council is quite literally dysfunctional, and you ignore some of the most pressing issues facing Lewiston. This is the same council who pretended they were helpless to get Iman Offman off the council before he was sworn in, and shortly afterward Chittum said, I propose we ignore the charter at a meeting. It looks really bad that sitting city councillors are protecting the place where a disabled child who went missing for nearly six hours during transport from Freiburg to Monmouth ended up where ice has picked up an individual and where teens run when they're trying to flee the cops with a stolen car full of bullet holes. I wonder why that is. Councillor Noble has also stated multiple times that she's reported Councillor Martel to the Department of Justice. She's very obviously ignoring actual Crime and wasting resources on an individual she doesn't like. I apologize for the language in the next part of my public comment, as these are not my words. You got to be a real sorry. You can just not use language. Are you going to do something about what she said, or can I read it, one or the other? I'm gonna read her comment, or you're gonna hold her accountable. Please continue with public comment. You got to be a real fucking loser to rage bait a peaceful business that's doing nothing but helping Africaners, the white Africans that your POS president is saving under the guise of gun safety. Maggots really hate how resilient the African community is. You showed yourself as the racist pig you are, and we see you. Misery loves company, and you will never bring that community down with your political grandstanding. The only people who think you're cool are the miserable people you show off to. The African community will continue to be lifted and supported by the people in their community who see their value. You'll never win the war you've instigated in the community. Hashtag Jesus hates you. I have to wonder how every person in Ward 5 that voted for Donald Trump, every person in Ward 5 that considers themselves to be a Christian, felt about their representation when they saw Chrissy's online behavior. When she was installed in that Ward 5 seat, we tried to give her the benefit of the doubt. Now it's clear to the public why you subverted democracy and put her there with no public support. I'm not sure what war she's referring to, as the only combat I'm aware of is between the gang at Hillview and the gang that call themselves K Block. block. In response to all this community violence, Maine Wire reporter John Featherston and gubernatorial candidate Ben Midgley have stepped up where Lewiston City leadership has been absent and have arranged a community forum on the topic tomorrow night at 7 p.m. at Calvary Church across from Martin's. Lastly, I'm seeking an update on Destiny Johnson's request that you reach out to the Maine Community Foundation to pressure them to make it right with mass shooting victims by giving them the remaining 1.9 million dollars that was raised for them. [1:25:16] Andrew Jones: Andrew Jones, Ward 2. First thing I came to talk about tonight was flock cameras. It's my understanding that a lot of the public and probably some of the council feel strongly against the use of those cameras. I understand that people find it controversial. They have concerns about who has access to the data. However, if you were paying attention to the news the last week or so, flock cameras helped catch three assholes who stole a car out of Massachusetts and came up here presumably to cause more trouble. We should support the use of this technology in the hot spots of our city to help combat crime. The other thing I want to talk about was a thing that a lot of people are talking about and that was Councillor Noble's public comments on social media. That was quite the black eye for the council. Based on your facial expressions, I'm guessing you agree. That's good to see. The public did give you the pendant of the doubt when you were put in that position by the council, thinking that you were just an innocent bystander, but based on those comments it sounds like you're just the same part of the partisanship that's going on up there. You know that post was pretty outlandish. On the 1 to 10 scale of lunacy, I'd say that you went full on Melissa Dunn with that one. And I think that you should resign out of respect for what the council should be and how they're perceived publicly. I just don't see that happening when there's another fascist on that council who won't resign either, even though he's now facing his third censure. Last thing I wanted to talk about, Destiny Johnson was up here, I was glad to see that she was able to give public comment without somebody objecting that she was from Wyndham because as far as I'm concerned she's from Lewiston she's called on the MCF to return the money that they took in bad faith and I just wonder why can't the council stand with her and also make that statement like I know the mayor has commented that they don't have he doesn't have subpoena powers and we can't compel the MCF to do anything but you can still ask the private citizen did, why can't you? [1:27:41] Charles Sowell: Charles Sowell, age 73, 70 Horton Street. You know, it's time for the whole state to move forward. The average age of a person in Maine is 49 years old. So why would you vote for anybody over 70? And why would you want to start a dynasty? AND THEN WHY WOULD YOU VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHO TRIED TO KILL [1:28:10] Carl L. Sheline: THERE IS NO POLITICING HERE OR CAMPAIGNING. I'M NOT CAMPAIGNING FOR A PERSON. IT'S NOT A NAME. REGARDLESS, MR. SEWELL, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE TO TALK [1:28:22] Charles Sowell: ABOUT? WHY WOULD ONE VOTE FOR BELLOWS WHO TRIED TO KEEP A CANDIDATE [1:28:24] Carl L. Sheline: FROM THE BALLOT OF MAINE WHERE THE SUPREME COURT HAD TO COME IN AND SQUASH IT? SO EITHER YOU CAN STOP OR TALK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE. further [1:28:41] Unidentified speaker: public comment yeah me ray two-teen Ward seven he's not even looking again amazing I don't can you hear everybody here you guys are listening people are pissed off I could be here for two hours talking about you guys Ward one Ward two and Ward seven this has nothing to do with you guys because you guys i feel like your work trying to do the best you can for the city of lewiston the rest of you if you were in my business you'd be all fired tonight i think you should all resign harriman mr chalene mrs noble you shouldn't even be there you were a puppet and you 're still a puppet. Mr. Chittum got you in there, I'm sure. You guys, it's a disgrace to this city. I've talked to a lot of people. A lot of people think this is a joke, this council. One of the worst we've ever had. And Mr. Chalene, I don't know if you've ever heard this name. We had a mayor here a long time ago by the name of Tara Cayley. She was known as the worst mayor we've ever had in Lewiston. You made her number two now. You should resign immediately because we can't take this no more. I live in a good area of Lewiston. I hear sirens every night. We hear gunshots. We don't even know if it's a gunshot or fireworks but the next morning we hear it's gunshots and you don't want ice here i don't think you want to help the lewiston police department you 're not doing anything you guys are not doing anything and you can see it right here i've been to two meetings and people come in and all they're doing is complain about you guys not doing your job And then you got a councilman here that's been censored three times, he shouldn't even be on any board, and he can't even look at us. And he should resign immediately with you, Mr. Sheline. Enough is enough. We're tired of it. We can't walk the streets. You go down Lower Lisbon Street, it looks like Mogadishu that got tornadoed. A nice building on the corner of Lisbon and Main Street has been emptied. The old dusty building been emptied for two years. No one's doing anything to try to get business, and I can think because no business wants to come to Lewiston because of the way it looks, the way things are happening here. I kind of feel bad for the police department because these people are working that's time. Thank you sir, my time is up, but your time is up also. Further public comment, hi. [1:31:57] Carl L. Sheline: Carl, how are you? If you can identify yourself and state where you live, please. My name is Jess Paquette. [1:32:04] Unidentified speaker: I live in Lewiston. I voted for you, I supported you, I considered you a friend, and you have done nothing but disappoint us. This is my first City Council meeting and I'm pissed. You can't censor me for that. But all of you, and I apologize if all of you are not involved, but you're all about as useless as a pack of dirty tampons. All right, and I hope I that's that's all I got to say. Okay, and also one thing, my dad's name is on the Veterans Memorial Wall. He did 20 years in the Air Force, ran away from home when he was 17, okay, because he came from an abusive family. His name is on that wall, and you're a disappointment to all of our veterans, past, present, and future. And one other thing, shame on you for not coming to our Memorial Day celebration. That meant so much to us. My dad's name is on the wall. I got my dad flown with his ashes at the Blue Angels air show last year on an L-39 Albatross jet. He talked about wanting to go back into the service. So you know what? I made that happen for him. I had his flag flown in bubble wrap a week after he was buried. He had taps, he had the whole entire American flag dude, and your disgrace. Shame on you, have a nice day, and I thank all of my veterans here. Thank you, have a great day. Further pub, further public comment. [1:34:04] Bob McDonald: Hi, Bob McDonald, Ward Six. I was going to speak, I have some stuff I wrote, but I'm not going to talk about this. I think it was extremely rude and I think it was extremely sorrowful that gentleman that was had issued his time to the lady in back of him was not let, was not let, you didn't let him express himself all the way. When I was mayor, every meeting we opened it up for the public. Some people did it for 10 minutes, when I think even 15. Charlie and myself here we got a little into it a couple times but people were allowed to speak this is not a guster I know where this came from. This is probably from Kristen Kaludia who goes to Augusta and all of a sudden up in there you can speak for three minutes. If you're a regular person, but if you're a retired legislator, all you can speak all you want. So what I'm saying is, it's time to go back to the old ways. Let these people talk okay then I did some of them have a hard time expressing themselves in three minutes some of them have a lot of good points which they can't do in three minutes but it's time to start letting these people this is the public right here and you're representing the public and if you don't know what the public thinks well how can you represent them so I would ask you maybe the next time you have a little meeting in the back there or whatever maybe you ought to change that rule And let them let these people talk and make their points and if they do start rambling well he's to ramble with me I we'd stop them but as long as they're sitting there and they're making good points they should not be stopped they should not be censored okay that's not what you're here for you're here to listen and you haven't done anything I mean you're supposed to come up with solutions but we haven't had seen these solutions for the gun violence or stuff like that so obviously you haven't Been DOING ANY KIND OF JOB [1:36:55] Carl L. Sheline: FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT GOOD [1:36:59] John Featherstone: EVENING MR MAYOR JOHN FEATHERSTON SACO MAINE AS [1:37:02] Carl L. Sheline: YOU KNOW I AM SORRY YOU ARE YOU ARE NOT A LOUISTON RESIDENT I AM NOT A LOSING RESIDENT MR MAYOR WE [1:37:07] Bret Martel: JUST ALLOWED SOMEONE NOT FROM LOUISTON TO SPEAK I THINK IF YOU GIVE HIM 30 SECONDS HE'LL BE DONE [1:37:12] Carl L. Sheline: IT'LL TAKE LESS TIME THAN ARGUING NO I'M SORRY YOU'RE NOT A LOUISTON RESIDENT I DID ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YES SIR YEAH THANK YOU SORRY YOU CANNOT SPEAK THANK YOU BUT MR MAYOR I KNOW UNLESS YOU SPEAK [1:37:22] Michael R. Roy: Speak out about the Somali violence, it's not going to be done. [1:37:24] Carl L. Sheline: Can you please leave? Thank you for your time, sir. Thank you. Further public comment? [1:37:36] Adam Jones: How we doing? Adam Jones, Ward 2. I don't have much to say right now. I have a little bit more to say later, but I just want to go back to my previous statements a couple weeks ago. I spoke on the city's mission statement. Talked about excellence, and I think if you look around here, what's excellent is you have a turnout of people that believe in one thing, and that is succession for the city growth development. I don't see a lot of good happening from that side of the bench, primarily from the ceremonial head. Hopefully he's gone this next election, but I think what you guys need to ask yourselves is what can we do for our constituents, not what can I do for me. There's a couple people up there right now that I'm not really sure how they even got there, but maybe they're good doodlers, I don't know, maybe they're good Facebook posters, but I think what matters most here is you have a representation of the masses that believe in one thing, and that is they just want to better Lewis them, and I don't believe that most of you up there are good examples of that. So I go back to my previous statements about excellence, and I feel that as a group of people sitting in a very powerful position to be able to have a voice for your constituents, you have to remind yourself that in a basket full of bad apples it only takes one, and I see it with you Carl, and I see it radiate the Harriman, and I see it radiate to Chrissy, it's just going to keep continuing. So I think the rest of you have a very powerful position to say enough's enough and put a stop to it before the rest of you are ruined. So just please keep that in mind. It's about excellence. It's not about what side of the aisle you're on, it's not about how I feel tonight when I go home and I read my Facebook posts or how many followers I have or, I don't know, how many young girls you post pictures with, Carl, selfies and food and all that good stuff, right? It doesn't matter. Doesn't matter because at the end of the day this is what matters, the people. So keep that in mind, it's all about excellence. You guys have a duty to follow the rules, to be professional, and to do your job the best that you can do. If I don't do my job in the best way possible, I'm no longer in that job. So keep that in mind, it's about excellence. Thank you. Further [1:40:09] Carl L. Sheline: public comment. Public comment is now closed. Administrator, I believe you have a report. All right, [1:40:16] Bryan Kaenrath: thank you Mr. Mayor, yes, some staff updates to acknowledge. Fire Lieutenant Matthew Weir's has been promoted to captain. Ronan Curtis has recently graduated from the Maine Criminal Justice Academy and will begin field training at the Lewiston PD. Captain John Daniels will be retiring from service with those in fire department after 41 years of service. So congratulations to all of them. We appreciate their service in the city and thank them for everything they're doing. A quick update on the reval process, City Assessor Bill Hill will be having his next public information session on Tuesday, June 23rd, 6 to 7 p.m. at the Senior Center in the Armory, 65 Central Avenue. We're inviting all to please attend, have your questions answered, and learn more about the reval process. Also of note, we got some information back from Tower Technologies. At 8.3 percent of property owners have scheduled an informal hearing on their new valuations, and they will have notices sent out to them by sometime later this month with information back on their meetings and potential new valuations. A reminder, the Martel project we'll have a ribbon-cutting on Thursday, July 16th, at 10 30 a.m. That is the day it was, the housing is given to us, and we invite all members of the public and anyone else interested to please come and attend this monumental groundbreaking for the city. So again, July 16th at 10 30 a.m. excuse me the loose and fire department staff recently completed a series of updated training programs designed to strengthen emergency response firefighter safety and operational readiness training areas include hydraulics practical training medical training cpr certification hazardous materials response vehicle stabilization and extrication as well as hose testing and some others so we appreciate the fire department for all they're doing and for being engaged in this extensive new training Last week, just to know, Senator Collins did visit the Lewiston Police Department for a tour of the new facilities. She also met with senior police leadership to discuss department needs and resources available at the federal level. The department did recently secure 2.1 million dollars through CDS funding for protective gear, other safety equipment, and so other needs were highlighted with Senator Collins, as well as some of the situation in Lewiston regarding gun violence, other issues, and help that we could potentially receive at the federal level Lewiston high school graduation the class of 2026 is on June 5th coming up this Friday 630 p.m. At the Lewiston High School field, congrats to all graduates, congrats to our superintendent, all school staff, for another year. We appreciate all of your service to the city as well. Lastly, just a quick note, the primary election is on Tuesday, June 9th, a week from today. Polls are open 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., and also the school budget referendum will be happening on this day. Awesome, thank you. Thank you very much, Administrator [1:43:15] Carl L. Sheline: Kainrath, we appreciate your service to our city. Madam Clerk, I believe we have a consent agenda [1:43:21] David B. Chittim: and you have one update for us. Yes sir, we staff is requesting that item number three be removed from the consent agenda, which is order approving the disposition of 43 Crowley Road. So we will be removing that if that's okay. So the consent agenda will consist of [1:43:36] Carl L. Sheline: just to be clear, we're not just removing it from the consent agenda, we're just removing it off the agenda completely. Thank you, I apologize. Yes, we're removing [1:43:43] David B. Chittim: it from the agenda. There were some recent changes regarding that agenda item, and staff wanted more time to review that. So thank you, Mr. Mayor. Understood, thank you. To three items on the consent agenda, item number one, order approving the disposition of 68 Jones Avenue, number two, order approving the disposition of 17 White Avenue, and number four, order authorizing execution of municipal quick-claim deed for real estate located at 58 Central Avenue [1:44:10] Carl L. Sheline: Have a motion, please councillor Eugene second by councillor Chittum. Madam clerk, please call. Mr. Mayor [1:44:17] Joshua L. Nagine: That's not what I was looking to be recognized for. Can I remove? Agenda items one and two, please, so that we can go over them individually [1:44:25] Carl L. Sheline: Okay. All right. Yeah. Thank you. All right, Madam Clerk. Did you note that? Yes [1:44:30] David B. Chittim: Yes. So I guess the item before you is item four, which will be on the only remaining item on the consent agenda. So just for clarification, so before you on the consent agenda, item number four, order authorizing execution of municipal quick claim deed for real estate located at 58 Central Avenue. [1:44:45] Carl L. Sheline: Thank you. And as we're having a do over here, can I have a motion for that? So moved. Second. Second by Councillor Martel. Thank you. Madam Clerk, please call the vote. Council from Ward 4? Yes. Ward 5? Yes. Ward 6? Yes. Ward 7? Yes. Ward 1? Yes. Ward 2? yes we're three yes thank you very much madam clerk and we are now back to item number one yes item [1:45:12] David B. Chittim: Number one, order approving the disposition of 68 Jones Avenue. Requested action to approve the order approving the disposition of 68 [1:45:20] Carl L. Sheline: Jones Avenue I have a motion please so moved okay I'm sorry who said so moved council Ironman seconded by councillor chittum yes discussion among the council yes counselor may i ask some questions [1:45:37] Joshua L. Nagine: to our head of planning and code specifically about this property? Director Connor, are you [1:45:45] Carl L. Sheline: here? I thought I saw him, and here he is. Yes, thank you for joining us, Director Connor. Please continue [1:45:54] Joshua L. Nagine: your counselor and aging thank you from what i understand from what i understand this is city sold a city parcel that we acquired through tax lien that sits in a subdivision that when originally was created all lots were buildable currently could you tell me how many homes exist on that subdivision that were buildable on the smaller lots [1:46:21] John Featherstone: I apologize, Councillor Nagy, and I don't have that. There is housing that does exist in their subdivisions. [1:46:27] Joshua L. Nagine: It's okay right next to that. Yes. Okay, and when we change the zoning in order to require larger lots, the under, underlying zoning didn't carry through. So now this is an unbuildable property, correct as it stands right now. That's correct. Okay. The reason why I'm bringing this up, these are some of the challenges I think I see, we see when we're talking about small development within the community. Originally when the subdivision was created, this, these could all be parcels that you could build a single-family home on. Now under current law, you will, should be able to build a duplex or a single-family home with a detached two-unit ad, you, it's not buildable right now, and I want to just emphasize that to the council. These are some of the problems that we run into when we look at development within community. That was my point. Thank you very much. Further [1:47:22] Carl L. Sheline: comments from the council? Public comment for this agenda item? Back to the council. Madam Clerk, please call the [1:47:31] David B. Chittim: vote. Council from word four, yes. Word five, yes. Word six, yes. Word seven, yes. Word one, yes. Word two, yes. Word three. Yes. Motion passed by vote of seven to zero. Item number two. Item number two. Order. Approving the disposition of 17 White Avenue. Requested action to approve the order approving the disposition of 17 White Avenue. [1:47:54] Carl L. Sheline: I have a motion, please. So moved. Second. Councillor Harriman, seconded by Councillor Nagy. Discussion? [1:48:02] Joshua L. Nagine: Yes. Councillor Nagy. I just want to confirm that the purchaser, the current purchaser, this came before us before as a consent agenda item, and the current purchaser is actually in a butter that is looking to use this paper Street in order to build again a house because the property that he currently owns is too small, and this was again an unbuildable property. I don't know if anybody can answer that at this moment. [1:48:33] Carl L. Sheline: Director Connor, are you still available? We appreciate your assistance, I believe. [1:48:40] John Featherstone: That is accurate. So the his current lot is not buildable. Adding this will allow [1:48:46] Joshua L. Nagine: him to have a buildable lot. That is correct. Okay, and that would produce a single-family home that's probably paying five thousand, six thousand dollars in property taxes per year, give or take. Yep. Okay, thank you. One of the issues that I've had with some of the properties that have been listed is the end use, the highest and best use for those properties, is not communicated to us. We all approved on a consent agenda the last time around a bid from a real estate speculator from Manchester, New Hampshire, when there was somebody was trying to build a single family home here. So I think it's important that we also understand what we're trying to do with those [1:49:25] Carl L. Sheline: properties at the end. That's all. Further comments? Public comment for this agenda [1:49:33] Unidentified speaker: item? Back to the council. I'm clerk, please call the vote. Yes. Yes. We're [1:49:48] David B. Chittim: now up to item number five. Item number five, resolve approving the fiscal year 27 budget for the Lewiston School Department. Requested action, to adopt the resolve approving the fiscal year 27 budget for the Lewiston School Department. May have a motion, [1:50:03] Carl L. Sheline: please. So moved, Councilor. Second by Councillor Nagine, and we are joined here by Superintendent Langness and Committee Chair McLaughlin. If you two can please kick it off, and then we'll go from there. So we're here to answer any questions you may have, but a quick summary, just move the mic a little closer to please. Just a [1:50:26] Unidentified speaker: brief summary. We've worked this budget down by an additional 1.17 million dollars, making further reductions that include modification of workers comp, LRTC support staff with grant funding, special education AP, which is vacant, special education administrator, a multilingual coach that was vacant, that is vacant, ed tech that is vacant, one hundred twenty five thousand dollars out of technology that will impact repairs and software that's in use, some facility items. Also we received a grant for summer Transportation as part of an effort around grants that came in between the two. These are items that we updated you on last time we were here. I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. I think the bottom line that we really want to be making sure people are aware of is that 89 million dollars of this budget comes directly from state subsidy. It's not a voted upon actionable item as much as that happens through the state budgeting and allocation process. This does bring the local ask down to 32 million 885 and so it's not an insignificant amount but it's a 4.35% raise over last year and we did some calculations on the mill rate and an adjustment for home valued at $150,000 would be a 3.37% raise increase on the tax ask for that property. [1:52:03] Carl L. Sheline: Anything? Chair McLaughlin oh sorry no it's live you're you're good to go sorry I'm not I'm not [1:52:12] Scott A. Harriman: used to these microphones we have a different setup I'm just here to answer any questions [1:52:16] Unidentified speaker: as the school committee chair and I appreciate you all for having me thank you one question [1:52:20] Carl L. Sheline: I had superintendent understanding that some positions it sounds like have been frozen they were vacant how many people how many actual people have lost their jobs in this latest [1:52:32] Unidentified speaker: round of cuts that's a moving target with changing day to day with retirements and things like that but my last count we're at 26 and well what is [1:52:44] Carl L. Sheline: the increase of is there an additional since the last budget that we approved [1:52:49] Unidentified speaker: there's an additional five positions that are that pulled out of this and then overall there was 31 positions that were removed to make this budget [1:53:00] Carl L. Sheline: land where it did okay thank you questions from counselors public comment for this agenda item [1:53:12] Unidentified speaker: can you just pull the mic down closer to you well for our [1:53:24] Carl L. Sheline: folks at home who would love to hear you so no I don't think they want to hear me [1:53:28] Unidentified speaker: but anyway I just want to ask the school system to please go up to Augusta this summer and talk to them about the rules for restraining and other things at the school system. We went, as a school board member, we went in 2005 to the feds and the four federal people from Olympia Snow who met with our school board in 2005 and talked about No Child Left Behind. I think we need to go back to Augusta and talk about what we did in the 90s to help control kids. And it's really gone to the left where we can't even touch kids or even hold their hands anymore. And I think we need to go back to Augusta to control to our rules that we had in the 90s. Bill Lundgren, Ward 6. My understanding is, looking at the budgets, that there is about a $6 million carry forward from the current year's budget. I want to say that I feel that this council has not provided the financial direction to the school that they are allowed and authorized to provide. The school system, nearly 30% of the students don't graduate. About 60% are not proficient in reading and 80% are deficient in math. Data indicates that the Lewiston school is a low-performing school system, currently among the lowest performing schools in the state. The budget you are voting on is neither responsible nor reasonable. Over the past two budget years the school has gained 16.2%, $17,927,668. That's not petty change. As city councilors, you are supposed to be leaders looking out for your constituents. Stop forcing the taxpayer to have to continually vote on a budget that is way over what it should be. I would propose that you authorize $116,322,990, which is about the FY26 budget, and that would give them a 3% over the last two years. 3% a year. That would be 6% in total. Accept your responsibility. Do what's right for the taxpayer of the city. Voting money does not mean a better education, by the way. Taxpayers find over 10 million more than the minimum required statutory recommendation. Thank you. If [1:56:41] Carl L. Sheline: we can please silence cell phones. [1:56:42] Andrew Jones: I would appreciate it. Thank you. Andrew Jones, Ward 2. I just have a question for [1:56:47] Carl L. Sheline: the superintendent, if I can ask that. Well, what we're going to do is you can pose your question and then continue on with the rest of the comment, if there are any, and then the superintendent and the chair will take notes and then [1:56:58] Andrew Jones: answer when we come back. Okay, my question is just if this budget includes the building on Main Street that was purchased, that from what I understand needs a ton of work, and if this budget does include that, then I can't support it. That's all I have to say further. [1:57:18] Carl L. Sheline: Yes. Good [1:57:22] Jay Zimmerman: evening. Jay Zimmerman, Ward 5, and I teach in Lewiston Public Schools. I want to be clear to the council and to the public that what the school is asking of the taxpayers of Lewiston is not 128 point four million dollars. The school department is asking for thirty two point eight million dollars. That is only thirty percent of the budget that comes from city taxpayers versus from the state. So my earlier commenter who wanted to approve over $100 million to go to the schools, thank you, that would be Amazing, but that would be greatly increasing what the school department is actually asking for. The schools are subject to fixed costs, same as everybody else. The cost of doing business increases. We are all aware of this from our personal lives. Schools are no exception. The cost of transportation goes up, cost of utilities goes up. We have to pay those or we don't have schools. I would ask the council to clarify for the public what percent of the city budget is represented by the school budget, so that we are aware of that contribution to the city budget and the city budget as a whole. Given that the voters are only able to express their opinions on the school's portion of the city budget, it makes sense that folks are well, feeling away, as the kids would put it, people want to believe that cutting the school budget is holding the school department accountable, but it is not. Cutting the school budget is punishing children. It is punishing children for the failure of historic city management to reevaluate properties in a timely fashion. I don't disagree with anger that people feel towards the adults responsible for those decisions. I feel it myself, and it's gonna have ripple effects on all of us, renters and owners alike. I do need to speak up against adults taking their anger out on children. What kind of adult does that? And do we want those adults making the decisions for those children's lives? Children should not be punished for adults' mistakes. I urge you to approve the requested school budget. [1:59:41] Carl L. Sheline: Further, yes. [1:59:46] Lisa Jones: Hi, my name's Lisa Jones. I live in Ward 2 and I own a business in Ward 7. I pay my fair share of taxes in Lewiston and then some. I have a general comment about the school budget. I am fatigued with people tying care for children to paying amounts of money that they don't have in their bank account. People are looking at losing their homes over tax increases, and to imply that they do not care or that they are punishing children is unacceptable and emotional manipulation, and people can see through it. [2:00:27] Carl L. Sheline: We're not doing that here, thank you. If we can have the audience, please be quiet, that would be great. Further public comment for this agenda item, and if anyone else after this gentleman has public comment, please get up and form a line. [2:00:45] Dan Bernier: Sorry about that. My name is Dan Bernier. I work, I guess I live or I have a property in Ward 6, I guess it is, anyway. And I just, we don't really have the tools available to us, and it's really no one's fault, but Open Gov Boston kind of runs on Open Gov, and they can see everything that's going on, so then we be on the same board when we communicate, so we don't have that. That's, you know, it's too bad, but I understand. We talk about 130 million dollars or we talk about 30 million dollars, but it really comes down to the people that, so that we understand, it's really just a percentage of increase of the mill rate. That's what we really have to communicate to people, so that we don't talk about a number that's not something that we're going to touch. One concern I did have, I know we get 130 million dollars or whatever it is for the full budget, and a lot of that comes from Augusta. I'm not trying to get political, but, and people talk here about ICE and federal government, and I know the, you know, even the governor has been against the federal government back and forth. I would just be worried that some of that funding gets cut, and then we have a whole different problem going on. So obviously school budget, you know, it needs to happen. Kids gonna go to school, it's gonna happen, but what number we're gonna come at, it's just gonna be painful, because everybody's feeling, and pain in the community. That's what I'm hearing, anyway, and that's what we're seeing. We're seeing it with violence, we're seeing it with drugs, there's problems, but to cast the blame on somebody, you know, look in your own cabinet, see if you can fix it. That's all I want to say. Thank you. [2:02:23] Carl L. Sheline: For the republic, yes. Hi. [2:02:27] Nicole Lemay: I'm Nicole Lemay from Ward 5. I serve as the executive director for a non-profit here in the city. And I just wanted to say that I think reducing the school budget will increase the school to prison pipeline for our community children. I work with a lot of the youth that are actually not allowed to go to school because of behaviors. And it's just one of the things that we have to cope with out here. And yeah, once they don't have access to school, they don't have access to programming, they get involved in the systems, and I think we're all seeing the weight of that right now. Thanks. Further [2:03:12] Carl L. Sheline: comment, public comment is now closed. Back to the council questions for our superintendent. [2:03:18] Joshua L. Nagine: And committee chair, Councillor Nagine? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. To the point that one of the speakers made, can you speak to the overall portion of the school budget that apprises the mill rate as well as the percentage increase year-to-year this year, the proposed budget versus last year? [2:03:42] Unidentified speaker: I can. So the mill rate last year, again, this is all based on $150,000 home, so people have to do with some live math. Last year is 1361. The mill rate as proposed is 1407. Seven, which is a 46 cent difference, which going specifically percentage is 3.37 and an increase on a 150 000 one would be 68.85. 3.37, yes, and the Northeast CPI is I believe 3.3 at the moment. Correct, I saw 3.3, but I don't know if the new quarter has come out so. [2:04:26] Joshua L. Nagine: Okay. So the original proposal was, I believe, over a 10% increase, and the one that we had previously approved was an 8% increase, correct? [2:04:39] Unidentified speaker: So there's different percentages that have been used. We were not able to give that mill rate number until recently when more discussions happened with sticking with the current valuation. [2:04:50] Joshua L. Nagine: Okay. Thank you. Councilor Harriman. [2:04:54] Scott A. Harriman: One of the reasons we are in the position we are in is because a lot of federal funding has been cut due to shifting priorities at the federal government level. I don't know if you have this number, if you can speak to some of the federal money that has been cut since in this current budget. [2:05:15] Unidentified speaker: I think more conversationally, I don't have a list in front of me, but we have seen grants be sunset sooner than they were anticipated and then extended and put back to where they were before, but it caused some ripples. We've seen our title funding come in as flat and or reduced, and if for what it's worth, you know, every year people want their raise, and so if funding stays one second superintendent, if. [2:05:41] Carl L. Sheline: We can have it quiet in the council chambers, I would appreciate it. If you need to talk, please out to the hall or text each other. Thank you. Please continue superintendent. So the challenge. [2:05:51] Unidentified speaker: With title funding is those are positional typically, and anytime if someone gets to their step or their contracted raise but the funding doesn't go up, you have a new shortfall, and so we're working hard to manage that component, but title funding is something that comes into Lewiston that is a big support that we lean on for our kids, especially with interventions and supporting literacy and math, and that funding has been reduced this year, and last year was essentially we had challenges last year. With the release of those funds. We're hoping that doesn't happen this year. Last year we were well into July before the funds were available, and typically they're available in June. [2:06:31] Carl L. Sheline: Further comments from the Council? Councilor Martel, yes. [2:06:36] Bret Martel: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to offer a couple of comments. I personally find it a little bit intellectually dishonest to suggest that only $32 million is available for of the budget for the school is funded locally. All the property owners in Lewiston that are on the hook for that amount also contribute state taxes. So they're paying in on the 128.4 million dollars that's being funded by the state as well. They're also paying in to every dollar that's funded by the federal government. So in one way or another, regardless of who takes it out of their pocket, the residents of Lewiston are picking up the entire tab for this school budget, and I'm not going to be able to support this tonight because again I brought this up at the last meeting, but we had multiple members of the school committee in open meeting suggests that in expectation of having this first budget voted down that they were going to withhold cuts that likely could be preserved to in my eyes performatively cut further to bring that down in hopes to get it passed, so the public will speak for themselves when they go out to vote on this referendum next week, but I just wanted to point out that our residents pay state federal and local taxes, and so wherever the money is coming from, lowering the school budget is going to lower taxes for our residents, and I would be remiss if I didn't highlight one of the commenters what they brought up a public comment was that what are we getting for our money, we are not graduating an impressive number of our children, stats and scores are embarrassingly low, and Lewiston represents one of the worst school systems in the state, and the state of Maine represents one of the worst school systems in the country. So if there's no indication that more money provides a better education for our students, so I think maybe a re-evaluation of How that money is spent is warranted and might be more appropriate than continuing to dig in our residents pockets [2:08:44] Carl L. Sheline: Please stop. Thank you. Yes superintendent, would you like to say something? If I may, yeah, I think that [2:08:54] Unidentified speaker: Councilor Martel is right. We're all paying some portion of all of these components of taxes. I've been upfront about that for many years. I do think that the growth that we are seeing is something that I'm hopeful about. We do have our challenges, and we know that there's a lot of barriers in our community around poverty, mental health, in many other areas. But I would be releasing videos this week, sorry, a little bit of a plug, from a few seniors or several seniors that are going to school for either nothing or with money in their pocket, who have come directly through all the barriers you can imagine. They're wonderful video so while some kids are making it across that finish line, some are, a lot are, and what some of those kids that are making across the finish line, will be celebrating them on Friday. I'm not only making it across the finish line, they're doing so in ways that are very impressive. We want to make sure we get that message out to people. [2:09:46] Susan G. Longchamps: Councillor Long Champs. Thank you, Mayor. I wasn't going to say anything about that, but that is the truth. I'm not saying that the budget isn't high, because you know how I feel about it, and I hate that you're cutting from special education, because I feel as though that's just going to continue to grow. But our numbers are down for many reasons, right, students that can't speak English, poverty, there's, there's lots of challenges, and I know a lot of kids that have beat the odds because of their teachers and because of you, Mr. Langless, believing in them. So although I know things aren't perfect, I wish the budget was lower, but you do deserve a lot of credit for encouraging those kids that don't have that at home, and there are a lot more than I wish there were. So thank you. [2:10:48] Scott A. Harriman: You thank you, Counselor Herman. Thank you. I did want to mention, and I don't know if you have statistics on enrollment growth over the past few years, but most communities in Maine, I would say, are losing their enrollment, in their school system is shrinking, and Lewiston is actually in a unique position where our enrollment is growing, and also our space constraints are, our space is getting constrained because of that, and I wondered if you had, I forget what the percentage growth is over the last few years, but we are, we are growing as a school system, and we need to, we need to [2:11:28] Unidentified speaker: RESPOND TO THAT. YES, THE ANSWER IS YES. OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS WE HAVE GROWN. THIS YEAR WAS MORE FLATTENED THAN OTHER YEARS, BUT WE ARE AGAIN SEEING CONTINUED EVOLVEMENTS. WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT THE DEVELOPMENT OF APARTMENTS THAT ARE COMING online here very soon and continue to happen. WE ANTICIPATE A PORTION OF THOSE APARTMENTS WILL BE MOVES FROM OTHER FACILITIES IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT ARE I'LL SAY TIRED, BUT ALSO THAT THERE'LL BE AVAILABILITY FOR NEW FOLKS TO MOVE IN WHETHER OR NOT THEY'LL HAVE KIDS OR NOT WE DON'T KNOW YET, BUT WE DO HAVE TO BE PREPARED FOR THAT CONTINGENCY. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF ADMINISTRATORS HERE WHO WOULD ALL TELL YOU THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ADDITIONAL ROOM IN THEIR SCHOOLS AT THIS POINT IN TIME. WE DO HAVE SOME PROGRAMS THAT WE'VE INVESTED IN THAT ARE SAVING US MONEY EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE EXPENSIVE TO RUN. THOSE PROGRAMS ARE RUNNING OUT OF SPACE. AS A JUST A TOUCH ON SOMETHING THAT SOMEONE DID BRING UP IN THIS BUDGET IS THEIR FUNDS FOR THE REHABILITATION OF 287 MAIN STREET THERE IS NOT. WE DID SHARE WITH THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE IN A RECENT UPDATE THAT WE'VE SUBMITTED A 5 MILLION, ABOUT FIVE MILLION DOLLAR CDS GRANT, AND WE'VE BEEN NOTIFIED THAT WE WILL BE RECEIVING AN AWARD LIKELY ONCE IT MAKES IT THROUGH APPROPRIATIONS. THIS IS THE FURTHEST STAGE WE 'VE MADE IT TO, AND IT'S LOOKING LIKE A MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR COMMITMENT IF IT GETS THERE. I DON'T WANT TO COUNT ANYTHING BEFORE THAT MOMENT, BUT THAT'S AGAIN THAT HANDS-ON APPROACH WITH MIDDLE SCHOOL KIDS KEEP THEM ENGAGED THAT EFFORT THAT WE ALL TALKED ABOUT IN OUR JOINT COMMUNITY MEETING, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT WITH THAT JOINT EFFORT. I DID, I DID ALSO HEAR A QUESTION ABOUT TAX LEVY AND ADJUSTMENTS. I DO HAVE SOME NUMBERS IN THE CHART, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT PERCENT OF EACH ONE MAKES UP WHICH PERCENT IF THAT MAKES SENSE AS IT RELATES TO SCHOOL OR CITY OR COUNTY. I KNOW THAT THE INCREASE AT THE CITY PROPOSED AT THE LAST NUMBER I HAD AND THAT MAY HAVE JUSTIN SO I APOLOGIZE CITY ADMINISTRATOR AND TEAM IF I GET THIS WRONG WAS A 1.6 MILLION INCREASE, THE SCHOOL BUDGET 1.3 MILLION INCREASE, AND THE COUNTY BUDGET A NINE HUNDRED THREE THOUSAND DOLLAR INCREASE WITH THE NUMBERS THAT I HAD LATEST. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HELPS ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT CAME FROM THE PODIUM OR NOT [2:13:55] Carl L. Sheline: FOR THE COMMENTS, REALLY APPRECIATE BOTH OF YOU BEING HERE. I RECOGNIZE SOME SCHOOL OFFICIALS IN THE BACK, THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU TO ALL THE, IT'S HARD TO SEE EVERYONE, BUT APPRECIATE ALL OF SCHOOL COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO ARE HERE AS WELL [2:14:15] David B. Chittim: Well, Madam Clerk, please call the vote. Yes, thank you both. Thank you. So, Mr. Mayor, if I could just possibly just clarify for folks who may be watching, we've issued absentee ballots for the school budget election. We've issued, I can't remember, over 500, I don't remember the number, but by law folks could not turn those back in until the council voted on the school budget, which you just did. So any folks that are watching, if they have their absentee ballots, they can turn them in any time between now and 8 p.m. on Tuesday, June 9th. So we've asked folks to hold them, that's by state law, and then turn them in any time after [2:15:05] Carl L. Sheline: tonight. Okay, and I understand that people will be able to early vote on the [2:15:10] David B. Chittim: school budget starting tomorrow morning, right? We, people have been coming to our office and taking the ballots home because they can't vote them here and turn them in, but you're right, starting tomorrow morning, so Wednesday and Thursday folks can come here to City Hall, vote their school budget and turn it in tomorrow as well, of course in addition to the state primary [2:15:30] Joshua L. Nagine: ballot as well okay thank you counselor and agent did you have something or that was the question i was specifically going to ask a couple of my constituents asked if they could come in and vote and trying to figure out what the framework was thank you sounds good we [2:15:45] Carl L. Sheline: now have item number six. Yes, if people could please come to the front, I don't [2:15:55] David B. Chittim: ever, six, public hearing on an application for a new homeless shelter for KK Shelter Corp doing business as Alter La Transitional Shelter, 70 Horton Street, and consideration of application. There are two items for requested action. The first item is to conduct a public hearing on the application for a new homeless shelter for KK Shelter Corp doing business as Alter La Transitional Shelter, 70 Horton Street. [2:16:20] Carl L. Sheline: Thank you. We're gonna give folks a second to get in position here, counselors. My plan is to hear presentation from the lovely people before us. We're gonna be able to answer questions. Then we're heading to public comment, then come back and then, you know, take action on a motion at that time, okay? Would you mind if staff, we just kind of [2:16:50] David B. Chittim: orient you to what you have because this role is a little different for you are going to be serving for this agenda item as a licensing agent which means that your decision is limited to the parameters in the ordinance which we've provided you so i just wanted to clarify that for you so just to orient you the material that you have you have the agenda cover sheet in your book you have i believe five different potential motions depending upon the direction that the council wants to take we just wanted to provide the this wording for you as a starting point. Any of that can be changed and amended, and then you have the entire application binder from the applicant, which includes the application and all of the exhibits, all of the background attachments such as the good neighbor policy and so forth. And then back in your agenda binder you have the checklist where we reviewed their application to make sure that it has all the requirements in the ordinance, and then you have the information from the Planning Board verifying the conditional use permit that was issued, and then you have the recommendations that are from the three required departments, police, fire, and code. So you have all that in your binder, and then the last item is the out of the ordinance itself. So just wanted to clarify for you what you have here and your role as the licensing authority limited to the parameters of the ordinance, and the ordinance does require a public hearing, which I know after their [2:18:23] Carl L. Sheline: presentation you'll kick off. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Yes, thank you. And if something seems amiss, Just please correct us madam clerk. Yes, please if you all through all four of you could please introduce yourselves and then and then kick things off [2:18:41] Kevin Bollard: Good evening. My name is Kevin Bollard. I am the executive director of the altar la transitional shelter [2:18:48] Linda Scott: My name is Linda Scott. I am the administrative director for the altar la transitional shelter [2:18:54] Gabrielle Russell: Good evening. My name is Gabrielle Russell. I'm an architect at Platts Associates [2:18:59] Bryan Kaenrath: And Dan Moreno, architect with Platts Associates also. [2:19:04] Kevin Bollard: So good evening. Thank you for having us here this evening. In September of 2024, our organization was selected as the partner agency to help establish Androscoggin County's first 24-7 low barrier shelter. Since that time, our team has been working tirelessly to turn that vision into reality, securing funding, building partnerships, developing programs, creating policies and procedures, and operating services that have already helped hundreds of our most vulnerable neighbors. Tonight we are seeking approval for our shelter license application with conditions. We recognize that several conditions have been identified as part of the licensing process, and we fully support those requirements. They are action items that are already in place or in motion. Approval with conditions provides a practical path forward that allows this critical project to continue progressing while the remaining requirements are finalized. We respectfully ask for your support and moving forward with option one, approval with conditions. This approach allows us to continue making progress while completing the remaining requirements and keeps us on track to deliver a critical community resource that has been more than a year and a half in the making. Tonight is not just about approving a license. It is about continuing the work that the community set in motion in 2024 and taking the next step forward in providing safe shelter, stability, and opportunity for our unhoused community. Anything further from anyone up there? No. We are open to any questions that the council currently has in regards to any questions from the community and the council. Okay, thank you. [2:20:44] Carl L. Sheline: Yes, there were questions. Questions from counselors? Yes, Counselor Noble. [2:20:52] Unidentified speaker: So you have it's a night a 49 bed shelter, correct? We are currently expected to begin with 40 beds [2:21:00] Kevin Bollard: with the ability to expand 250 to 49 as needed, and then we would come back with another plan [2:21:07] Unidentified speaker: to expand to 60 at a later date. Okay, so what I'm wondering is what your outreach is gonna look like for the other homeless members of the community. That was my first question, and my second question is, well, it's a question about the encampments, and I don't know if this is appropriate time to ask it or if I should wait. I [2:21:33] Carl L. Sheline: guess what's your question then? We will [2:21:35] Unidentified speaker: determine the appropriateness after you. Like I know my questions are about outreach, like what you're doing, what you will be doing for outreach, and I want to know if the encampments will be [2:21:45] Kevin Bollard: Included in that, so our connection to the unhoused community has been building for the past three years. We've been running the emergency warming center for the past three winter months, so we have a very close connection with the unhoused community. We're also kind of the primary spot for hospital discharges, the county jail discharges, Lewiston and Auburn police drop-offs. So currently, we are not actively doing any outreach due to us being at full capacity and being the primary focal point for the unhoused community specifically. So we work closely with the PSY workers in the community who come in when we're running the warming center. We had weekly meetings with the PSY workers in the police department. Actually out of the out of the many calls that we had, you know, in regards to the police department, about 25% of them were actually PSY follow-up calls where they were actually coming in just to talk about individuals that were on the streets or that they were actively looking to connect with. So we have a lot of processes in place that are already connecting kind of with the unhoused community out on the streets through the PSY connection process, but we will also be expanding our outreach services. I did encampment work for over a year with Community Concepts in the city of Auburn, so we are well versed in that type of work and are looking to really just kind of get established first as the shelter so that we can expand all of those researches and outreach for the community. Thank you. I would just like to add a little bit to that [2:23:30] Linda Scott: that. So looking to expand, but I will tell you we may not be out in the woods and at the encampments, but we have folks calling us every day. We have folks that are on waiting lists to come in. We have folks that are reaching out every day, and we are doing everything that we can to help every person that is reaching out to us. So we may not be on the streets doing outreach, but those that reach out to us, we are definitely in prepared to help them and do everything that we can even if we don't have a bed available. Several folks we just helped in the last week, as a matter of fact, were folks that we didn't have preparation to have room for them, but we found places for them, placement for them, whether it was in a hospital or another shelter. We were doing that work as well. [2:24:15] Susan G. Longchamps: Councillor Long jams, thank you Mayor. Thank you for being here. I just had a couple of questions. One, do you still plan to have a warming shelter? I know that you're going to be limited to roughly around 60 beds at some point in the near future. Will you be holding a warming shelter this coming up winter? Yeah, that's actually been one [2:24:42] Kevin Bollard: of the more popular questions is in regards to what will happen with the warming center services, you know, once the shelter is established. Obviously our goal is ultimately the transitional shelter services is our primary focus, but we do realize that there are those triage resources that are needed, you know, in our most, you know, pressing months throughout the winter, and we've already been in conversations with the city of Lewiston in regards to cooling centers, you know, when the temperatures start to spike. So in regards to that aspect, we are definitely fully prepared to have a warming center, cooling center function, which would be at our discretion and ability to open without necessarily needing a certain type of temperature to be reached. It could definitely be opened at any time. So there are obviously additional staffing and funding concerns that have to be addressed, but ultimately the building is structured to where we could have the shelter services on one floor and separate the warming center component on a separate floor. That way that we're not compromising that the shelter experience for the [2:25:47] Susan G. Longchamps: guests. Thank you. My next question was, or is, should I say, from my understanding, there isn't a time limit to when folks enter the shelter, the 24-hour shelter, to when they have to leave. Is that correct? Is there just like no end date? Yeah, it's [2:26:10] Kevin Bollard: it's, it's tough to say there's no end date, you know. Everyone is basically, you know, on a transitional program goal. We have individuals with extreme conditions compared to, you know, minor conditions. We have individuals who are elderly at 82 years old, you know, to the 20 year old walking in off the street. So ideally there is no, and with a low barrier program, we can't necessarily timestamp an end date saying you have 90 days and 90 days only to complete this process, but what we can do is we can always be progressively moving them forward and making sure that there's benchmarks and goals that are kind of set forward kind of like a client plan that's kind of individualized to each person it's tough to say that the substance abuse challenge and the mental health challenge and the disability mobility challenges can all kind of be addressed you know in the same time frame so it's not necessarily that there's there's no time stamp on it 's really basically gauged off the client challenges that we're experiencing, but the ultimate goal is to always be moving forward and making sure that bed is something that's used for a transitional resource and not something just [2:27:19] Susan G. Longchamps: to house warm bodies. Right, so if I'm understanding this correctly, it seems as though a low barrier shelter you can't have a, an end date. Is that what you're saying, or you're just choosing not to? [2:27:33] Kevin Bollard: There's, you can't force program requirements, you know, so that's basically you can't come in and say you have 90 days to complete this goal or you're out the door, you know. So we're not necessarily time stamping anything, but everything is going to have a progressive, you know, track attached to it so that we do see progression and that we're kind of checking off all of the boxes. You know, a lot of these individuals, they're starting off with no IDs, no birth certificates, you know, so we're tracking all of that. We're seeing what the individual needs are, we're putting together different individual client plans based off of those needs, and that's really kind of dictating, you know, the timeline that they'll, they'll be in the program without necessarily, hey, you have May 1st as soon as you come in [2:28:17] Unidentified speaker: on April 1st, you know, to figure it all out. Okay, thank you. Yeah, that makes sense. [2:28:23] Susan G. Longchamps: I know a lot of the individuals that in fact are lucky enough to have a place, a roof over their head, but I definitely think making sure you are setting those goals, being strict about them [2:28:37] Kevin Bollard: is very important. Yeah, and I think one of the, we focus a lot on the low barrier aspect, but we kind of overlook the transitional. I think one thing that we want to emphasize is transitional is our goal, you know. Chronic homelessness is one of the biggest challenges facing the Lewiston Auburn community, and I think this type of resource really allows us to get those resources needed to kind of get those individuals into some type of stability, [2:29:06] Unidentified speaker: transitional housing or supportive services. Thank you. My next question, sorry guys. [2:29:10] Susan G. Longchamps: Is who are you leaning towards for an organization to help with mental health? [2:29:17] Kevin Bollard: So we work, we're working very closely, you know, we work closely with Andwell, we work closely with Sweetser, you know, all of the individual, you know, Kennybeck Health, we have case managers coming in routinely. Obviously, there's the new crisis center that's being put together and hopefully opened up, you know, this month in June. So we have monthly meetings with the hospitals and Andwell and Sweetser in regards to challenging clients, you know, individuals that are doing repetitive services, you know, kind of people that are continually going in and out of the system without any type of exit strategy, and really kind of focusing on those individuals that are experiencing crisis but still kind of following through, so we don't necessarily have one individual agency as a whole, but we are working from a collaborative standpoint with multiple agencies in the community and [2:30:08] Susan G. Longchamps: then what about substance use for people fighting again very similar, you know, so [2:30:14] Kevin Bollard: we've had individuals that we've been able to get into detox facilities, you know, we have some great resources available to us, we're connected to many of the recovery houses, you know, locally in regards to our collaboration, so we have the ability to pick up the phone, call around to, you know, different detoxes, whether they're in Lewiston, Auburn, Bangor, you know, in different parts of the town, and the thing is a lot of the individuals, you know, seeking those services really just need kind of that first initial break in the chaos to really be able to, you know, see the opportunity ahead of them. Yeah, I do believe [2:30:53] Susan G. Longchamps: that, you know, we do have the individuals that are that run into an unforeseen circumstance, right, that leave them unhoused, but I think our real challenges isn't just homelessness, it's unfortunately drug addiction and mental health, so I would just ask that you heavily equipped yourself with those two things and get some really good organizations on board, because if you really want to combat this, I think that's really what you need, so [2:31:26] Linda Scott: I just wanted to add a little bit more to that. So I'm going to give you a couple of examples because that's extremely important to us as well. So a lot of the folks that we deal with have long-term addiction issues, mental health issues. We see it on a daily basis. We saw it a lot through the warming center. We see it all the time. An example I'm going to give you is a young gentleman that probably a lot of people know that was heavily into addiction for many, years, has struggled with it for many, years. Came to our warming center for the last three years. Unfortunately, because of the expectations we have in place, we don't allow folks to use drugs on our facilities. We had to suspend him, but we grew a relationship with him. him. He ended up being in some very severe troubles and ended up in the hospital. It was very ill. He reached out to one of our staff members. We collaborated together and reached out to Better Health Partners. He asked for help. After all of these years, he said, it's time. And we were able to get him into a recovery house. He asked specifically, can you get me someplace that's not in Lewiston? Because he knows the folks in Lewiston who he did his addiction with and we were able to do that literally within 48 hours. We are working with those folks. That is a priority to us because we understand as low barrier shelter that these pieces are extremely important and that's that's part of the reason why we have the word transitional in our in our title is because we understand that there are so many different pieces in order to mitigate all the issues that we are seeing. It's not just a warehouse. We're there to transition them into a better place, whether that is recovery, whether that's to help with mental health, stop the substance abuse when they're ready, or just get the unfortunate 82 year old person that lost their house, their apartment after 30 years because the landlord bought the building and then they can no longer afford it, get them into housing again. That's that's our goal, all those pieces. [2:33:31] Joshua L. Nagine: Thank you. 're welcome, Councillor Nagine. Thank You mr. merit. This first question is going to be, I think, for administration. If we choose option one, approve the application with staff but recommended conditions, the license would not actually be issued until the staff recommended conditions were met. Is that correct? I [2:33:56] Bryan Kaenrath: believe that's correct. dr. Connor, do you have a different take? [2:34:03] Joshua L. Nagine: That's correct. Okay, thank you. And then I have a couple of kind of larger questions. If we take option one, at what point do you think that you'll be open for taking in your first, your first folks overnight? Well, we're already [2:34:26] Kevin Bollard: starting the demolition process, so we are working for the demolition. We now have a commercial contractor, Joe Perryman, that we're working with, who is aggressively dedicated to this project. So he is going to make sure that he kind of moves mountains for us to get this place operational as quick as possible. We understand, you know, that there's, you know, different concerns that have to be addressed in regards to the code. We're trying to prioritize them in order, obviously. We realize a shower, whether we have four, whether we have six, isn't necessarily dictated off of the ordinance ability or the code ability. So we're just making sure that the safety concerns are addressed first. So I would say definitely within, I'd hate to put too much of a time lane without the knowledge of the architects and their work, because that seems to be a little bit longer of a process than we expected, but definitely well before the winter months. You know, I would say sometime towards the end of that, the summer months is something that we'd be looking for operational usage for. It's [2:35:32] Joshua L. Nagine: my understanding that all the architect plans were forwarded to planning and code this Monday. Is that correct? Yes. Friday? Okay. Monday for us. Yeah. Okay. I also was wondering if, I'm not asking necessarily if we suggest additional conditions by council, but we're, we're well aware of the fact that this community is a safety valve for the communities around us. We're well aware of the fact that because we have things that answer needs, people are sent here and ultimately end up here, right? We also know that not everybody can fit into one of these shelter models. We're looking desperately for solutions in order to figure out ways to address some of these issues and to have actual data, right? Because, you know, I've had this situation in my neighborhood where somebody's like, oh, there's a homeless person on the Riverwalk Trail, and I'm like, no, that's Dave, he lives on [street], right? But also at the same time, we've had people in crisis situation. There has been 96 calls for service between Oak Street and the police station in the past two, sorry, not the police station in the, that one block. Oak Street on Park and Bates to Ash. 96 calls for service in the past two months. There's only one functioning business down there, and there's a senior home. And so we're dealing with these situations that, what does economic development look like in an area that people are uncomfortable being in, right? And when people have choices, they'll move on, right? We don't know how to answer some of these pieces without out reliable information from our from partners and also resources that I'm not quite sure we know where they're at. So my question is, I know that you meet regularly with the city, but is there a possibility that we could have some type of standing committee that maybe has a couple of staff members, a couple of a couple of people from the council, you know, our public safety folks, so that we can really drill down on some of these issues that we're looking at and see if there's some solutions that aren't avert your eyes or avoid a space, and then also how we hold other communities accountable for being a safety valve or being a place where you can just bring people, unfortunately. Yeah. [2:38:13] Kevin Bollard: No, I think you hit a extremely challenging topic that we've seen a significant spike in this year over the prior years is the discharge is basically kind of to the service providing community. One of our biggest challenges has been the hospitals. They are allowed to discharge to homelessness. So what happens is they get uber rides, they get taxis to the hospitals for detox, for crisis, they refuse any type of services, then they kind of refused to leave the hospital because they're like, I don't know this community, I'm from franklin county, so then the hospitals end up trespassing them, so then the police get involved, so then the police require them to leave and they have nowhere to take them, so they'll call our facility and say, hey, can we bring joe over from the hospital? So really what we need to do, and we're looking to address this on a much larger scale, I am a part of the statewide homeless Council, and this is a conversation piece on that level as well, but we definitely need to address This either on a larger scale, legislative level, or have some type of accountability or a real safe discharge policy that prioritizes getting individuals back to their original community and towns instead of just leaving them on the streets. You know, we had, we had a one of the police departments leave an individual literally in our parking lot after hours and take off afterwards. So when that individual knocks on our door and says, hey, I'm not from here, you know, we get associated with that individual's presence being here because we're the shelter. We didn't invite that person here. We didn't ask them here. We didn't request the police department to drop them off there, but that's how the process works. So until we really start to address these root causes instead of kind of just pointing that their normal stigma stereotypes, you know, that kind of fit the mold, where we're going to continue to see these challenges and increased in homelessness on our streets. I [2:40:15] Linda Scott: was just gonna add a little bit to that. So that's extremely important to us as well. We're already having those conversations. We have staff members meeting now regularly with the hospital about discharge. This is a conversation we had a zoom meeting last week to have conversation on a statewide level to look at legislation and what can be done. This is not just Lewiston that this is happening to, but it's something that seriously needs to be addressed. It is happening all the time. It's unfortunate. We've gotten phone calls from other county sheriff departments that say we have no place for this person to go. We want to help everybody that we can. We've put money together to get people back to the homes that they want to be back at after they left St Mary's crisis or other places. We want to make sure that they're comfortable in the place they need to be. We also understand we're all Lewiston residents. I live here. I understand the issues that are going on. We understand what's happening. We don't want to see that in our community either. We're here to make that change and have those conversations. I honestly feel that we need to get more people involved and not just elected officials but city administrators from other communities. Our city administrator, sorry Brian, I appreciate you, but I'm going to call this out and it's not you. I think our city administrator should be meeting with the Portland city administrator and asking them maybe you ought to slip us a little bit of cash because We're getting people from Prebble Street because you don't have room, or you're just sending people up here. Why are we allowing that to happen? It shouldn't be happening. We need to address that on many levels, and we're ready to have those conversations. Thank [2:41:54] Bret Martel: you, Counselor Martel. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you guys for being here tonight, and thank you for the work you're doing in the community. I really appreciate it. I do have some concerns that I don't know if are relevant right now, so I'm going to stick to procedural ones. I looked down at my report, and we got a recommendation from the fire department not to issue this license. We got a recommendation from code and enforcement not to issue this license. The police department said that they didn't have a reason to deny it, but notated a number of very serious concerns, and then one thing that Councillor Longchamps brought up about length of stay. This is just a question you guys might be able to answer. So if someone ends up staying for 30 days, do they end up gaining the same tenants rights that you would need to evict them through the court should they choose not to leave and maybe not abide by your program's rules and standards, or do they gain tenancy, and if they wanted to play hardball, would you have to take them to court [2:43:02] Kevin Bollard: and evict them? No, we have guest expectations that make it very clear in regards to our ability to ask individuals to leave the program at any time based off of, you know, any type of infractions or policies that aren't being followed. So we are not, you know, kind of handcuffed to keeping individuals there whether they choose to leave or not, if the expectations or requirements [2:43:26] Bret Martel: are not being met. Thank you. So if the plan that I'm looking at right now that was in the packet that was submitted, is this the actual floor plan and the architectural drawing that the renovations [2:43:39] Linda Scott: are going to be made off of? It's much more extensive now. We have much more that have been sent, and we have the architects do have more. They, we have the mechanicals now, we have the plumbing all lined up, we have all of those pieces put in place. Those were the original ones when I first made the binder for you, but they're, they're much more extensive now. Okay, man, just yeah, [2:43:59] Gabrielle Russell: the, some of the drawings that were sent on Friday were because the demolition started yesterday. We have a couple things that we need to verify and update with them. Okay, thank you. [2:44:15] Bret Martel: You so is it do you have all your finalized architectural plans and you know blueprints and everything laid out and submitted to code now if it's not these are they all submitted and ready to go the I believe the architectural [2:44:33] Gabrielle Russell: Piece is finalized it's the mechanical and structural design elements that we needed some information from the demolition to expose, you know, to expose hidden conditions. [2:44:49] Bret Martel: So just allow me to explain my question is, so even if we do decide to issue this license, so if a, you just expressed that things had changed from when we got this until just a few days ago, so should something change again during renovations or anything else under the current city code that would actually require a whole new application and submitted of floor plans and everything else so do you guys have a [2:45:21] Kevin Bollard: Building permit right now you know we have applied for it but it's not I think we applied on May 7th but it hasn't been officially released to us do you know [2:45:34] Bret Martel: Why that case is do you know if it's lacking the things it needs to have [2:45:38] Gabrielle Russell: Have the permit or yeah so it was the mechanical electrical plumbing structural drawings that needed some of the information from the demolition that started yesterday and then we're gonna finalize those in the next week or two and issue them thank you so circling back like I said to [2:45:59] Bret Martel: My procedural concerns it feels like we're putting the cart before the horse a little bit here I FEEL LIKE WE'VE TAKEN OUR CAR TO THE INSPECTION STATION TO GET OUR YEARLY STICKER. AND, YOU KNOW, THE INSPECTOR IS TELLING US, WE NEED X, Y, AND Z FOR YOU TO GET YOUR STICKER. AND WE'RE SAYING, WE'LL TAKE IT TO THE MECHANIC AND WE'LL GET THAT DONE, BUT JUST THROW THE STICKER ON FOR ME REAL QUICK. AND I JUST, I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE WAY THINGS HAVE WORKED. AND THAT'S NOT HOW THEY WORKED IN THE PAST ON OTHER PROJECTS THROUGH CODE. So just looking at the recommendation from the fire department not to approve this and from code not to improve this approve this excuse me PD's list of concerns the fact that there's not a building permit and the fact that plans have already changed just since we reviewed these documents so all other issues aside it feels like we're being asked to issue a license on speculation it's a really difficult position to be in I understand that you HAD A TEMPORARY LICENSE TO OPERATE THE WARMING SHELTER. I'M NOT SURE THAT COVERS OPERATING AS THE LOW BARRIER SHELTER. I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK INTO THAT. SO I GUESS AT THIS TIME, JUST BASED ON THOSE THINGS, OH, ONE OTHER QUESTION. I BELIEVE THAT WE'RE ALREADY under the contract that monies have been received so the contract with the city is to operate 24 hours a day seven days a week. Are you guys going to be operational during renovations and during everything that's done being done? Yes. Okay, just making sure. So I guess all I'm saying is I would move at this time to table this for council to review until there's a cir certificate of occupancy or at least enough progress to where code feels it's a little more relevant or gets brought to us with a little bit more certainty and I'm not trying to unnecessarily delay this but again to issue a license on speculation puts us in a very difficult situation. I realize this is a very pressing time sensitive need but at the same time these regulations are in place for a reason for safety of the guests and you know it's just it's the same process that everyone else comes to the city when they're ready to ask for a business license usually their ducks are all in a row and everything is ready to go and they're ready to turn key and start doing business when they come to ask for their business license and it just feels like this is a very different approach than that and it just raises some concerns for me and I would I would like to make that formal motion and see if there's a second [2:48:48] Unidentified speaker: We have a motion. Did you catch that madam clerk? It is to postpone the excuse me the hearing [2:48:56] David B. Chittim: on the application until more details are in place such as the issuance of a building permit [2:49:02] Bret Martel: and so forth is that correct? Yeah I wouldn't mind it if it was worded as a certificate of occupancy was okay issued. Okay thank you but I'm open to you know editing that for if depending on how my colleagues feel up here about it. Do we [2:49:18] Carl L. Sheline: have a second for this motion? Can I ask a question? Yeah sure if you wouldn't [2:49:24] Susan G. Longchamps: mind me asking if someone can answer [2:49:29] Carl L. Sheline: Councillor Harriman please wait. Councillor Longchamps please go. Do you do you have a question about a second because like we have a motion on the floor right now? No so do we have a second for this? You're gonna force me to second okay. We now have a second. Do we have discussion on the motion to table council herrmann [2:49:54] Scott A. Harriman: Thank you. This question I believe is for staff, for our clerk. If we went with motion number one in our packet, which is approved the application with staff recommended conditions, does that license get issued immediately or does it get issued once the nine conditions have been met? If item one is [2:50:21] David B. Chittim: adopted by the council, the license is not issued until all of the conditions [2:50:26] Scott A. Harriman: are met. Thank you. I think that I think that maybe the motion that is that is currently in front of us is similar to that. I think that might be a similar goal that's being asked for, and there may be some misunderstanding as to what these different motions entail. As the clerk said, motion number one here does not issue the license tonight. If we vote yes, it means that they have to meet all nine of those requirements that all of the city departments have asked for. So I think that might be a more appropriate motion here. Discussion on [2:51:15] Carl L. Sheline: the motion to table. Councillor Neijing. [2:51:19] Joshua L. Nagine: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have a specific way. It's this is not on the motion to table, it's about licensing. Well, right now we're [2:51:31] Carl L. Sheline: discussing whether we want to table this or not, so it's germane to whether or not I would or not. [2:51:37] Joshua L. Nagine: Please continue that. Thank you, sir. I just to verify, I believe that we as a municipality have over 10 000 people, do not have the ability to place a moratorium on new homeless shelters, correct? [2:51:55] David B. Chittim: That was state law that was passed. I am I don't know. We did have, I'm trying to recall, I believe we did have a moratorium on homeless shelters a while ago to allow time for the city to update this ordinance. So I believe we did have a moratorium, but I can certainly be thank you very much. Thank you. We did, that was a couple years ago, usually 180 day moratorium to allow time to pause it and then create the ordinance, and I believe the response [2:52:27] Joshua L. Nagine: from Augusta was to make it so that no community of over usually the 10 000 or 20 000 people could [2:52:35] Unidentified speaker: actually put place a moratorium going forward. If that's the state law, I'm not familiar with it one [2:52:40] Joshua L. Nagine: way or the other. Okay, one of the challenges that I have in all of this discussion is that we've been working with that the folks here who are local folks for almost four years now, in all honesty, with the emergency shelter services that are that are also being run. If we deny this permit based on that on these conditions for them to come back, as opposed to approve it with possibly some both with the recommended conditions and possibly some council positions, it's very possible that we could get Another application, it's just true, and it's not that this community does not need a low barrier shelter. I know these folks, I know the work that they do, and so I [2:53:32] Carl L. Sheline: have a level of trust in that. Chancellor long champs. Thank You mayor. So I would [2:53:43] Susan G. Longchamps: just this is a different little bit of a different process that I've ever seen so it's not that I'm at all against the shelter I think you guys know how I feel about it 's very important but when you have in your binder our code enforcement and all of the other very important folks suggesting that we don't approve this at this time I just need help understanding why we're here today and why we're not waiting I personally wanted a workshop I had asked for it so that we could kind of lay everything out on the table, have discussion, talk with our law enforcement, our fire department, our code, but that didn't happen. So I do want this to happen, I want to express that, but this is very different and concerning, so if you could help me understand why [2:54:46] Kevin Bollard: we're here. Yeah, I mean, I obviously, like we highlighted originally, we were selected as the agency september 2024 in regards to the city partnership. You know, we've committed basically 100 of all of our resources since that time frame to make this a reality. We're, we're operating 24 7 currently. We have partnerships with main housing. We've received funding from the county, the city of auburn, the city of lewiston. We're trying to work with Lewiston Housing Authority in regards to, you know, solidifying us as a shelter. It's really just indicating to everybody that this process is moving forward in the direction it needs to be. It has support from all of the individuals that have been at the table from the beginning. We're not getting the license without the conditions being met. Everything is on track for the conditions to be met. One of the conditions is that we only have 49 people, we're going to have 40. One of the conditions is that we provide food off-site, we provide food off-site, so really those conditions, if you really strip them down, you're probably at four or five, and they really have to do with steps in the process. You have to get a certificate of occupancy, you have to get a building permit, all of these things are already wheels in motion, of these things already have funding associated to them. The City of Lewiston is providing us money monthly to operate as a shelter and provide shelter services. All we're trying to do is keep this wheel moving forward aggressively so that people realize that the commitment is there, the viability is there, and the sustainability is there. You know, we have long-term funding that we have to maintain, you know, after our contracts run out. We have to be set up for ESHAP funding, you know, we have to be set up for GA reimbursement yes all of that doesn't happen until we become a shelter but to say your license with conditions is much different than saying we're still waiting for a license so it boils down to funding yes funding partnerships sustainability keeping the project moving forward there's not a lot of grants out there in regards to warming centers there's a lot of funding out there in regards to shelters you know so that you know currently what we're operating now is we're fulfilling all of the expectations of the city we're taking on the burden and the responsibility for the city and all we're asking is to get a license approval with conditions so that we can meet those conditions and move this process forward [2:57:20] Susan G. Longchamps: and i understand that but again if you were sitting up here and the process being very different i'm sure you wouldn't be you'd understand a little more yeah and we've been [2:57:29] Kevin Bollard: You know, we were originally going to be up here in April, and we worked directly with Planning and Code and realized that, you know, some things needed to be addressed before we were here in April. We were going to be here in May, and then we worked through with Planning and Codes for some things that needed to be addressed in May. We spoke with Planning and Code. They said that we were put on the agenda. We were under the expectation that those boxes had potentially been checked sufficiently. so we didn't realize that we were on the agenda with a Denial for application or a recommendation for denial So we met with planning and code before this process started so that we could proactively address any challenges and concerns So we've been at the table, you know with all of the individuals in this process And are really just trying to keep that ball moving forward so that all of our partners that are involved in this process with us still have that confidence that this is a viable project [2:58:28] Linda Scott: So meeting ordinances, meeting code, doing what we're supposed to do again. Another priority of ours, we want to be good partners with the city. We figure we already are partners with the city in this, and it's, and it's extremely important that we move forward as partners. We are meeting these pieces in place. The whole building is not being constructed. There's parts of the building being constructed. We have had a fire inspection for general use assembly. We have fire doors in place. We contract through Cunningham Security to make sure that we have a fire alarm system in place. We have contracted through Natos Refrigeration to make sure that our HVAC system is working appropriately for yearly inspections and filters are cleaned, and we've gone through Pine Tree Pest Control to make sure those pieces are done. I sent you all an email describing some of those things. Those pieces are extremely important to us getting the understanding and the ability to work with Main Housing for eshop funding to tell them that we are on our way. The city council believes in us. They know that we're going to meet these conditions. I can now start working towards eshop funding. If I don't get that in place, I might have to wait another year. It's an important piece to our funding sources. We can also, we are already doing helping folks with EBT cards, getting their IDs, getting them snap benefits, helping them with navigating through getting housing applications, working on job applications. We have folks that are certified that are working with us already with having the understanding with Main Care. We can now become a service provider knowing that we're going to be a fully licensed shelter, and now we can build through Main Care to help with some of the funding sources. Those are all pieces and why we're here asking that we go through this. We completely understand the conditions. We looked at it and said, well, we know we're going to have to do this and we understand it, and it may be difficult for everybody and we know it's not the usual way to go. I sat in those seats with you. I sat on the planning board. I understand it's not a normal thing, but we are also the first shelter in this, in the city, and we are the only city I believe in the state that requires a business license for a homeless shelter. We want to follow the rules. We want to do it right. We want to fulfill those conditions and we're prepared to [3:00:54] David B. Chittim: Thank you. Yes, Councillor Chittim. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So much progress has been made. I think where we were two years ago and look at where you have taken us to today. There is inertia, there is momentum that has been built, and for this council to table this discussion on licensing tonight is going to deal a severe blow to the momentum that has been brought forward. Council Martel analogize this to taking your car in for an inspection and I, and I think he perhaps missed the point. The car has been taken in for inspection. It's now being driven away. You get these things fixed and come back and I'll put your sticker on it. I'm not going to inspect you again. You get these fixed. These are discrete objective tasks, recommendations from fire. Fire recommended against issuing a permit because the state fire marshal has not reviewed the plans. They didn't have the plans. Now they have the plans. This is a, an objective, there is no subjectivity to it at all. It's you have met this code, we have experts who can interpret that for us. To say come back when you have all of these things is going to damage the momentum and the funding ability that the shelter is working so diligently to obtain. I would urge the council not to table this tonight. Once that vote is taken and if it, if the vote is defeated, then I will prepare a motion for [3:02:43] Carl L. Sheline: consideration. Thank you, Councillor Herman. Thank you. Just to continue on the [3:02:48] Scott A. Harriman: the theme of progress, I realize this is anecdotal, but I live very close to the shelter, I'm just a couple streets over, I can actually see the front of the building from my, from my window, and since they've been in that location operating as a warming center, again it's anecdotal, but the number of incidents that have happened in the general neighborhood have severely decreased. It's, it's been a welcome change, honestly, at least from my perspective, and I think that's because they have been, they have been there to respond to the people who are in crisis and people who need shelter and they've been, they've been doing good things for [3:03:30] Carl L. Sheline: the neighborhood. yes, I mean we have a path forward here with option one. I urge the council to [3:03:37] Michael R. Roy: to vote down this motion. Councilor, Councilor Roy. Thank you. I just want to thank you for coming and I just want to say that I have faith in your team. I know your team, I've worked with your team alongside of your team in one way or another and I do have faith in your team, so that's what [3:03:56] Carl L. Sheline: I want to put out there, are we ready to vote on the motion, councilors? Madam Clerk, please call the [3:04:03] Michael R. Roy: vote. Councilor From Word Four? This is on the amendment, the motion, right, the motion of the [3:04:09] Carl L. Sheline: table. Can you please re-read the motion, madam? Yes, absolutely, I apologize. So in the [3:04:14] David B. Chittim: the optional motions that were presented for you, it would be item number four, and it would be to postpone the hearing on the application until a certificate of occupancy has been issued. Counselor From Word Four? No. Word Five? No. Word Six? No. Word Seven? Yes. Word One? No. Word Two? No. Word Three? No. Motion failed by a vote of one to six. [3:04:41] Carl L. Sheline: We are now back to the main motion. Do we have more questions here? councillor and aging I'm just Proposing. Sorry. I misspoke. We are now there's no motion on the table right now. Yeah, so I'm just proposing that [3:04:57] Joshua L. Nagine: we would prove, approve with staff conditions and a rich and additional conditions by council, and that condition would be specifically, and I don't know how to define it exactly at this moment, but some sort of monthly or bi-monthly meeting that would be open to council as well as the public, so moving forward we would be able to have dialogue around and information to the public concerning what's happening with the shelter and just the state of both homelessness and behavioral health in the community as you see [3:05:30] Carl L. Sheline: it. Are you making such a motion then? That would be my motion. Yeah, I would, I would motion for [3:05:39] Joshua L. Nagine: TWO BASED ON EITHER MONTHLY OR BIMONTHLY MEETINGS UM THAT WOULD BE UH CAN YOU PICK ONE COUNSELOR I MEAN TO BE DETERMINED I GUESS WE COULD DO MONTHLY I AM I'M FINE WITH MONTHLY SEEM yeah or I'm fine with bimonthly how about how about you folks I would be [3:06:05] Carl L. Sheline: comfortable by monthly I was just about ready to you know I was saying you choose but then I was gonna say yes bimonthly do we have a second for this motion second by councillor long champs yes councillor Harriman I just wanted to [3:06:19] Scott A. Harriman: clarify, is the, is this meeting that was proposed under a separate condition, is that separate than the one under number seven, the administrative quarterly review meetings, or is that in addition to the administrative quarterly review meetings? That would be in addition to [3:06:34] Joshua L. Nagine: There would be something available for all of the council as well as the general public. I think the administrative review meetings, there are specific things that are discussed in there that maybe are not privy to the general public. But when I'm talking about problems that I'm dealing with in Ward One, I want to be able to make that clear, that and find out, you know, what type of supports are out there as well as, yeah, allow the public to know what's going on with [3:07:04] David B. Chittim: with the shelter that we are supporting. So thanks, Counselor Chittum. No, I just, I will, I want to confirm that this, motion from Counselor Nejine is identical to motion one with the single council condition that bimonthly, every two months, there be a meeting among representatives of council and your board and your administrative staff, and I want to clarify that is acceptable [3:07:34] Carl L. Sheline: to you. Yes. Thank you. We are now heading to public comment for this agenda item. Matthew [3:07:55] Unidentified speaker: Egren, Ward 4. I wish I could stand here and say that the city of Lewiston doesn't need this, but the honest truth is we do. Let me be honest, I served on the homeless committee where we looked at the rules and set up the plan that we're going forward with along with my counselor Mike Roy. No one other than Kevin and his group came forward for any consideration on taking this project on, and yes, they were heavily involved with the committee. To that point, Councilor Roy, I ask when it comes time to make a formal vote if you would excuse yourself, because like me, we were both there working with them, and I don't want anyone to say that Kevin got a free vote. I would ask the same of former councillor Gallant for the same reason. The homeless crisis isn't something that's going to go away and nobody has a magic wand to make it happen. There are many reasons why someone ends up there and for each of those reasons there has to be a different answer. Yes, we have many more homeless here. Some of it's because there's a possible shelter, but some of it's also because most of the services that these people need are here in Lewiston. They aren't set up in Wales or Green or Lisbon or Monmouth, but they're here, so that's where the people travel to or be sent to, and then as Kevin and his group touched on, you have the example of someone being sent down here from, for example, Bangor or up from Portland to St. Mary's to CMMC and they're discharged, but they're not discharged back to their home community. They're discharged here where they have no connections, and the only thing they know is, hey, we were handed a piece of paper that said there's a shelter here, let's go there. I stand here and ask you to approve this through the motion a along with the condition that Josh put out there for the for a meeting bimonthly with the group and the public to be involved as well, because I learned a lot sitting on that committee. It was a good committee, and i thank you guys all for your time. Good luck further. [3:10:21] Carl L. Sheline: Public comment. Hi. [3:10:26] Adam Jones: Adam Jones again, Ward 2. I just wanted to quickly speak and commend Councillor Martel for bringing up some very valid points. I definitely think the city needs this. I think that all the work that's been put into this and moving it forward is extremely important. However, as a code professional myself for another municipality and being in the code industry, I also can recognize the concerns of counselor Martel as an individual that also reviews and approves licenses such as this for another municipality. I think there's a lot of weight to be had as far as looking at making sure all the details match and everything line up, you know. I think Lewiston had found themselves in a situation previously, I know it's not the same, but for something that didn't have a certificate of occupancy and was condemned was also used in other means to elect somebody. And look where that got us. So the way I apply the code to this and Councillor Martel's concerns, I think has a lot of weight to it. I think that, you know, for Councillor in Ward 1, you bring up a valid point of the, you know, taking away the steam, the momentum, and we don't want to do that here. I think these folks have really great purpose. I think they're doing great work in the community. The city really needs it. I don't think that's really a question here. But I also have to call out the fact that there are recommendations of certain agencies that the city implores to make the critical decisions on what's acceptable by the code, and I just can't help but recognize that the fire department, the police department, and code officials have all made very important recommendations here. So I really think that you should consider those as well. Again, I don't think it's it's anything to speak of, you know, is this going to work, is it not going to work, we know That this is necessary and it's going to work. They've put in the work, they have the proof, they've come far. But I also think from a licensing standpoint, that's why you guys are here tonight, it's for licensing. And part of that application, it's very important to make sure everything on that is accurate and complete. And when I review applications and whether it's a license or a building permit, if that's not complete, we have to get all of those conditions met. So I think it's important to recognize Counselor Martel's points on this. I don't think you're wrong and approaching it that way, but I also think it's important that this council recognizes the hard work of this great organization. So you're definitely in a tough spot right now. I do think having some additional conditions is important, but I definitely think that there should be weight given to all of those departments that weighed in on this license and how to meet those code standards. Thank you [3:13:26] Sam Chamberlain: Sam Chamberlain Ward 5. I'm a licensed clinical social worker and have also worked in homeless services for over a decade, and I have also participated in the process of building a shelter before. The way that our shelter funding operates in the state of Maine is very haphazard and complicated and unnecessarily so. And as a result of that, shelter programs need to fund a building, build a building and fund a program without having anything baked into, baked into their budget. And so oftentimes what ends up happening, or what would happen in this situation, is that dollars would need to be expended that don't exist in order to build a building, and then the building would sit, it empty until the process is able to continue, until the application is able to be submitted, council is able to speak on it, and the license is able to be reviewed. And so when we're talking about this emergency of unsheltered folks in our community not getting access to the services they need, having an expedited process and being mindful about those pieces is incredibly important. I've worked with many of the folks that work at Altar and they're incredible folks that are doing really incredible work with really not a whole ton of resources. And so I implore council to really, excuse me, to really think thoughtfully about the impact that the shelter is going to have on our community and how incredibly important it is and necessary for our community. Thank you. Hi [3:15:02] Lisa Jones: Again, Lisa Jones, Ward 2. If I'm understanding what's going on correctly, you are maybe approving a license for the shelter. They've provided you with documents. All of the paid employees of the city who are experts in their respective areas have weighed in. This council has leaned heavily on wanting experts to weigh in. I'm thinking specifically of the church and safe injection and those experts, sorry, my hands are in my pockets. Code has said no, fire has said no, police has said quite a bit, police has said this is a great crew, but tap the brakes. This council needs to put ideology aside and think of how they would treat any business. We don't just say, trust me, bro, and approve a license. If I go get my car inspected and I need to get it repaired, I have to get it repaired and they do inspect it again, David. Unless they do the work, you don't drive away and come back another day and say, oh, I got it, I got it done, give me a sticker. Now that's not how it goes. Don't just let this crew say trust me, bro, and give them, give them a license. If code says no and fire says no, this shouldn't even be a debate further. [3:16:27] Carl L. Sheline: Public comment back to the council. [3:16:30] Scott A. Harriman: Thank you. I guess this is a question for, I think, for our city clerk. Does the motion that's currently in front of us incorporate the requirements that the various departments of the city have placed on this before the license is issued? [3:16:51] David B. Chittim: Yes. So before you is option two, which is identical to option one with the addition of number 10 at the bottom, which is any city council conditions that the council wants to attach, which is the bimonthly meeting. So item two before you incorporates, to the best of my knowledge, all of the recommendations from the departments regarding sign up from the fire marshal's office, the code enforcement, etc. [3:17:21] Unidentified speaker: THANK YOU, MAYOR. [3:17:27] Susan G. Longchamps: THANK YOU GUYS FOR EXPLAINING THAT TO ME. IT WAS A BIT CONCERNING AND DIFFICULT. I WANT TO RECOGNIZE COUNSELOR MARTELL FOR WANTING TO FOLLOW PROCEDURE. AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT. WHY HAVE I LOST TRAIN OF THOUGHT? BECAUSE YOU KEPT GOING BY ME, MR. MAYOR. Oh, yes. I would just like to, I do understand now your reasoning for being here before all of the other things happen. Basically funding reasons and to make sure that certain organizations realize that council stands behind you, right? And wants this to happen, and I would agree to that, but I would just like to strongly suggest that, I don't know how you could put this in there or if it's even possible, but when different counties and cities and towns call you and say, hey, we have this gentleman or woman and we need to drop her off to you because there's no other place to go, I don't think that's really accurate. I think what happens is we have become this place where other towns and cities can just say, hey, let's just make this a Lewiston problem, and I don't think that's fair to us, and I don't think it's fair if you only have 49 or 60 beds to refuse someone that's actually from Lewiston because you're accepting someone from Bangor, and I would hope that you guys would do the right thing and say, no, we can't do it, and when the hospital drops off an individual or Ubers an individual to the shelter, you find out where they're from, you make sure there's some place for them to go, and you Uber them back, so you're not refusing any of our residents. Yeah, and I completely agree, and I [3:19:37] Kevin Bollard: I think that's something we'd have to work with the police department as well. [3:19:40] Susan G. Longchamps: I think you just need to say no. [3:19:42] Kevin Bollard: Because when we look, I think we look at it as, you know, we're partners with the city. The police department is a taxpayer entity, you know, that's partners, you know, that works for the city. So I think we felt like we had an obligation to kind of work with the police department and take that burden of responsibility off of their plates. Because they're really just the median in between the hospitals and the shelter or the resources. Resources, but yes, I think more critical conversations need to be had in regard to processes and expectations, and if the expectation is to try to initially get the individual back to their hometown, then we would need, you know, the police department [3:20:23] Susan G. Longchamps: it's unlikely for the police department to be able to drive someone right, no, towns away. Yeah, so if they get dropped off to you, I think it is important that you simply set a stance, set a standard, and let people know that we're not going to be that place that you just drop people [3:20:40] Unidentified speaker: off, because we need to take care of our own people too. Yeah, first, and just to follow up, we have Uber [3:20:45] Kevin Bollard: drivers who literally like, I'm not going back to Bangor with this person, so they're in a johnny, they have no shoes, it might be raining out, and they're like, I am leaving this person somewhere [3:20:58] Susan G. Longchamps: here, and I understand that, but then you call another Uber. Yes, thank you. [3:21:04] Joshua L. Nagine: Councillor Nagine Thank You mr. mayor I think yes it's important to show that our commitment to our partners in the low barrier shelter. I also just want to say that the bros I'm trusting to issue this license are actually the professionals here at the city. So ultimately if you're not able to meet these requirements you're not going to get the license, that's simply the fact. I also think that when we talk about some of these more complex issues there's funding mechanisms that we have to talk about when we're left with folks from other counties whose county commission is paying right when we're left with folks because yes we do want to send people back to where they have supports but in some cases i mean you've seen mechanic falls downtown at one o'clock in the morning it's not necessarily the most supportive environment. And so i think you know we need to make sure you know in the past and i've said this before you know there's we've been quoted sometimes as being the city with the biggest heart we're certainly not the city with the biggest paycheck and ultimately all of these services cost money and the folks in other communities who continue to use us as a release valve have to be held accountable financially [3:22:43] Carl L. Sheline: we have come a long way since the moratorium and i really appreciate your tenacity thank you all so much [3:22:49] Bret Martel: Council Martel Thank You mr. mayor along the lines of what Councillor Longchamps said you guys are required to have meet certain requirements because it's a low barrier shelter you've got the funding that comes with that and the stipulations that come with it. Are you allowed to say no to someone because they're not from Lewiston? Do you have are you even allowed to do that we don't [3:23:12] Kevin Bollard: we can't be discretionary based off of their previous location so that is not something that I am aware that we can put a restriction on but it's definitely something we're more than willing to talk with main housing on in regards to those procedures also [3:23:30] Linda Scott: we do have conversations with these folks that are coming to us if they tell us if they we have conversations and they want to a lot of them don't want to be here to be quite honest with you they want to go back to their hometown so and we work towards getting them where they need to be and if we're at capacity we will say no because we don't have room but just to outright say no is difficult with a low barrier shelter so but we do want to prioritize lewiston residents we understand what the Lewiston police are saying in their memo completely, so how does that prior [3:24:05] Bret Martel: what does that prioritization look like if you've got one bed available and there's someone here that has been in Lewiston for 10 years and someone that just got dropped off from Bangor? [3:24:13] Kevin Bollard: What does that prioritization look like? Well, in regards to, we would, anyone in Lewiston that is basically potentially on our waiting list and actively in the area, we're probably engaging with them on a certain level as well, so they would become our first priority. The one aspect that we don't have control over that becomes the X factor is when the police departments drop individuals off, when the hospitals Uber people over to us, when the county jails release individuals, those are kind of the X factors that we're trying to work around and have better processes in place to address those challenges, but that also stems from the agencies that are involved in that process as well need to be at the table for those conversations. Thank you, and I understand [3:25:00] Bret Martel: that. I guess one of my concerns was when this was first coming up and when this was first being proposed, I think there was a lot of worry. I shared this worry, I know a lot of people in the community did, that this would end up acting as a homing beacon for people with need and in struggle, and I think that we were told that wouldn't be the case. I think we were assured that wouldn't be the case, and that this would not, this shelter would work to alleviate the issues that already existed here in Lewiston and wouldn't serve as a draw. And now it seems like that's the very complaint that we're hearing about, is the fact that everyone knows that Lewiston now has either a warming shelter or a low barrier, a warming center or a low barrier shelter, that they are sending their people here in Ubers and people, the PD is dropping people off to you out of the hospital and you've got people in Johnny's and stuff. So I guess I'm just trying to square the circle of, you know, this, the reasons that were provided that we're gonna, the issues that this was supposed to alleviate seem to have gotten worse in just the 12 months or 18 months that we've been working on this. I don't know, anybody else goes down Park Street or downtown, really anywhere, encampments seem to have gotten more numerous. There seems to be an abundance of unhoused people along our streets despite the fact that you're at capacity, and I, and I appreciate that, but so if we, if you don't have the capacity to say no under your funding Regulations and requirements, and it does seem that this is acting as a beacon or a draw for individuals in these situations. Whether you're at capacity or not, these people are now in our community, and our taxpayers are picking up the funding for that and dealing with the plight and the effect that it has on economic development. That I think Councillor Nejean mentioned, not a lot going down on Park Street right now. And so if we were to try to ask, you know, businesses to come in or investments and When they go drive the streets in the areas and they see what currently exists there, I think that would act as a very serious deterrent, and Lewiston is in desperate need of adding to its tax base right now. So even the best delayed plans and the best of intentions don't always end with the same results that we were hoping for. And so I would just as much good as you're doing, and while I appreciate the moralistic value of this, the simple fact that we can't deny is that it does seem since this has Opened up and become in progress, that the issues that it was supposed to alleviate almost across the board have gotten worse. I know Councillor Harriman's anecdotal testimony was that he's seen a drop in incidents. And I don't know if he said crime, but in that area. Excuse me. My example isn't anecdotal. It's a report from the police department that says calls for service in that area have actually gone up by over 3,200% in the five months that you guys have been operational over there over last year at that same period of time. So that's not anecdotal, and I think that's concerning. I think they also noted that a lot of the individuals that they're running into are from out of town or potentially out of state, and many of them have extensive and dangerous and violent criminal records. And because a low barrier shelter can't exclude people for some of those reasons, those are the people that are being sent into our community, whether they end up in the shelter or out on the streets. Because you're at capacity, they're now within our community and around our residents and our business owners, and I think it would be remiss if we don't point that out and at least attempt to address it. So trying to turn people away because they're not from Lewiston doesn't sound like something that's within your power so suggesting that you know you're gonna prioritize or that 's something you can do I don't know how you do that so that's why I'm curious about the actual implementation when your funding requires you not to do that so yeah it's a difficult [3:29:18] Kevin Bollard: circle to square yeah no you threw a lot in there so I'll try to piece it apart here I think your concerns are valid I think your concerns are potentially directed towards the wrong starting point I think the hospitals the police department like I said we prioritize the individuals who are we are actively engaged with regularly which are all Lewiston Auburn residents what we cannot control is when the police department shows up in our parking lot and says this individual is now on our streets in Lewiston but they have no ability to get back to Franklin County so because they were discharged from the hospital into homelessness and they are now sitting on the streets there's times officers drive by individuals and they just see them actively on the streets with nowhere to go so they offer them the ability to bring them over to the shelter service so if you don't want them bringing people over to our organization that are out of this community then that's conversations we need to have at that level I think you're drastically minimizing the discharge the homelessness challenge that we have at the hospitals that is not something we are creating that is not something we are encouraging that is it something that we are actually addressing and one thing you forgot to highlight during the challenges is we've also housed helped individuals get housed 32 individuals since the start of the warming center 37 now so at a cost of over 35,000 per year as far as on your services and communal resources for homelessness that alone is over a million dollar savings but that was unfortunately not mentioned the three thousand and something percent increase in police calls you're comparing that to a funeral parlor that was closed the highest presence there was dead bodies so yes that the activity there from a police presence is going to be drastically minimalized what was also not mentioned out of those three thousand and something percent call increase 25% of those calls were Proactive police follow-ups where we're working with PSY workers and a local police agent who would come in and address all of the individuals that they're seeing on the streets to try to proactively address those challenges. So yes, out of those calls we are seeing a significant increase in the individuals coming to our community, but they are not coming to our community because they are aware of Cadence Kitchen or Alter La Low Barrier Shelter. They're ending up at the hospitals and the hospitals give them a sheet with our shelter being at the top of that resource. So the first place they're gonna ask to go is the first place that's on that list. Two and a half percent of our police calls were violent in nature. We had four assaults over six months. We're open over 3,000 hours, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I would, I would encourage you to compare those numbers to the activity that was minimalized or limited on the streets when we had 105 individuals per 24 hours in our facility. One of the biggest challenges is when we transition to 40 units instead of a hundred units, we actually heard the outcry from the community and the police department because all of these individuals were now back on the street and there was a visual presence of them being there. So our facility actually negated the challenges that the community normally sees, and the thing that we are is we are a transitional shelter. So we're taking individuals and transitioning them into housing, which is the only way you're going to reduce the number of individuals that are currently on the streets. Counselor [3:32:52] Carl L. Sheline: Herman, did you have something? No, I'm all set now. Further questions, comments from counselors? [3:33:01] Susan G. Longchamps: Yes, Counselor Longchamps. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you for that explanation. I would just like to say publicly again, the reality is the state needs to do better. We need more mental health hospitals where people can stay short-term, long-term. There are so many people that are not addressing their mental health. There are so many people that are addicted to drugs. That's really where the problem lies. The reality is, even if you had 200 beds, you would only have about 40 people staying there during this time of the year. Because the truth is they would be back out on the street where there's zero consequence or no one watching over them, right? So they're able to use drugs and act like fools at times, and to be honest, but until the state and our country get better with addressing the mental health, having more hospitals, I don't think we have any right now really where you can stay long-term or a relative can sign someone in, and we really start addressing the drug epidemic that we have, we're pretty much screwed. So That's just what I want [3:34:31] Joshua L. Nagine: To share. Counselor Naijin, I thank you. Mr. Mayor, I would, I would second that on a great level. I mean, we're currently experiencing issues where it's now, I think, three years that we've had one person living on [street], and we don't have any way to compel that person to receive assistance, and it's like literally like watching like a horror movie. It's, you know, that this is, this is a human being, and like when we talk about empathy and we talk about care for people in our community, if we don't have Resources and we don't, if we don't have tools in order to answer some of these challenges, or we're told that this is the decision that a person is making that is capable when it's clear that they're not, then did none of this gets better. And so behavioral health, mental health, drug issues, they're all humongous in this community. We are the receptacle of a lot of challenges that other communities get to pass on to us [3:35:44] Michael R. Roy: Counselors, I believe we've, yes, Counselor Roy. I'm just gonna say that I will recruit, recuse myself from this vote [3:35:56] Carl L. Sheline: I don't think that's necessary, but I guess it's your choice. It does not con, you know, just for the public's benefit, conflict of interest is very narrowly defined here as receiving direct monetary remuneration, and that's not what's happened here, but yes, it's up to you. Counselors, I think we're ready to vote. Anything further? Madam Clerk, please call the vote. Thank you. Just for [3:36:24] David B. Chittim: Clarification, you were voting on option number two in the book with the additional council condition of a bi-monthly meeting is held by the shelter, whether it be staff and or their board members, and that it be open to city councillors and the public to discuss issues and programs of the shelter. Councillor from Ward five, yes. Word six, yes. Word seven, no. Word one, yes. Word two, yes. Word three, yes. And Mr. Mayor, yes. Motion passed by vote of six [3:36:57] Carl L. Sheline: To one. Thank you very much, Madam Clerk. We're just getting warmed up [3:37:02] David B. Chittim: Item number seven. Item number seven, public hearing for approval of an outdoor entertainment permit for the Liberty Festival. Requested action, to conduct a public hearing on an application for an outdoor entertainment event for the Liberty Festival event and to grant a permit for an outdoor entertainment event as required by the city code of ordinances chapter 10 article 1 section 10-3 to the Liberty Festival organization for outdoor music concerts for the festival to be held at Veterans Memorial Park on July 2nd through 7th, contingent upon positive recommendations from the police department, fire department, code health officer, and land use inspector regarding compliance with ALL REGULATIONS AND COMPLIANCE WITH ALL CITY ORDINANCES. I HAVE A MOTION. SO MOVED, COUNCILOR [3:37:42] Carl L. Sheline: CHINNAM. SECOND BY COUNCILOR HERRAM. IN DISCUSSION. PUBLIC COMMENT. BACK TO THE COUNCIL. MADAM CLERK, [3:37:49] David B. Chittim: PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. COUNCIL FROM WORD FOUR, YES. WORD FIVE, OH I'M SORRY. WORD SIX, YES. WORD SEVEN, YES. WORD ONE, YES. WORD TWO, YES. WORD THREE, YES. UH AND MR. BEAR, YES. MOTION PASS BY VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO. Item number eight. Item number eight, public hearing and first passage for an amendment to the zoning and land use code article 11 district regulations for [3:38:14] Carl L. Sheline: changes. Is that item number eight or you are a, yeah, that page is stuck together. [3:38:21] David B. Chittim: Sorry about that. Item number eight, public hearing for approval of an outdoor entertainment permit for a outdoor music concert in Samard Payne Memorial Park. Requested action, to conduct a public hearing on an application for an outdoor entertainment event for the rare breed concert and to grant a permit for an outdoor entertainment event as required by the city code of ordinances chapter 10 article 1 section 10-3 to northeast apostolic ministries for an outdoor music concert to be held at Samard Pain Memorial Park on July 31st, contingent upon positive recommendations from the police department, fire department, and code health officer and land use inspector regarding compliance with all regulations and compliance with all city ordinances. [3:39:02] Carl L. Sheline: May I have a motion, please? So moved. Councilor Chinnam, signed by Councilor Nagine. I just wanted to quickly say, very rarely do I, am I able to correct you, Madam Clerk? Thank you, Mr. Ray. Public comment for this agenda item. Madam Clerk, please, back to the council. Madam Clerk, please call the vote. Councilor Frum, word four? [3:39:25] David B. Chittim: Yes. Word five? I'm sorry, word six? Yes. Yes,, thank you very much, Madam Clerk. I'm glad you're here. Item number nine, public hearing and first passage for an amendment to the zoning and land use code, article 11, district regulations, for changes to the No-Name Pond Conservation Overlay District to clarify buffer language. Requested action, excuse me, that the proposed amendments to appendix A of the code of ordinances, zoning and land use code, article 11, district regulations, for changes to the No-Name Pond Conservation Overlay District to clarify buffer language, receive first passage by a roll call vote, and to continue the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled city council [3:40:11] Carl L. Sheline: meeting. I have a motion. Please, so moved, Council Martel, second by Councilor Nagine. Dr. Connor, [3:40:21] John Featherstone: please kick us off. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Councillors, as you may recall, we brought this to you a few meetings ago. It was tabled. I believe you received some information from an abutter and you wanted time to review that. We've had quite a few budget meetings since then and it's been delayed. We receive, at the last meeting we asked for a continuation based off some language that we received, a recommendation from Councillor Chittim. After reviewing it, I sent a memo in the packet tonight. We asked City Attorney legal counsel to review it, and at the end of the night, staff stands by the Planning Board's recommendation. Our request to you tonight is to either let us know the direction, either by voting for what the recommendation is for the, from the Planning Board, or vote it down and send it back to the Planning Board so that they can review it again. So that's where we're at tonight. [3:41:18] David B. Chittim: Councilor Chittim. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm going to read the statement of purpose to the No Name Pond Conservation Overlay District. The purpose of the No Name Pond Conservation Overlay District is to protect the water quality of No Name Pond by controlling the discharge of surface runoff into the lake, thereby limiting nutrient loading to levels which will not result in substantial degradation of the pond's water quality. Removing protections from waterways, whether they are natural or man-made, does the exact opposite of the mission of the statement of purpose of this ordinance. The amendment which I have submitted to the code office was reviewed by an attorney. To my knowledge, he has no knowledge of environmental engineering, water quality. The attorney's memo indicates that if a buffer restriction is waived simply because an applicant requires a permit, it amounts, as a practical matter, to a reduction in the protections created by the no disturbance buffer. That simply is not true. The proposed amendment would require more stringent activity in the buffer zone than currently exists in the code. It would require that any soil disturbance in the buffer zone comply with DEP's well-established best management practices to limit the amount of runoff and nutrient loading to the pond. The attorney goes on to say that the administrative complexity of creating this permit process and the permit by rule, the best management practices, would be exceptionally difficult. That can easily be addressed by not requiring a permit by rule at all, by simply passing an ordinance that says if you disturb soil within the buffer zone, you will comply with BMP. So that eliminates the argument that there is an extraordinary administrative complexity here. As an engineer, as someone who has devoted the majority of my life to protecting the quality of no name pond, I think that eliminating the REQUIREMENT TO UH FOR BUFFERS AROUND ANY WATERWAY FEEDING THE POND IS A STEP BACKWARDS. I HAVE A LANGUAGE WHICH I HAVE PREPARED AND WILL BE HAPPY TO SUBMIT, BUT I WOULD URGE THE COUNCIL TO REJECT THE UH LANGUAGE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED. [3:43:59] Carl L. Sheline: Councillor Chinum, are you proposing an amendment at this time, or I guess that would be [3:44:06] David B. Chittim: in order? Yes, my amendment would be to remove the language that was approved by the planning board, retain the language that exists in the code today, and add a section seven to the no-name pond protection conservation overlay district, which is worded any work resulting in soil disturbance within the buffers shall comply with the requirements of the main stormwater best management practices manual volume three best manager, best management practice technical design manual, published by the main DEP. I have that language, madam clerk, so that you don't have to take it down verbatim. [3:44:54] Carl L. Sheline: Do you have a second, concern aging? I'll second for discussion. Okay, we now have an amendment on the floor. Did you catch all that, madam clerk? [3:45:10] David B. Chittim: I did. It's to remove the proposed language, to keep the current language, and to add this section 7 as read by Councillor [3:45:18] Carl L. Sheline: Chittum. Okay. Thank you. Back to your concern, aging. Okay, so just real quick, [3:45:23] Joshua L. Nagine: the no-name pond conservation overlay district I don't understand what the water quality was 1990 I don't understand what it is today and so you're proposing a series of changes I also don't completely understand what this is proposing either you know with the exception of the fact that one house will get built now normally I am I am a yimby I'm always going to be a yimby somebody says do you want a hotel in your backyard I'm gonna say yes I want a hotel in my backyard because property values in the city are important. We need, we need development. I think the challenge that I have is that when we're talking about conservation districts, I have a challenge in saying that we should just allow everything. And so I, my position here is I don't know enough about what you just said, which is like literally changing the entire, like the entire zoning and land use code, at least a portion of it, right, like we're adding a whole new piece. And so I would ask that we either workshop this or we put it you know, we again suspend, spend a decision, a snap decision right now. I've also been reached out to by a couple of folks that belong to the HOA and they're very concerned. And I also am aware of the fact that there's somebody who's been trying to develop this land for quite a while. And I think we have to come to a healthy decision that protects the watershed. That would be my argument. And I don't know enough right now about what you've said [3:47:08] Carl L. Sheline: to make a snap decision. That's all, counselors. I really, we have some hands raised, but is there anything, Counselor Chin, was there anything you'd like to say? Yes, thank you. Thank you, [3:47:22] David B. Chittim: Councillor Nejean. The amendment that I proposed would not prohibit development of the lot. This entire exercise was brought forward because there is an undeveloped lot in a previously approved subdivision. It was thought that the development of this lot would run counter to the language that exists in the code today. The addition, the removal of the proposed changes in the addition of the language that I've read, which essentially says if you're going to work in these delicate areas, do no harm, or do As little harm as possible, it still allows the development of the single family dwelling in Waters Edge Drive, and it strengthens the protection of the pond by requiring that anybody who works within 50 feet of any of these drainage ways uses engineering practices that have been adopted by the main Department of Environmental Protection designed to reduce runoff nutrient loading erosion, etc. That is absent from the code now. This strengthens it, and it strengthens the water quality while still allowing the development of the house that raised this issue in the first place. [3:48:46] Carl L. Sheline: Chancellor Herman, thank [3:48:50] Scott A. Harriman: you. So I like the amendment that Councillor Chittim has put forward, but I just wonder if this should go, if this should go back to the Planning Board with that, you know, asking them to consider this. I don't know if anyone has thoughts to that. [3:49:08] Carl L. Sheline: Counselor Longchamps. [3:49:11] Susan G. Longchamps: I would like to ask our Director of Code his opinion on this change. [3:49:18] John Featherstone: Thank you. So the memo that is before you from me was written prior to the e-mail that we received from Counselor Titum, who has great ideas. We were working with our staff this morning, and what we came to the conclusion was that we agree with that addition of seven, but we, what we don't know, the mechanics of that we're still trying to figure out, is can you make that amendment as a vote as a council and have it go forward, or does it need to go back to the Planning Board because it was a recommendation from the Planning Board? That's the part that I'm unfamiliar with, but we do, we do agree that the original language would be clarified with the addition of item number seven, so should we maybe take this up at a [3:50:08] Susan G. Longchamps: different time after you go to the Planning Board, go back to the Planning Board, I mean, [3:50:14] John Featherstone: what would be your suggestion? I personally, if I think of it logically, the Planning Board makes a recommendation, it's up to this body here to make the final decision. Thank [3:50:29] Joshua L. Nagine: YOU ANY concern aging yes so that's correct we have the ability to either accept or reject a recommendation from the Planning Board is the governing body for the city I do think it would be good practice in all honesty to go back to the Planning Board simply because we do want to have a working relationship with them I also think that I have some interest in finding out if le a or like stewards of maine have any opinions on any of this but i don't want to belabor a point either way i think just For good practice, we should probably go back to the landing board, would be my opinion, saying that this is our recommendation. Do you accept it, and then we could approve it afterwards? That would be my opinion IN. [3:51:21] Carl L. Sheline: COUNCILOR CHIDDUM, YES. [3:51:23] David B. Chittim: THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT. I DO WANT TO VERIFY THAT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE DEPARTMENT IS THAT THE CURRENT LANGUAGE DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT LAW. [3:51:41] John Featherstone: IS THAT CORRECT? THE CURRENT LANGUAGE AS WRITTEN, THE WAY WE INTERPRET IT IS YES. It would prevent it unless you had the number seven that you want to add to it. Okay, it is ambiguous, we, it's an interpretation, so if we, if we chose to issue the permit, it would be something that could be brought up to a Board of Appeals for obvious reasons if somebody interprets it different. Yeah, I [3:52:11] David B. Chittim: respectfully disagree. I think the definition of buffer in this overlay district limits the activity within that buffer only to forbidding fertilizer and forbidding the creation of new lawns and gardens, so that's in paragraph or [3:52:30] John Featherstone: subparagraph G, I believe, all of those restrictions. But in paragraph F right above it says that, I believe it's no buildings or structures or use of the land, it will require those buffers. So the way we interpret that is a driveway would be a use of the land, and therefore it cannot be, you know, built within that buffer. And then letter G goes on, or paragraph G goes on to say all of the restrictions and requirements for everything outside of that buffer. [3:53:06] David B. Chittim: All right. I see your interpretation. I disagree with it, but I understand how you can come to that conclusion. Rather than belabor this point, I would like not to hold up the development of this lot any longer than necessary. I would propose that this council adopt the recommendation, my Motion, and that we send it back for not ratification. But out of a courtesy, as you point out, Councilman Najee, we are the legislative body. We do have the authority to accept or reject recommendations from subsidiary boards. As a courtesy, I would send it back to them. I would be happy to go to the planning board meeting and put forth my arguments for why this is a better solution to the problem than was proposed initially. But I would urge the council tonight to adopt the motion as amended. [3:54:03] Carl L. Sheline: We're now heading to public comment for this agenda item. [3:54:11] Dan Bernier: Dan Bernier, Ward 6. In place for over 25 years, I object to any change. In this case, the city takes stormwater and puts it across private property. That's what's really causing this lot to be undeveloped. All these documents you do have. I'm just reading from them. The president of the No Name Pond Association has an objection to the change. No Name poured he wrote the board he says this is a simple technical issues confused and complicated by city staff BMP practices strengthens the district ordinance eliminating a buffer zone to all of those will open the door to mismanagement of the drainage wave facilities potentially I do not see any problem with the current buffer definition within the current buffer zone definition also does not improperly not imply that man-made waterways cannot be maintained there's one thing that planning board did mention again in the packet they try to cross off to open stormwater drainage courses that's really what we're talking about treating water like it's not water from John Connery wrote basically council Chittum proposed retaining original 50-foot buffer language around open stormwater drainage courses adding the main department of environmental protection best management practices which we've discussed is basically the standard for the entire state staff forwarded the concept of the city Ben Lord noted that the city would need to highly detail the BMPs basically take care of all this that's what they do this isn't a flaw this isn't isn't sufficient to fix a flaw it's intent change it's not an editorial BMP layer of the ordinance will create unnecessary administrative burden which we've proven is not really the case from what Mr. Chittum says I do agree with the John that this will limit the property being developed but if you look at the property if you looked at it today the council no zoning board would allow this the driveway is not even big enough for to meet city ordinance so you don't even have access so the neighborhood itself will be burdened by this change Michael Murcaut opposed citing that isn't he's not confident we were protecting the pond in the same vein and intent the original language and he would like to hear from the individuals who served on the city years ago and with this language and it's been in place for 25 years so I can't imagine why All of a sudden it needs to be a change and Al Curran or the president used names with the president of the Pond Association who is an environmental engineer himself was very adamant that this is status quo. He's been living in the environment, it's the way it is, why would we make a change? So one would have to question why it was developed or why was been configured multiple ways and now they're coming to you now to develop [3:57:07] Carl L. Sheline: it because no one else could. Thank you very much. Further public comment for this agenda item. Public comment is hearing that public comment is now closed. Back to the council. Director Connor, is there anything further you'd like to add at this point? No, Mr. Mayor. Okay, thank you. Madam Clerk, can you please call the vote for the, can you [3:57:39] David B. Chittim: read the amendment and then call the vote? Sure. The amendment before you has three parts. One is to remove the proposed language, two is to keep the current language, and three is to add section seven as read by Councilor Chiddum. Councilor from Ward Four. [3:57:57] Michael R. Roy: I'm quite confused right now, to be honest with you. [3:58:02] David B. Chittim: You have the main motion in your book, which is item number nine, which is the main motion in the book to amend the No Name Pond Conservation Overlay District. However, an amendment was proposed and by Councillor Chittim seconded by Councillor Nagine. There's three aspects to that amendment. One is to remove or negate the proposed language, two is to keep the current language in the book and you'll see the strikeout and underline, so two is to keep the current language, and three is to add a new section 7 to the No-Name Pond Protection Overlay District and the wording was read by Councillor Chenoweth. One [3:58:41] Carl L. Sheline: second before we vote. Councillor Nagine, did [3:58:44] Joshua L. Nagine: you have something? I just I feel that the amendment is a substantive change. I do, it's it's a substantial change and so I again would feel more confident if we put this back to the planning board, give us a couple of weeks to look at this. I understand that you've done a lot of this work. I didn't have the opportunity to review any of that until tonight to be honest. And I want to respect the, you know, the work that you've put in, absolutely 100%, and I sure from what I'm hearing from planning and code there, they're they're pretty happy with it. But I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it right now. And so again, I would I would favor it goes because of the fact that it's a substantive change to me anyways. [3:59:45] Carl L. Sheline: Thank You councillor and aging Councillor long champs. Did you have something? [3:59:50] Susan G. Longchamps: Yes, ma'am. I would second that. I think it should go back to the Planning Board. So can we? [3:59:57] Carl L. Sheline: Figure out how to vote on that. We're currently voting on or trying to vote on an amendment, and then there will be a possibility to decline it, and then that would head to the Planning Board. Yes, Councillor Harriman. Thank you. I [4:00:13] Scott A. Harriman: guess I wonder if there is consensus up here if it might be possible to withdraw the amendment and make a new one that basically adopts these changes or recommends these changes and asked the Planning Board to weigh in as well. [4:00:27] Carl L. Sheline: Thank you, Councillor Harriman. If we're going to withdraw the amendment, it would require the people who moved it and then second it to do that. It would require both of them to agree. Correct, Madam Clerk? Yeah, I don't see that happening. I just would like to vote on the amendment at this point. Yes, please continue, Madam [4:00:51] David B. Chittim: Clerk. Not to add confusion, because that's not my goal here, but it would be in order for Councilor Nagine's motion to refer the pending motion, which is the amendment, to refer that to the Planning Board, because you are allowed to take any pending motion before the body and refer it to a committee for their further review and study. So if that is the wish of Councilor Nagine and Longchamps would be to take the ordinance and refer it to Planning Board for review under parliamentary procedure, that is a motion that is in order at this time if they're so interested. I appreciate that, Madam Clerk, [4:01:27] Carl L. Sheline: and your encyclopedic knowledge of Robert's Rules. We're always in uncharted territory up here. So was it, was just for clarification, were you, were you trying to do that, Counselor Neji? [4:01:39] Joshua L. Nagine: I think that is exactly what I'd like to do. I think that what Councillor Chittim has put forward is very interesting and most probably will carry the day, but I also have no headspace at this moment to think about how this actually works. It [4:02:00] Carl L. Sheline: sounds like you've made a motion. Are you seconding, Councillor Longchamps? Okay, can you explain what's going on, Madam Clerk, and then call the vote? So the motion [4:02:10] David B. Chittim: before you is to refer this matter to the Planning Board, and with that, LANGUAGE GOING TO THE PLANNING BOARD WILL BE THE AMENDMENT AS READ BY COUNCILOR CHIDDOM. [4:02:19] Carl L. Sheline: PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. COUNCILOR, SORRY, COUNCILOR CHIDDOM, DID YOU HAVE? THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, DISCUSSION. [4:02:25] David B. Chittim: On the new motion, I'm comfortable with that. However, given the Code Department's interpretation that the current language prohibits development of this lot, this simply puts the person who wants to develop the lot off for a month or six weeks. I don't know what that does to the construction schedule. I don't know what that does to their desires, but they had initially proposed this well over a month ago. So by putting this back to the Planning Board, it hinders the development of the lot that created this proposed amendment in the first place. That's, that's the point I'd make. [4:03:10] Carl L. Sheline: Thank you. Since you're still here, Director Connor, can do you have any insight as to [4:03:16] John Featherstone: the construction schedule or anything like that? I don't. In talking with the owner, he's, he's just waiting on, he's probably watching right now, but he's, he's waiting on the deliberation [4:03:26] Carl L. Sheline: right now he's ready to go from my understanding understood thank you further comments before you vote on this madam clerk please call the vote council from word four on that motion yes [4:03:41] David B. Chittim: word five yes report six no word seven yes word one yes two yes word three yes motion passed by [4:03:52] Carl L. Sheline: vote of six to one. Thank you very much. Thank you, Director Connor. I'm number ten. I don't [4:03:58] David B. Chittim: ever ten, public hearing in first passage regarding an amendment to the Administrative Code regarding the Public Safety Committee. Requested action that the proposed amendments to the City Code of Ordinances, Chapter 2 Administration, Sections 230 through 235, Public Safety Committee, received first passage by a roll call vote and to continue the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting. [4:04:18] Carl L. Sheline: have a motion please so moved councillor Chittum second signed by councillor Nei Jean did you want to say something councillor Longchamps since [4:04:31] Susan G. Longchamps: you brought this forward yes i brought this forward when we made the changes well sorry it's getting really late i'm extremely tired but when we made the changes to our safety committee excluding or dissolving our mayor's safety committee i thought that when applicants came through that the mayor would include council a little bit more and in fact that didn't happen and I'm just asking that I'm hoping we can get enough votes so we can participate more in the folks that are applying for this is this is a really important committee. It's important to make sure that the right people are sitting at the table, and yeah. [4:05:35] Carl L. Sheline: Further comments from counselors? [4:05:40] David B. Chittim: Councillor Chittim, yes, thank you. We heard public testimony earlier tonight about trying to achieve a diversity of opinion on this and other committees as well. I would be in favor of that, so that the council actually makes the appointments rather than the mayor. [4:06:03] Carl L. Sheline: Counselor Herrman, yes. [4:06:06] Scott A. Harriman: I am also in favor of this change, although I will point out again that this committee was just formed a few weeks ago, and we created the rules around it, so if we wanted to make it this way, we could have done it then, but I will support the change now. [4:06:23] Carl L. Sheline: There seems to be some confusion, so yes, you know, there's a lot of comment last time about following process. I absolutely followed the process, and that's that's why there's this requested agenda item here now and then, so I was I was not able to unilaterally appoint people. I had to nominate people, which then it could be voted on by the council, and the council could at that time voted somebody down, and then we you know could have got a different name. The council did not wish, for whatever reason, does not want to vote anyone down. In fact, approved the slate of people that I submitted, so yeah, I guess I am not, yeah, I'm definitely not in favor of this, but I, yeah, counselor Law, it's [4:07:12] Susan G. Longchamps: getting late. Councilor Line Champs, thank you for your opinion, mayor. Again, this is this is a really important committee. I thought we were going to be more involved in the applicants. We were not. It's nothing against the folks that had applied, but I do think it's important that council be a part of who is applying for this and who you are nominating. If that makes sense. [4:07:47] Carl L. Sheline: Are you finished, Counselor Long Times? Yes, mayor, just double checking. no, and I would argue that the not are you we're discussing I would put forth that the council absolutely was a part of the process. I could not I had to nominate people, and the council could either vote them. Can we move the question? Yeah, there you go, thank you. All right, we're do you want to go to public comment first? Go ahead. We're heading to public comment for this agenda item. [4:08:25] Adam Jones: Adam Jones, Award 2. I just have to commend my Award Counselor. I really appreciate you having a voice on this. I think it's very evident that the mayor likes to do his own thing. So it's time for some change on those committees. I think the Safety Committee is something that really needs to be a well-rounded group of individuals that can bring valuable insight and information, dissolve it and bring it back to the community and see what is best. It's it's time to get all his buddies off the board, so I appreciate you speaking up for that. As far as being late, Carl, I've noticed you've been falling asleep a couple times, but this is important, you're here for us, so I'd appreciate if you stay away. Thanks. Hi. [4:09:22] Lisa Jones: Lisa Jones, Ward 2. I really like the idea that Adam just suggested, that you dissolve this committee that you approved a few weeks ago and start over. We have the same names on every committee that Carl appoints and they do nothing. We have problems and we need different voices to work to solve them. It's late because you spent most of the homeless discussion talking about shelters and ideology and what should and shouldn't happen and didn't even talk about permitting. Further. [4:09:53] Carl L. Sheline: Public comment back to the council. Yes, Councillor Longchamps. Thank you, mayor. If. [4:10:02] Susan G. Longchamps: There was a way to dissolve the folks that you nominated, I would like to do that, but I don't know if we're able to during this, and if not, moving forward, if we do get enough votes, if someone were to leave the committee for whatever reason, I would ask that we are able to be a part of the process of who would be moving forward as an applicant. Thank you, madam. [4:10:36] Carl L. Sheline: Clerk, please call the vote. Yes. [4:10:39] David B. Chittim: Yes yes. Item number 11, public hearing and first passage regarding an amendment to the Parks and Recreation Ordinance to add two new locations to the list of city-owned recreational facilities. Requested action that the proposed amendment to the City Code of Ordinances, Chapter 54, Parks and Recreation, to add North Temple Pickleball Courts, located at 55 North Temple Road and South Lewiston Little League Field, located at 20 Martin Drive, to the list of city-owned recreational facilities, receive first pastors by a roll call vote and to continue the public hearing to the next regular scheduled City Council meeting. So move. Have a motion. [4:11:23] Carl L. Sheline: Please. Yes, I can learn aging. Second by Councillor Harriman. Discussion. [4:11:29] Joshua L. Nagine: Councillor in aging, I just have one question concerning the city-owned parks. Are we, did normally we also have hours for city-owned parks, and I'm wondering if that's gonna be done after the city-owned parks are adopted or if. [4:11:45] Unidentified speaker: That should be part of this motion. That is a separate section, and I apologize. [4:11:50] David B. Chittim: The director of recreation couldn't be here this evening due to a family scheduling conflict. Very lucky for her that is a separate section in the code. I'm not sure, I don't believe offhand that every single park is listed in that section regarding the time frame, but we can take a look at it. So I'd be happy to review that with her tomorrow, and if that is her recommendation to add those with the time frame, we would have to bring it back to you because it is a [4:12:21] Joshua L. Nagine: separate section of the code. Okay, understood, that was my question. Thank [4:12:26] Carl L. Sheline: you. Public comment for this agenda item back to the council. Madam Clerk, please [4:12:34] David B. Chittim: call the vote. Yes,, yes. I'm number 12, number 12. Public hearing and adoption of the fiscal year 2027 Lewiston capital improvement program bond issue order. Requested action to hold a public hearing and adopt the fiscal year 2027 Lewiston capital improvement bond issue order authorizing the issuance of thirty nine million five hundred seventy eight thousand one hundred fifty three dollars in fiscal year 2027 public improvement bonds and making an appropriation for [4:13:11] Carl L. Sheline: certain capital projects. May have a motion, please. So moved, Counselor Martel. Can I have a second, please? So moved, Counselor Naging. Director Roy, is there anything you'd like to say? I [4:13:29] Unidentified speaker: put in your packets just the projects that are on the capital that we will be approving so that you wouldn't have to go through the whole book if you have any questions on any of those projects. The [4:13:43] Carl L. Sheline: directors are here to answer them. Thank you. Council Herriman. Thank you, I just wonder if [4:13:50] Scott A. Harriman: we're going to have, typically we have presentations throughout the budget process about these various projects. I wonder if we're going to have that at some point before we vote on this. So if you [4:14:02] Unidentified speaker: remember at the beginning of each department budget presentation the LCIP was mentioned and it was mentioned for what page it was on and I opened it up for any questions to the director at that time from the council to go over the LCIPs. Anything [4:14:28] Carl L. Sheline: further, Councillor Harriman? That's it. [4:14:30] Joshua L. Nagine: Thanks. Councillor Nagine. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Director Roy, could you just let us know how much this exceeds the 80% rule? I'm sure it's considerable. So it exceeds the [4:14:48] Unidentified speaker: 80% rule by 26 million 688 926. Okay, [4:14:57] Joshua L. Nagine: and do we have an idea of what that, what debt service will be carrying forward in three years with a hypothetical interest [4:15:11] Unidentified speaker: I used a 4.75 when I did the calculations that you have in the back of your LCIP book. Currently we are around 3%. We have been getting really good bond rating cells when we go out. [4:15:34] Carl L. Sheline: I would like to also add that I see many department heads in the audience. If there are questions about specific projects, now is the time. [4:15:41] David B. Chittim: Councillor Chittim Thank you Mr. Mayor there is an 80% limit that requires a supermajority to exceed if this 39 million dollar or thirty two point eight million dollar general obligation bond LC IP is approved we are looking at a four hundred and twenty six percent as opposed to eighty percent increase we're We're looking at interest payments when these bonds are issued in excess of a million dollars a year. We have had an exceedingly difficult budget season this year. We have already kicked the can down the road by saying let's not use the new valuation levels until next year. So the council that's sitting here next year will be faced with that identical problem that we very successfully said let them worry about it. If we pass this LCIP at 426% of the retired average debt over the past three years as opposed to 80%, we are again overburdening a subsequent council with an extra million dollars in plus if she if director Roy is using four percent I was using three and a half percent an extra million dollars coming from the taxpayers to pay interest only on these projects I am not prepared to vote in favor of this tonight so the only way this is going to pass at 426 226 percent is if five counselors say yes This is a good idea to burden the city with this kind of debt again 426 percent four times the average debt that we've retired over the past three years and an interest burden on the taxpayers exceeding a million dollars a year. If you think this year was tough, folks, just wait until next year or the year after when these interest payments come due. [4:18:01] Scott A. Harriman: Councilor Airman. I've got a comment and a question. So I appreciate Councilor Chiddum's concerns. I do want to point out that the just the fundamental formula of this 80% rule is it means we have an ever-shrinking amount of things that we can borrow money for. It's like it's like cutting the line in half and then in half again half again So at some point we need to figure out a different a different methodology here I do have a question for director Roy. I guess as far as the How much is the interest on this amount that's in our packet tonight here? What's the interest that? Would be put on that so [4:19:08] Unidentified speaker: originally in the back of your book on page 122 it had the if you look down it'll say city the fourth one down it says add fiscal year 27 LC IP proposed it had the principal and the interest in fiscal year 29 is when we would bond it so those totals are on that page for city, for the interest, it's $1,000,001. For school, it would be $455,000. For water, the interest would be $137,750. For sewer, interest would be $110,438. And stormwater would be $76,950 for interest only. [4:20:10] Scott A. Harriman: Now is that on every project in this book or just the list that's in our packet tonight? [4:20:15] Unidentified speaker: That's in the lists with a minor adjustment. We had removed the signs for a hundred thousand and we had removed the MD OT portion of a project. The rest of them were in this book on that calculation. [4:20:31] Scott A. Harriman: So it's a small portion that was moved off. Okay, so the list that's in our packet tonight is almost the same as this book. Correct. Okay. Thank you. [4:20:41] Carl L. Sheline: Councillor Nei Jean and. [4:20:43] Joshua L. Nagine: Really quickly, when do we have to approve the LCIP fine? [4:20:50] Unidentified speaker: I'd have to look at the charter, but I believe it has to be approved. [4:20:53] Joshua L. Nagine: By the end of June, by the end of June. Okay, one of the things that sticks out, I mean the Continental mill TIF is based on future REVENUE. SAME THING WITH THE LOWELL STREET DEVELOPMENT TIP. IT'S FUTURE REVENUE. WE KNOW THE SITUATION WITH THE LISBON STREET FIRE STATION. ALMOST EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IN HERE IS INFRASTRUCTURE PIECES. THE STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM, $6 MILLION. I THINK THE ONE THING THAT'S PROBABLY CONTESTED OR POSSIBLY CONTESTED IS THE TANK HOME vehicles and honestly we've agreed to a budget that didn't account for those take-home vehicles so we have to find room for 10 to 15 more cars if we want to back that out so I'm sorry did attack count for the take-home vehicles didn't account for vehicle replacement now so that means that we'd have to go back to reopening all those other pieces what I would suggest possibly is that we table the LC IP. discussion for the next meeting or hold a special meeting between now and then I think they're ultimately this is a huge amount of money we're gonna be carrying a huge debt if we approve this and there are pieces here that I mean are we not going to pave roads this year you know like, are we not going to build the fire station? [4:22:30] Carl L. Sheline: So I guess if we're, you know, thinking about tabling, I would ask the council what would be different now versus, you know, next meeting. The answer that comes to my mind is not much. And, yeah, I think we should vote on this tonight. Councilor Ehrman, back to you. [4:22:52] Scott A. Harriman: Yeah, I guess I just wish that we had maybe in future years we could have a presentation on these items and what they're about and why they're important, just as part of the budget process. I feel like we used to do that, and it didn't happen this year because, I mean, we don't really, we haven't really had these things explained to us, like, what is the, you know, what exactly are the kitchen and bathroom repairs at City Hall, you know, I understand some of them, street maintenance programs on there every year, vehicle and equipment replacement, but we just haven't had that presentation and that discussion of what these items are for and [4:23:37] Susan G. Longchamps: why they're important counselor long champs thank you mayor it's getting late as we all know. I just don't see, quite honestly, what we could take out of this. As Councilor Nagine said, really the only one thing would be the take-home vehicles and our police department has basically pleaded with us and asked us to do this so that they could have another recruiting tool. I think it's very important. I think we've had another officer leave the police department, the City of Lewiston, if I'm, if I'm correct on that, I could be wrong, but so we'll be down one more officer. We need to figure out a way to recruit officers, and this is one tool that we have heard from our chief of police, deputy chief, and other department heads within the police department that this would really be helpful for the police department. So I would ask that we approve this as is. I really don't see anything that we can take out of that. Thank you. Yes, I support [4:25:14] Carl L. Sheline: the police cruisers and there are descriptions on every page about what the items are for yeah I yeah if we have specific questions I would remind counselors that we have department heads here right now ready to answer them yes, back to you, Councillor Herman. [4:25:33] Scott A. Harriman: Yes, I was just looking at some of these items, and some of them are not all or nothing, such as the vehicle and equipment replacement. We have about 10 or 12 items on there. That's one area where we could have a little bit of savings. I realize it wouldn't be a whole lot in the grand scheme of things, though, if we removed a couple of the vehicles at the bottom of that priority list. Do [4:26:03] Carl L. Sheline: You have a question for Public Works? I notice we have our fleet manager here. [4:26:08] Scott A. Harriman: No, just a suggestion if anyone else is up for it. That's just one area where we could make a small savings. Gotcha. Councillor Nagy. [4:26:21] Joshua L. Nagine: From our past budget presentations, our director of Public Works had indicated that the two vehicles at the very bottom of that could come off, and so I just want to reiterate that what Councillor Harriman is saying is correct. Yeah, I'm gonna have a difficult time approving this because of the number, 100%, but also I don't know what we're gonna cut here, to be honest. [4:27:03] Carl L. Sheline: Councilor Longchamps, it's back to you. [4:27:05] Susan G. Longchamps: I'm confused. Did we have this number already? Like, didn't we know these things were in there? [4:27:13] Carl L. Sheline: Director Roy, can you answer that? [4:27:17] Unidentified speaker: So when we did the presentation for the LCIP, the five-year, we went over briefly with you. And then during every budget session for each department that had LCIP, it was at the beginning, and if you look at all the write-ups that you received it was at the beginning and we opened up with those for discussions on those projects while the director was there with all of their information and there was very little course we had discussions on the take-home vehicles and maybe a couple on the public works LC IPs a couple of them but no other discussions and the school did present their budget along with their LC IP on a separate night also [4:28:10] Carl L. Sheline: councillor should have or did you have anything else councillor long champs or wait sorry no concern aging that was your question no or no councillor long champs yes did you have anything else I [4:28:25] Susan G. Longchamps: guess I mean, what are we proposing that we take out of this? Can we do that tonight? Yeah, we're discussing it right [4:28:33] Carl L. Sheline: now. Where are you proposing? While you think on that, if that's okay, I would like to recognize [4:28:45] David B. Chittim: Councillor Chittim. Thank you, I have a question on process. If the five vote majority is not obtained, what is the next step? And I guess that would be for Administrator Kainrath or Director Roy. [4:29:01] Unidentified speaker: if we do not have five votes we would take requests from you to look at other removing projects that's why we're here and that's why during the budget session we were looking for questions on the LC IP so we knew at the point where we're at we should have had what all counselors wanted to see to get approved [4:29:24] Carl L. Sheline: For projects, thank you. I would also like to remind counselors that everything on this list just gets more expensive with time. It does not become cheaper to build building, it does not become cheaper to buy vehicles, etc. And so unless we are completely eliminating the item from a future budget, we're simply delaying a purchase that will likely be more expensive in subsequent years. So there's also that to consider, Mr. Mayor, Administrator. [4:29:56] Bryan Kaenrath: Kane ref, yes, yeah, I would just throw out again, we do have until the end of June to approve this. If it would be better process for the council, we could put this back on the agenda for the 16th, maybe have more of a workshop type session, have the department's heads here answer questions, give us people two more weeks to really hone in on some particular projects they're curious about, and we could come back on the 16th and do this with more time if that's of interest. [4:30:23] Carl L. Sheline: Yes, understood, thank you, Administrator Ken Raff, Counselor Nagin, if we chose to do that. [4:30:30] Joshua L. Nagine: Because I don't know how the votes are gonna go either, it could very well be that we don't get the five votes. Would there be an opportunity to go back to both the Lowell Street development TIF and in continental TIF to see if those projects are still carrying forward so that we're not bonding money that we may not I. [4:31:08] Carl L. Sheline: Think we're winding up acting director play here, director acting. [4:31:13] Joshua L. Nagine: Acting Director Blay, the question is, so the Continental Mill TIF and the Lowell Street Development TIF, from my understanding, possibly at least one of them doesn't have the funding stack created at the moment. My question is, if we delayed either of these TIFs for a year, would that affect these projects? Do we know, like right now, or is that an answer you could give for us for the next meeting? [4:31:39] Unidentified speaker: I believe that's an answer I can give for you for the next meeting. Okay. But I do know that 55 will looks pretty good, okay, that's excellent, and then you know continental they're they're working on that as of right now, so yeah, I mean we've committed to the tiffs and. [4:31:56] Joshua L. Nagine: We certainly want to give them, I think the question is just do we need to bond it this year for any of either of the like, is anything pushed back, and maybe that's a that's a point. [4:32:07] Unidentified speaker: point where we can reduce some bonding. Yeah, the only concern is that it's in the CEA. We do have a legal obligation to do that, so that's the only consideration that we would have to go back and read and make sure that, you know, we're not jeopardizing, you know, a legal standing agreement. I appreciate [4:32:27] Carl L. Sheline: that, thank you. We're now heading to public comment for this agenda item. Public comment is now closed. Back to the counselor, counselors, what would you like to do? We could vote on this or we could move this to the next meeting. [4:32:46] David B. Chittim: Mr. Mayor, what is the motion? What's the motion on the on the table? Madam Clerk? Yes, the motion on the table is the one that is printed in your book to hold a public hearing and adopt the fiscal year 2027 Lewiston capital improvement bond issue order authorizing the issuance of 39 million 578 thousand one hundred fifty three dollars in fiscal year 2027 public improvement bonds and making an [4:33:09] Carl L. Sheline: appropriation for certain capital projects. Thank you, Madam Clerk. You know, hearing what we heard from Acting Director Play, I think we should vote on this tonight, but what to how do the [4:33:22] Susan G. Longchamps: rest of you feel counselor longchamps thank you mayor again you know just looking over these which we have discussed all of them I just don't see any that would be smart to take out in my opinion I just don't I think that we may be able to get it a little lower by the suggestions that council a harem and Harriman made but I don't know that 's really enough to make a difference I would ask council that we approve this these items each one of them were discussed we may not have had a workshop on each one of them, but we had the opportunity to discuss each one of these with each director, and if one of these tips for some reason don't happen, well then it lessons, right? So I would hope that we could approve this and continue to move forward with our next challenges that we are too sure to have. Thank you. [4:34:34] Carl L. Sheline: Seeing no further motions or hands, Clerk, can you please call the vote? No. [4:34:46] Unidentified speaker: Yes. [4:34:54] David B. Chittim: Yes, thank you [4:35:05] Carl L. Sheline: very much, Madam Clerk. Do we still have staff here for item number 13? Okay, and then do we have our attorney here Friday number? Okay, it's gonna take a minute to sort of like reset the stage up here for that, so [4:35:20] Susan G. Longchamps: we're taking a brief recess, then we're gonna come back. Hello, [4:41:02] Carl L. Sheline: and we're back. If I can have people please take their seats. Okay, Madam Clerk, item number nine, 13, item number 13, dangerous building. [4:41:15] David B. Chittim: Hearing for the building located at 70 River Street. There are two items for requested action. The first item to conduct a hearing to determine if the building located at 70 River Street has met the dangerous building statutes as defined in Title 17 Section 2851. At all, thank you. [4:41:34] Carl L. Sheline: On may we will now begin on May 12 2026 the Lucent City Council held a dangerous building hearing. The council determined that the building located at 70 River Street posed a serious threat to public safety and safe to public health and safety within the meaning of Section 2 8 5 6 of Title 17 that the threat to public health and safety required prompt action in ordered that the building immediately be secured. This evening we will conduct a hearing to determine three things whether the building at 70 River Street is a nuisance or dangerous building within the meaning of the applicable main state at Section 2 8 5 1 of Title 17 of the main revised statutes. In addition on May 20 2026 Director Carter issued a determination that a travel trailer located at 70 River Street was a serious threat to the public health and safety and that the threat to the public health and safety required prompt action. The council will consider whether the determination was accurate and whether to adopt it. Finally the council will determine whether the travel trailer located at 70 River Street is a nuisance or dangerous structure within the meaning of the applicable main state at Section 2851 of Title 17 of the main revised statutes. This building is owned by Scott Clifford and the travel trailer appears to be owned by him as well. The land is owned by Franklin Property Trust LLC. In the past the city understood Stephanie Clifford was a tenant at the property. She has written to city staff that she has not been on the property since June of last year and has nothing to do with the property. I ask that any owner or party of interest including tenants introduce yourself including your name address and position is an owner party and interest or representative present. Does any City Council member know an owner or another party in interest or have knowledge about this matter? That means that you could not fairly and impartially hear the facts and decide the matter based on the evidence presented. At the hearing, the hearing will be conducted according to the mayor's procedures for dangerous building hearing, which I read at the September 3, 2024 council meeting and are included in your packets. I will accept into evidence the planning and code enforcement departments previously provided exhibits A through J1. I now ask the Lewis and planning and code enforcement department present the City Council with information relevant to this matter before it. Thank you. Good [4:44:08] John Featherstone: evening, Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council, for the record my name is John Connor. I'm the director of planning and code enforcement for the city of Lewiston. Sitting at the table with me tonight is building inspector Travis Tardiff, who also serves as our code enforcement officer. We are here tonight to present the official dangerous building case regarding the structures located at 70 River Street. To establish the council's legal jurisdiction over this matter tonight, all statutory notice and formal service requirements under main law have been fully and strictly executed. To break down the legal descriptions of the premises for the record, the land is identified as tax map parcel ID RE 00020418. The underlying real estate is owned by Franklin Property Trust LLC. Their title stems from a series of historical filings, including a 1976 quick claim deed, a 1979 confirmatory deed, and a 2008 trustees deed. The main building, excuse me, is identified as a single family residential. The residential structure under tax map parcel ID RE0004425. The building itself is owned by Scott Clifford. He took ownership via a notarized bill of sale dated May 1, 2024. The travel trailer, this is an unpermitted vehicle on the property with no license plates and an unidentifiable owner. However, our evidence shows it has been situated on site since Mr. Clifford took title to the main building, making him the likely owner. Owner. Regarding formal notifications, the Notice of Dangerous Building Hearing was officially recorded in the Androscoggin County Registry of Deeds on May 14, 2026, under book 12095, page 234. Personal service was successfully completed via the sheriff's office to the building owner on May 13. Service was executed on the building occupants via physical posting on May 14. A formal waiver of service was signed by the Landowners Legal Council on May 15. Furthermore, notices regarding the travel trailer hearing were properly served on May 22. You'll also see there was an additional exhibit. H-2 was placed on your desks tonight, showing that there was receipt of service as of yesterday for the landowner for that trailer. So what are we seeking? Tonight, our department is asking the city council to adopt the formal findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order prepared by staff. Specifically, we are seeking a multi-part action. First, to ratify the emergency order to secure the unpermitted travel trailer on the property. Second, to order the immediate demolition and removal of both the trailer and the main structure, residential building. And third, to authorize the recovery of all city expenses via a special tax assessment or collection action. Now, we'd like to quickly talk about the travel trailer conditions. Let's first look at the unpermitted Shasta travel trailer parked on the lot. This structure easily meets four out of the five core requirements of the dangerous building statute. Our inspection revealed the following severe deficiencies. It has a lack of utilities. The trailer was absolute, has absolutely no running water and no means of disposing of human waste. The structural exposure, every single window has been completely smashed out, leaving the interior entirely exposed to weather and water damage. Excuse me. There are sanitation sinks. The interior is in a state of extreme filth, chalk with trash and debris. Worse, our team documented raw sewage actively leaking onto the ground directly underneath the travel trailer. There is an extreme fire hazard. The vehicle was drawing electrical power via an exposed cord attached with bare, raw wires which were spliced into the extension cord running back into the main property of the garage. I just want to pause really quick to address a point. I know it's been brought up in the past when we had buildings where there was fire hazards. We want to make sure we get with CNP to pull the power, to turn the power off to mitigate the electrical fire risks. In modern reality, at unsafe encampments such as this, there's a false sense of security with that. During this specific site visit, a resident that came out of the travel trailer explicitly informed me that they utilize portable gasoline generators and battery bank solar generators for power. With a simple YouTube search, anyone can find instructions to illegally wire these alternative power sources to ungrounded compromised structures. Splicing high current battery systems or portable generators into bare unexposed wire creates an incredibly volatile fire hazard that exists entirely independent of the commercial power grid. Cutting utility power does not fix this. Removing the hazard entirely is the only option. Emergency measures taken because these raw live wires and toxic sanitation failures pose an immediate undeniable threat to human life and safety, I exercised my statutory authority to issue the emergency prompt action determination on May 20, 2026. Four occupants who admitted they were living inside the trailer were safely evacuated and given time to clear their personal belongings. Public works immediately stepped in to secure the vehicle from unauthorized entry, and a formal prohibited occupancy notice was posted directly to the structure itself. Moving now to the primary single-family residence, this structure checks every single one of the five major criteria under the dangerous building statute. It is entirely unsafe, unstable, unsanitary, and dangerous to life. The structure integrity of this building has been completely collapsed. As you're looking at the slide here talking about the foundation failure, this home sits on a wooden foundation where the sills and framing have suffered extensive unmaintained rot. The massive hole has formed in the foundation wall. It was made worse by an amateur excavation project around the exterior that leaves the opening foundation entirely vulnerable to water and freezing elements. From the inside basement view, the foundation wall is bulging heavily and has structurally failed. The center support beam is entirely unengineered and improperly supported. Water actively runs into the exposed basement eroding the dirt floor and undermining what little stability remains. Because the foundation is dropped, the rest of the house is actively tearing itself apart. The exterior side walls are visibly bowing outward, the roof fascia is buckling, and the main roof ridgeline is actively collapsing inward. As you can see from the circled images there, I'd like to talk quickly about the electrical hazards. The internal electrical systems mirrored the severe structural neglect. Throughout the property, we documented extensive instances of unmaintained, improperly installed and exposed wiring left completely raw. Just as we see with the travel trailer, the thread of fire here cannot be engineered away by pulling the meter. The presence of secondary ungrounded electrical setups combined with structurally compromised walls and exposed framing makes this entire building an extreme fire and safety hazard that must be permanently removed. Finally, the internal sanitary conditions are completely unlivable and present an active public health hazard. Municipal water service to 70 River Street was officially disconnected back in October of 2025. Without running water, the home's plumbing and waste removal systems are totally non-functional. Predictably, the occupants resorted to illicit disposal methods. Human waste and animal waste were found scattered openly across the living room areas floors. The bathtubs are backed up and filled with a thick stagnant pool of waste and debris. These extreme sanitation failures create an immediate biological hazard and render the structure entirely unsuitable for residential occupancy. In conclusion, severe long-term lack of maintenance has left both structures structurally unstable, profoundly unsanitary and an immediate threat to the neighborhood and public safety. They cannot be safely rehabilitated. Therefore, we formally request that the city council approve our findings and issue the proposed order to execute the following four items. Number one, that you ratify and adopt my May 20th 2026 emergency prompt action determination to secure the travel trailer. Number two, order the owners or signs to immediately ensure the travel trailer remains completely sealed and secure from any unauthorized entry. Number three, order the owners, successors or signs to demolish both the travel trailer and the primary residential building, clear all resulting debris and safely stabilize the site within 30 days of the service of this order. Please note that the per the explicit language of this order, this timeline will only be delayed if a formal legally viable rehabilitation plan is submitted to my office. The Approval of which remains entirely in my sole discretion based on their demo demonstrated ability to perform the rehabilitation, and number four, order full reimbursement to the city of Lewiston for all administrative, legal, and demolish and demolition costs within 30 days of demand. If the owner fails to reimburse the city, the order authorizes us to assess a special tax directly against the real estate to recover every penny on behalf of the taxpayers. Before I open the floor, I don't, I want to emphasize that Building Inspector Travis Tardiff has spent countless hours on the ground in this property alone. He is the absolute expert on this specific physical and structural layout of these buildings. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, counselors. That concludes the department's presentation. If the council has any questions on the building, Inspector Travis Tardiff and I are here to answer any [4:53:43] Carl L. Sheline: questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you very much, Director Connor. Thank you very much, Travis. So yes, we will entertain questions. Specifically about the property. I want to remind councillors that there'll be a time for deliberation about what to do later. [4:53:59] Joshua L. Nagine: Councillor Nagine: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, just a curiosity. We don't have an ordinance in place concerning travel trailers not being registered and being on property. I know we're treating this as like a doma style, I guess, and I'm just kind of questioning why? [4:54:16] John Featherstone: Well, we do have an ordinance on the books that doesn't allow people to live in them. But this one has been on the property for some years now. It was originally just being stored there. I believe Travis had given the original owner at one point time there were people in there getting them out. They came into compliance. Once this building started being occupied by transients, if you will, they moved the trailer over into the normal driveway and just started living in it. And so at that point in time we treat it as a as a structured domicile. Okay. Thank you. [4:54:51] Scott A. Harriman: Council Airman: Have you been in contact with the owner and does he have any plans for the property or does he, is he just gonna? Let it go or I don't know if you've had any contact. So [4:55:04] John Featherstone: We have not had direct contact with the owner. We have received the return of service. The owner was incarcerated in the local county jail. We did follow up to find out. He is in contact with members on the outside. At our last inspection, there was a resident there who told us that he had spoken with the owner and that he was due to come out of jail soon. He said two weeks. I confirmed with the sheriff department yesterday that asking if he wasn't in fact released he said no we did a little bit more research and found out that the owner has been he's been moved to state prison and is there for at least a year that we know of okay thank you [4:55:55] David B. Chittim: Councilor Chiddom thank you this property is the real estate is owned by Franklin Company and does Franklin Company have any liability we talk about recovering costs if we have to demolish the building and so on is there legal precedent for Franklin Company to [4:56:11] John Featherstone: be liable for those costs yes and I before I answer I'll defer to attorney Carrie the [4:56:20] Unidentified speaker: statute that sets forth payment of payment of costs allows for the assessment of a special tax against the property I think kind of historically I think this city has gotten somewhere around 50 percent plus or minus of those costs it also allows for civil action against the owners here the Franklin properties you point out is the owner of the land and the building is owned by somebody else those that statutes says that the taxes are assessed to the property on the real estate on which the building was located so that in this case would cover frankly thank you [4:57:00] Carl L. Sheline: Further questions for our team up here any anything further from YouTube I guess are we ready to close the record the record is now closed thank you [4:57:19] David B. Chittim: Madam Clerk item number two with regard to the property at 70 River Street to adopt the findings of fact conclusions of law and order proposed by the city planning and code enforcement department which order established the corrective action to be taken by the property owner and the time frame for taking such action and which authorized the city administrator to take such corrective action if the property owner fails to do so and to recoup the city's costs through a [4:57:46] Unidentified speaker: special tax or collective action I have a motion please so moved [4:57:52] Carl L. Sheline: Councillor Chittim second by Councillor Martel deliberation from councillors [4:58:00] Susan G. Longchamps: Councillor Longchamps, thank you mayor. I would just say the building definitely speaks for itself. It's definitely a danger, and thank you for all your work that you guys do to help make our city safe. Anything [4:58:17] Unidentified speaker: anything further? Mr. Carey, clerk, please call the vote. Yes,, thank [4:58:34] Carl L. Sheline: you to our planning code department. Thank you Mr. Carey. Thank you madam clerk. [4:58:42] David B. Chittim: I'm number 14, item 14, resolution to censure city councillor Scott Harriman of Ward 3. Request an action to adopt the resolution to censure City Councilor [4:58:52] Unidentified speaker: Scott Harriman of Ward 3. I have a motion, please [4:58:55] Carl L. Sheline: don't move. Councillor Chittim, second thing by Councillor Martel. Councillor Harriman, yes, thank [4:59:03] Scott A. Harriman: you. Just one moment. So what I want to name before getting to the specifics is the pattern of this behavior over the past several months. This council has responded to misconduct in ways that do not track with any consistent standard. Ongoing behavior that is loud and documented is met with silence or shrugs. Other behavior has been met with the swiftest and most severe response available. The question I keep coming back to is not whether any individual decision was right or wrong. It is what standard, if any, is actually guiding which issues we treat seriously and which are just waved along. Because from where I'm sitting, it's pretty clear that this is not about enforcing the rules, running an efficient meeting, or getting the needs of our community met. It's just petty and dysfunctional sniping. Real leaders would have a hard conversation with any single one of us about our behavior if that behavior is not meeting the standard of the entire council. I want to make sure people are aware of the timeline of events surrounding this agenda item. This alleged infraction took place a few weeks ago, yet mayor Chalene and Councillor Chittim have still not said one word about it to me, and I only found out about it when I read the agenda for tonight's meeting. Why wouldn't mayor Chalene or Councillor Chittim talk to me about their supposed concerns? I still don't know what was allegedly said. I re-watched the meeting several times and could not find anything. Going straight to the most severe Type of punishment without even communicating your concern is not how discipline or leadership is supposed to work. I'm also aware that the mayor shopped this resolution around to at least one other counselor to see if they wanted to be the one to bring it forward. Does that show an effort to make us work together better and to serve our constituents better, or is it a negotiation to see who wants to score points? The mayor also called my statehouse campaign manager last week to give him a heads up about this resolution and these allegations, but he still has not communicated with me about it. What does that tell you about the motivation behind it? A few months ago another counselor used obscene language on Mike quite loudly and no action was taken. At a different meeting the same counselor loudly trash talked on mic an applicant to the vacant city council seat, again no action was taken. The council president and I have discussed multiple times one counselor's years long and ongoing harassment and sexual harassment of another counselor, but counselor Chittum acted totally uninterested and has taken no action. It has been very challenging to continue to try to ignore this behavior, which has included this counselor sending messages such as, how bad does your ass hurt in the morning? And just because you like to get fucked doesn't mean that the rest of Lewiston feels the same way. Same counselor has also made comments about his perception of the intellectual capacity and the mental health of another counselor. Comments that include, do you intentionally try to appear clueless and incapable of critical thought? Or is it just a side effect of your inferior intellect? And he is just a delusional ideologue with very limited intelligence. This has also spread to at least one other counselor who has spread rumors about her opinions on this counselor's mental health and well-being. If she actually cared she would talk to that counselor about that, which she has not done. We're not going to censure the counselor who is using valuable city resources against a segment of our community based on their religion. We're Not going to censure the counselor who continues to stalk and harass another counselor, including slowly driving by them with their phone out the window taking pictures or video of them, especially, and this is concerning, after sending them a message saying, I hope that a random bullet does not find you when you cross the street. But we're going to leap to the most severe punishment possible with no prior conversation for somebody maybe saying a bad word that nobody seems to have heard. I've been frustrated by the way some of our recent work has been conducted. It's been challenging to do this work when city administration shares information selectively or not at all. Different counselors do not receive information on the same time frame, which makes it very difficult to do the jobs we were elected to do, which is to represent our constituents. When we don't get information at all, or when we get it a few minutes or a few hours before a meeting, that's not how good thoughtful policy is made. Ultimately though, none of this is about any one of us up here. It's about the thousands of Lewiston residents who are being denied full representation when the people they chose to represent them are shut out of the process. We all up here are trying to advocate for our neighbors, but that's hard or nearly impossible when some counselors keep getting sidelined over petty grudges. I thinking of the people who want to know what their tax bill is going to be after the revaluation, what steps are being taken to address violence happening in their backyard, or even just whether they can use bigger or smaller trash cans under the new system. When city administration doesn't share information or refuses to answer constituent questions, point of order, DOESN'T JUST AFFECT US PERSONALLY AS CITY COUNCILORS, IT DISEMPOWERS HUGE SEGMENTS OF THE PEOPLE WE ARE ALL HERE TO SERVE. [5:05:18] Bret Martel: WHAT'S YOUR POINT OF ORDER? UM COUNCILOR MARTELL. I'M JUST WONDERING IF THIS IS GERMANE. IT'S NOT THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR OR THE DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION THAT'S ON THIS AGENDA ITEM RIGHT NOW. [5:05:28] Carl L. Sheline: THANK YOU COUNCIL MARTELL. PLEASE CONTINUE COUNCILOR HERMAN. IT DOESN'T JUST AFFECT US [5:05:34] Scott A. Harriman: PERSONALLY AS CITY COUNCILORS, IT DISEMPOWERS HUGE SEGMENTS OF THE PEOPLE WE ARE ALL HERE TO SERVE. Their tax dollars are what pay the salaries of everyone here, and they should expect to receive the same level of service in exchange for those taxes. In the end, this resolution is really just a waste of our time as a council, time that we could be spending finding ways to increase economic development and grow our tax base, working to make housing more affordable, figuring out how to stop kids from getting a hold of guns and shooting each other, improving our image and how people view us as a city or any number of other things that would help move Lewiston forward and make it a better place for the people who live here. That's what every single one of us sitting up here should be working toward, and that's where we need to shift our focus back to, counselor. [5:06:26] Susan G. Longchamps: Long champs. Thank you, mayor. Thank you, councillor Harriman, for sharing hearing. And I would like to apologize. The she you were talking about is me. When you mentioned about mental health, there have been some concerning times, situations that I have been concerned with certain behaviors from you that I had never seen. So I apologize. I apologize for not being the bigger person, because that's not typically my character. Usually I go right to the person and say it. But I just didn't feel comfortable doing that with you, and I apologize for making you feel that way. I will say, as our council president and our mayor, as a leader, you have failed if it is actually true that you did not go to Mr. Harriman and discuss this. As our council president and our mayor, you should have. I'm not saying that we should dismiss what has happened. There are times that I myself interrupt other counselors. I may speak out of line at times, but from my understanding, we're here today because of foul language. That our council president contacted me on Monday, yesterday, and made me aware that several folks reach out, reached out to him with Counselor Harriman's foul language that they heard him. And he asked me if I, in fact, heard the same thing. I did. So that's why we're here. Not because of me, but because of what the complaints were. For those reasons, if those are reasons to censure someone, then I would have to vote in favor for that. But I would also say to our council president and our mayor, you know, shame on you guys for not bringing this up to him. I had no idea that you guys didn't. And that's not good leadership. Thank you. [5:09:03] Carl L. Sheline: Sorry, Councilor Najing. [5:09:07] Joshua L. Nagine: I would just like to say that ultimately, I think we all failed at certain points. We all certainly kept can and can do better and have done worse and ultimately I'm hoping that at some point here we can get to a point where we're showing basic level of respect to each other and in working as a body not quite sure when that happens. But hopefully soon. And I was I was right here. I did not hear the swear. But I mean that does not mean it doesn't didn't happen. I also heard for individuals in public comment swearing today it's a you know if we're gonna send your folks I would like to send your folks for reasons other than losing their temper, that's all. [5:10:20] Carl L. Sheline: Counselor Longchamps, did you have something else? [5:10:23] Susan G. Longchamps: Sorry, I would just like to add that with everything that I said, there is a certain professionalism that we do have to display up here also. Thank you. [5:10:38] Bret Martel: Counselor Martell, back to you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I think it is important to point out that public comment is very different from an elected official sitting up here on the dais and the behaviors that are expected from us. I absolutely have called out my concerns to the mayor and to council leadership about the ongoing and relentless and worsening behavior that we're seeing up here by Councillor Harriman. I did hear the swear words. I have sat on this dais for a short period of time and during that time I have witnessed behaviors that make me think this censure is long overdue. This is this noted incident was far from the first time just since I've been on this council that I have seen this type of behavior we have witnessed him spoke speak repeatedly out of order. He spoke over speakers at public comment while being while the mayor hammered the gavel and repeatedly admonished him and he continues to speak over we've here to heard him speak over other councillors as you've admonished him and pounded the gavel Mr. Mayor we've heard him speak over other councillors repeatedly and ongoingly this is not an isolated incident this is not a once-off someone lost their temper this has become an escalating behavior that has continued to go unchecked and because it goes unchecked it continues to get worse it is an embarrassment for the city to watch this happen during our meetings over and over again and it doesn't matter who he's willing to disrespect it's you Mr. Mayor, it's his fellow colleagues on here in the dais, it's the public who come to speak at the podium. This is Council Harriman standard operating procedure. What is also his standard operating procedure is his willingness to deflect... any kind of scrutiny away from his behavior. I know that some of the comments he made tonight and some of the things that he quoted or about me in, I can tell you that I've been on this council for a few months in the comments that were referenced worked from when I was a city councilor. So if you want to dig down into the social media past of everybody sitting on this dais and hold them accountable for everything they may or may not have said for years prior to when they were councillors, everyone's going to be censured for something at some point. What we're here to do is to hold councillors responsible for the behavior on the dais in open meeting as an elected official. And there has been an absolute lack of that. I called for this censure weeks ago, I called on council leadership to do something about the ongoing and escalating behaviors. I called out an even greater list than is on this agenda right now that I thought were behaviors that warranted censure. I repeatedly was assured by you, Mr. Mayor, that you would reach back out to me about my concerns, and you haven't. Those emails still remain in the thread that haven't been responded to after assuring me that you would contact me. I have had a number of concerns about both the behavior and the treatment, the behavior of Councillor Harriman and his treatment of staff and the accusations that are made about counselors getting information at different times, again not relevant at all to this agenda item, just more and more things trying to deflect from the fact that he doesn't want to take ownership of his own behaviors and that if he wants to sit up here and tell us how should we be acting as a council and what leadership looks like, I can assure you that's not what it looks like, it's not what the example he's leading by. So whether this censure goes through or not, I'm just glad that you know we get to address this behavior and it's very much long overdue and if we don't do something about this we need to continue to expect it, we need to expect it to continue and to worsen and I don't see any other indication that this has corrected itself on its own it's getting worse not better and you know I 'm not sure how many centuries we should let him stack up before we escalate the next potential possibility I mean if this is how he's gonna choose after already repeated censures a third one coming now and it doesn't even address the list of issues that I sent to you know at what point are we just encouraging or endorsing this behavior if we if we don't do something about it so I would absolutely encourage to encourage my colleagues to vote for this [5:15:36] Carl L. Sheline: censure a couple of things here so according to our it's either our council rules or charter perhaps counselor chidam can correct me if i'm wrong we actually can't censure counselors for behavior outside of meetings so it we can only you know hold people accountable for what happens in meeting so if something happens you know tomorrow out on the sidewalk you know well yeah we there's no there's no mechanism to address that or maybe even before they were accounts I'm sorry you 've not been recognized, yes, and so that needs to be, that needs to be understood. And then, yes, I did not reach out to Councillor Harriman. You know, we, and let me back up a second. So we are here specifically because he used an expletive in the direction of a fellow councillor. It wasn't just, you know, he had directed it at a fellow councillor. And for me, that was just, you know, kind of completely unwarranted. It wasn't just about the situation was directed at a counselor, and we absolutely should be better than that. And then, yes, I did not contact Counselor Herrman. COUNSELOR HERRMAN'S BEHAVIOR HAS HAD A MARKED DECREASE OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS. I'VE KNOWN COUNSELOR HERRMAN FOR A LONG TIME, AND UNFORTUNATELY, HE'S BECOME INCREASELY COMBATIVE, AND I'VE BEEN ON PHONE CALLS WITH COUNSELOR HERRMAN WHERE IT'S ONLY BEEN US, RIGHT? And no one else was on, I assume no one else was on the other side of the phone calls, and there haven't been cameras and counselors listening in the, and so on and so forth, and I've had to de-escalate those phone calls because they were, you know, they were heating up. And so what was said was said. Council Harem is not credible when he says that he doesn't remember what he said. Multiple people heard it, people up here, people sitting over there, people sitting in the audience heard it. I understand that It's not being picked up by our mics, and that's because the human ear is incredibly more sensitive than the mics that IT has given us. And, yeah, so that's, I think I've addressed most of the points at this point. Councillor Chittim, you have not weighed in. Would you care to do so? [5:18:18] David B. Chittim: NOT PARTICULARLY, BUT I WAS CHALLENGED FOR FAILING IN LEADERSHIP BY NOT CONTACTING COUNSELOR HERRMAN ON THIS ISSUE. I HAVE SPOKEN ONE-ON-ONE WITH COUNSELOR HERRMAN ON MANY OCCASIONS, AND EACH ONE OF THOSE OCCASIONS HAS MET WITH ABSOLUTELY NO PROGRESS. These have been private conversations one-on-one, and I have failed singularly in trying to influence any of the behavior that pattern of reaching out and talking one-on-one with Councillor Harriman has convinced me that there was no point to. That I'm sorry, Councillor Harriman, I did not want to bring this up in public, but Councillor Longchamps rightfully claimed that I should have contacted you. My past history in talking with you about issues convinced me that was not a viable option, so that's That's my explanation back to you, Councillor Harriman. Thank you. I will note that [5:19:26] Scott A. Harriman: Councillor Chittim and I have not spoken about this. We have spoken many times about my concern about treatment from other counselors, which he has not addressed. It is also false for you to claim that I directed an expletive at another counselor. That is incorrect. I don't do that, and I wouldn't do that, and the fact that nobody can name what was apparently said, the fact that the microphone a few inches in front of my face couldn't pick it up, it just it FURTHER SPEAKS TO THIS. [5:20:09] Carl L. Sheline: WE ARE HEADING TO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THIS AGENDA ITEM. [5:20:27] Adam Jones: GOOD EVENING, ADAM JONES, WARD TWO. FIRST AND FOREMOST, IF THE BODY IS NOT WORKING TOGETHER, THE BEST WAY TO TAKE CARE OF THAT IS LOOK AT THE HEAD. IF IT IS NOT WORKING, JUST CHOP IT OFF. MAYBE THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN. ANYWAY, MY NAME IS ADAM JONES. MAYBE YOU COULD SAY I AM CARL'S REPLACEMENT AT SOME POINT. I AM JUST HERE TONIGHT TO SUPPORT THE RESOLUTION TO essential council Councillor Harriman what I'll just be clear this vote is not about politics it's not about whether you're a Democrat a Republican a conservative or a progressive it's about standards it's about that mission statement it's about being excellent every person who sits on this council was elected to represent the people of Lewiston that includes me that includes all these people out here with that responsibility comes an Obligation to conduct yourself professionally, respectfully, and transparently. The issue before us tonight is not one isolated mistake. It's gone on and on and on. If this censure is approved, it will be the third formal censure of Councillor Harriman. Three censures. Not one, not two, three. That alone should concern every taxpayer in this city. At some point we have to stop asking whether there is a pattern and start acknowledging that there is one. The allegations before this council involve interrupting another councillor, disregarding council rules, and allegedly using obscene language towards another councillor in an official workshop. Whether emotions run high is completely irrelevant. Happens to the best of us. Every resident sitting in this chamber is expected to maintain basic civility. We should expect at least that from our elected officials, and I think some of you do a great job of that, but this goes beyond the decorum. Lewiston has faced enormous challenges in the recent years. We've dealt with tragedy, economic uncertainty, public safety concerns, housing issues, and a growing lack of confidence in government. What our city needs right now is leadership that inspires trust, not leadership that repeatedly creates controversy. You're the laughingstock. You got a head clown right there. It's it's not funny anymore. Public office is a privilege, not an entitlement. When residents see repeated censures, repeated investigations, repeated headlines, and repeated controversy, they begin to lose faith, not only in one councillor, but the institution itself. Tonight's vote is a test for all of you. Will the city council enforce its own standards, or will it signal that repeated misconduct carries no meaningful consequences. I believe accountability matters here, and I believe transparency matters. Harriman, you know what you said. Why don't we get the deaf community in here, the very community that you guys thank you, thank you, Carl, have a great night. [5:23:40] Andrew Jones: Andrew Jones, war two. So just to recap, we've got a third censure now for the same counselor. His first censure was for misusing the media to slander his peers on the council. His second censure was for using a third-party app to have clandestine communications with people outside the council and potentially discuss business and breaking laws. And now here we are with this censure for unprofessionalism on the dais. And I'm just gonna say it, you don't want to get into a cursing match with Counselor Longchamp. She can swear better than you and make sense at the same time. But yeah, on top of all of that, this is the same asshole who sent police to my house to try and censor me, to have me cited for harassment. That's not good leadership. That's just petty vindictiveness. First, for just being right here and exercising my First Amendment right. Never met him outside the council, with the exception of the night he got elected to District 94 Main House of Representatives. And yes, speaking of leadership, he's got me illegally blocked on social media. How's that for representation but yeah it's his third censure it sounds like a good chunk of you people support it so i hope you see it through and lastly as far as centers are concerned we need to see some real penalties for this is his third one like does he get a punch card does he get something after 10 I'm just curious how that works. I think it's time to look at some real penalties, such as maybe stripping him of his school council appointment or, I don't know, not letting him vote or, hell, just go with the moral interpreted and remove him from the council. Do something, because this is not getting anywhere. [5:25:56] Lisa Jones: Hi, everyone. Ward 2 and District 94. I had not planned on speaking on this agenda item because Andrew had, I knew he was going to cover what I wanted to say. But I took some notes while you were talking. As Scott began his prepared statement, I was agreeing with what he was saying. I can definitely agree that the council is inconsistent with how it applies consequences to its members. But the longer Scott went on, it became clear that he was mixing up timelines of things and that he was shirking responsibility and trying to deflect from his own actions. Scott, everyone in this community who witnesses you is concerned for your mental health. I don't know you. I've never spoken to you, and I have seen you unraveling for the last 18 months. Tonight was the first time I've heard you mention gunfire. It takes them threatening to censure you for you to talk about the problems in your ward. You have me illegally blocked on social media because you don't like what I have to say. I have never harassed you. That's a lie. You can't change the definition of words. It is not true that you can only censure people for meeting behavior. I checked with Kathy because of what Chrissy chose to do the other day. She needs a censure. I'm more concerned with Scott talking over you while you bang the gavel than whatever swear he did or didn't say. He ignores you. He has no respect for you. He has no respect for anybody here. He has no respect for anybody who comes to this podium. He is not a representative. It's disgusting that he is mine in Augusta. If we had secure elections, he wouldn't be. That's a different topic. Let me get back to my notes. Let's see. Oh, remember the time that I was being appointed to the whatever committee that was probably never going to meet and Scott refused to appoint me even though it says shall because I spoke up for myself when I was being lied about in public yet he thinks his behavior is okay and he's on his third censure I just I'm really happy to see you guys having a public conversation about this because it's been an elephant in the room so what however the vote goes tonight it doesn't matter a censure doesn't matter what matters is how you represent people and you suck at it further [5:28:29] Carl L. Sheline: public comment back to the council councillor Herman thank you I [5:28:39] Scott A. Harriman: guess I have to come back to what our standards are and when they're enforced does everyone who potentially speaks out of turn get censured does everyone WHO MAYBE TALKS OVER ANOTHER COUNSELOR GETS CENSURED. WE'VE SEEN SEVERAL INSTANCES ALREADY TONIGHT. I'M NOT SAYING THAT THEY SHOULD GET CENSURED. I'M JUST ASKING, WHAT ARE THE STANDARDS, AND ARE WE GOING TO ENFORCE THEM EVENLY? [5:29:20] Carl L. Sheline: COUNSELOR LONGCHAMPS, YES. THANK YOU, MAYOR. [5:29:24] Susan G. Longchamps: AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S REALLY EVEN ANY POINT TO ME SAYING THIS, BUT IF I COULD ASK council herriman i mean do you acknowledge that you have you please direct your for the purpose of this agenda and please direct your question to the mayor i would ask if counselor harriman would acknowledge that night does do you remember swearing or anything that you said Anything that he said, does he remember that? Will he acknowledge that? Will he acknowledge that when you were slamming down your, whatever it's called, he continued to talk out of line? Yes. There are counselors, including myself, that sometimes do talk over each other. But when the mayor slams his, what is that thing called? A gavel, the gavel, you should stop. Do you acknowledge, or can you ask Council Harriman if he acknowledges that he was out of line that night? I have not had a conversation with him, so just wondering if he takes any accountability for it. I [5:30:51] Carl L. Sheline: guess. Thank you. I'm sorry, were you finished? Anything further from anyone else? [5:31:06] Susan G. Longchamps: Can you ask him? [5:31:08] Carl L. Sheline: Sorry. Council Longchamps, did you have something else? [5:31:12] Susan G. Longchamps: YES. I'M WONDERING IF WE COULD ASK COUNCILOR HERRAMAN IF HE WOULD BE WILLING TO SPEAK UPON WHAT HE'S BEING CENSURED ABOUT. NOT ANYTHING ELSE THAT HE'S WRITTEN UP, WHICH ARE GOOD, VALID POINTS. AND I'M GLAD HE'S BEEN ABLE TO EXPRESS HIMSELF. but we're here tonight because of the foul language that he used and I'm just wondering if he would be willing to Admit or deny it [5:31:40] Carl L. Sheline: Thank You councillor long champs Councilor Harriman has already Responded to that question before and unless he raises his hand. We're not going to Yeah Further questions comments from council [5:32:00] David B. Chittim: Yeah, all right, Madam Clerk, please call the vote. Yes, no, yes, no, if we [5:32:26] Carl L. Sheline: can have it quiet in the gallery, please. Thank you. I'm number 15. [5:32:29] Scott A. Harriman: I would like to ask when the other behaviors that I mentioned would be addressed by council leadership. I'm getting quite concerned, especially with the comment about we need to take the next step, because censure is the most severe punishment that a counselor can get. So I'm concerned about the ongoing harassment and threats from a particular counselor, and as you see, they continue. Counselor, we're still currently in the middle of [5:33:05] Carl L. Sheline: our agenda. We'll be happy to take this up during new business. Madam Clerk, I'm [5:33:09] David B. Chittim: number 15. I don't ever 15. Order authorizing the use of $80,000 opioid settlement funds at the recommendation of the Lewiston Area Public Health Committee to fund service organizations and their ability to increase needed programming or creating new programs to combat substance use disorder in our community. Requested action: to approve the order authorizing the use of eighty thousand dollars in opioid settlement funds at the recommendation of the Lewiston Area Public Health Committee to fund Service organizations in their ability to increase needed programming or creating new programs to combat substance use disorder in our community. I have a motion, please. So move. [5:33:51] Carl L. Sheline: Councilor Chittim, seconded by Councilor Nagine. Discussion? Councilor Nagine, yes. [5:33:58] Joshua L. Nagine: Yeah, so I said on the Public Health Committee there are five proposals that were put forward. The one, the two that we're funding or we're requesting that you approve funding for Durago Health Partners and Central Maine Community Health, formerly known as Healthy Anderskagen. The one thing I wanted to point out is the dear go health partners request was originally $80,000 and the money that has set aside for these grants is $80,000 and so there were three programs that we felt were worthy of funding. The dear go health partners program is rapid response program towards recovery. It is focused on getting folks who are in active addiction onto alternative substances quickly while stabilizing them. And so it's a model that is not harm reduction, which we funded in the past. This is more of a direct piece. Piece and so we do have the ability as counsel to approve the full 80,000 for this request as well as the 19 300 for Central Maine Community Health and I just wanted to put that forward for everybody to know we have the funding that we have in the opioid recovery funds is discretionary to the council so As long as there's funding available, so I wanted to put that forward as a consideration. I'm not gonna make a motion for it. Somebody else wants to make a motion for it. I would love it, but I'm also fine with [5:35:49] Carl L. Sheline: Would not Councilor longchamp, I'll make the motion. Do we have a second? [5:35:59] Unidentified speaker: Second did you catch all that madam clerk? I apologize. I did not mr. Mayor [5:36:08] Joshua L. Nagine: THE REQUEST IS TO FUND THE DEER GOAL HEALTH PARTNERS AT THE FULL AMOUNT OF $80,000 AND THE CENTRAL MAIN COMMUNITY HEALTH GRANT AT $19,300. SO THAT MAKES IT 99,300 AS THE AWARD AS OPPOSED TO $800,000. THANK YOU. [5:36:31] Carl L. Sheline: COUNCILOR CHIDDOM. A QUESTION. [5:36:34] David B. Chittim: DEER GOAL HEALTH PARTNERS REQUESTED $80,000. Did they, in their request, did they indicate how this money was going to be used? And if I could finish the question. And further, did they indicate that $60,700 would be well received? [5:36:55] Joshua L. Nagine: Yeah, they indicated that this was startup costs for opioid replacement. DRUGS ON HAND DURING RAPID RESPONSE FOR IN-USE CRISIS. THEY DID INDICATE THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO FUNCTION WITH WHATEVER AWARD COULD POSSIBLY BE GIVEN, BUT THAT OBVIOUSLY HAVING AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVE DRUGS FULLY FUNDED FOR THE INITIAL there's a part that I have to bring up here. These models going forward function off of that health care right, like you're actually able to charge for the services to replace. But this is the way that they're doing some of their street outreach in order to get people into recovery services, so yes, they'd be able to function on the 60 700, but that would mean that they would have less available replacement therapies on hand [5:38:13] David B. Chittim: Yes counselor, thank you. If I could ask director Roy what the [5:38:17] Unidentified speaker: value of the opioid settlement fund is currently. So currently there's 710 194.67 with a purchase order for 149,000 964 for prior approvals that haven't yet not expended, so that leaves a balance of five hundred and sixty thousand two thirty. Thank You [5:38:41] David B. Chittim: Director public [5:38:45] Carl L. Sheline: comment back to the council. Madam clerk, please call our [5:38:51] Joshua L. Nagine: counselor on aging. One of the things I just point out as well as that when we have these opioid recovery funds, they're replenished over time, they keep coming. WHAT IS NOT HAPPENING IS, WELL, I'M NOT SAYING IT'S NOT HAPPENING, BUT IF WE SIT ON THESE FUNDS, WE STILL HAVE AN OPIOID CRISIS IN OUR COMMUNITY. [5:39:16] Carl L. Sheline: MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL, SORRY, COUNSELOR LONGCHAMP, [5:39:19] Susan G. Longchamps: DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? I WOULD JUST LIKE TO STATE FOR THE RECORD, I DON'T BELIEVE WE EVER SIT ON THOSE FUNDS. I THINK THEY'RE USUALLY SPENT. THANK YOU. [5:39:32] Scott A. Harriman: COUNCILOR IRONMAN, YES. DO WE CURRENTLY HAVE A BALANCE OF THESE FUNDS RIGHT NOW? [5:39:37] Carl L. Sheline: director roy there's [5:39:41] Unidentified speaker: current balance after the encumbrances that were approved for 2026 of 560 000 230. Currently just a reminder, the psi workers for fiscal year 27 will also be taken out of that [5:39:57] Carl L. Sheline: portion. Okay thank you. Councillor Roy, did you have something? No, okay, all right. Madam clerk, if you can please, do you have something or not, counselor Roy? Oh punch you up here. Madam clerk, please call the call the vote for the amendment and then proceed to the vote for the main motion so the [5:40:25] David B. Chittim: vote before you is for the amendment which again is to change the dollar amount for the dear ago health partners from sixty thousand seven hundred to 80,000 counselor from word four yes word five yes word six yes word seven no word one yes word two yes word three yes motion passed by vote of six to one and now the motion before you mr mayor to approve the recommendation from the health committee with the amendment just approved Councillor from Ward 4? Yes. Ward 5? Yes. Ward 6? Yes. Ward 7? No. Ward 1? Yes. Ward 2? Yes. [5:41:05] Carl L. Sheline: Ward 3? Yes. Motion passed by a vote of 6 to 1. Thank you very much, Madam Clerk. Item number 16. [5:41:10] David B. Chittim: Item number 16, order proposing amendments to the Lewiston City Charter, article 2, subsection 6.07, council action on budget. Requested action to approve the order proposing amendments to the Lewiston City Charter, article 2, sub Subsection 607, Council Action on Budget. [5:41:26] Carl L. Sheline: Madam Motion, please. So moved. Councilor Chittim. Second. Seconded by Councilor Nijing. Discussion? [5:41:33] David B. Chittim: Councilor Chittim. This is another one of these picky little corrections to an error that crept into the city charter when amendments were made and the subsequent sections weren't properly renumbered. This is one of those things that we can pick away at. These will all appear on the ballot in November. I would hope that the council in the meantime would be giving serious consideration to approving and a request for a Charter Commission, and I would further hope that if that Charter Commission passes counsel and goes to the voters in November that they also be provided with a slate of candidates who have expressed an interest in serving on THAT CHARTER COMMISSION. THESE ARE LITTLE HOUSEKEEPING DEALS. THEY DO NOT OBVIATE THE NEED FOR A THOROUGH REVIEW OF THE CITY CHARTER. THANK YOU, COUNCILOR CHIDDOM. COUNCILOR NAJING, HERE [5:42:31] Carl L. Sheline: OKAY, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT. WHEN [5:42:36] Unidentified speaker: YOU ALL THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO GET A FREE NIGHT FROM ME, WE'RE FREE MORNING THE WAY THIS IS GOING, BUT ANYWAY, UH, AGAIN, UM, AT RORY, WARD 6. AS I'VE STATED previously, the solution to a piecemeal problem is not piecemealing it. At this point the November bout is going to be four pages because you're gonna have federal races, gubernatorial, legislative, municipal, and one, two, three or four potential Charter amendments, and to counselor the council president's point, You cannot, my understanding of state Law, to have a charter commission, you cannot simultaneously have an election of commissioners because the citizens would have to approve a calling a commission to trigger people to collect signatures. And counter children should be aware of this back from the late 2010s when we had the proposed merging of the city of two cities as one entity, and he was a commissioner then, so he should be aware of this. Thank you. Further public comment. [5:43:47] Carl L. Sheline: Back to the council. Madam Clerk, please call the vote. Yes. Yes. [5:43:59] David B. Chittim: Yes. Board 2? Yes. Board 3? Yes. Motion passed by Vote of 7-0. Item number 17. Item number 17. Order authorizing the use of up to $40,000 from the New England Clean Energy Connect Tax Increment Financing Account, Section 1. Requested action to approve the order authorizing use of up to $40,000 from the New England Clean Energy Connect Tax Increment Finance Account, Section 1. So moved. [5:44:27] Carl L. Sheline: May I make a motion, please? Second. What was that, Councillor Chittim? Yes. Second by Councillor Nagine. I guess director, acting director Blay will kick us off. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. This is [5:44:42] Unidentified speaker: really just, you know, really addressing a basically what we consider an act of God in terms of unforeseeable or uncontrolled event with a water main break. This is addressing damage specifically to six Diamond Court. We have about two million dollars that's been identified for environmental expenditures through the New England Clean Energy Connect. We didn't use last year's monies and we have this year's monies, and we touch base with the state of Maine at the Department of Economic and Community Development and they approved partial use of the environmental TIF funding for repair and placement costs of six Diamond Court under the section one within the municipality of the New England Clean Energy Connect approval letter that was dated in 2025. This is just a, I think, a creative way to address this issue. There was quite a bit of loss to one specific home and we're suggesting that we use some of that money for that [5:45:57] Carl L. Sheline: comes along. Wait, Administrator. [5:46:00] Bryan Kaenrath: Gainer yes thank you Mr Brown I just wanted to add my support for this. The homeowner of six time in court is here this evening. This was a very unique and particular circumstance the lead to the damage on this home. You'll see in the packet receipts were submitted by the PROPERTY OWNER FOR ESTIMATES FOR THE MAJOR DAMAGE THAT WAS INCURRED TO HIS HOME. THERE WERE OTHER DAMAGES ALSO THAT WERE NOT YOU KNOW STRUCTURAL OR MAJOR SYSTEMS OF THE HOME THAT HE HAS ALSO INCURRED BUT WE FEEL THIS IS ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THIS WATER MAIN BREAK AND THE DAMAGE TO THE HOME AT SIX TIMING COURT. SO I'M GLAD WE'RE ABLE TO FIND SOME FUNDING TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN. IT MAY HAVE TOOK A COUPLE WEEKS LONGER THAN WE would have liked but we appreciate everyone's patience and again i just want to add administration support for this item to rectify this issue. thank you thank you i agree i'm [5:46:55] Carl L. Sheline: glad we found a way to get this done counselor long champs yes briefly i would just like to [5:46:59] Susan G. Longchamps: share that i am very grateful that where administration was able to work with the homeowner and figure out a solution to the best that the city could and i'm i'm thankful for that [5:47:13] Bret Martel: and that's it counselor Martel Thank You mr. mayor I want to speak wearing two different hats right now. so as a human being and as a resident of Lewiston I empathize with your situation. I'm really glad that the administration was able to make this work. you are very deserving of it none of this was your fault. I'm very glad to see this happening for you. I hope you can improve your home back to [5:47:38] Carl L. Sheline: AT LEAST SOME STATE OF HOW IT WAS UH WE'LL HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT IN A FEW MINUTES ABSOLUTELY YES BUT UH BUT LET'S WAIT TILL THEN COUNCIL MARTELL PLEASE CONTINUE ABSOLUTELY UNRELATED TO YOUR [5:47:52] Bret Martel: SITUATION AND WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU AS A CITY COUNCILOR AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CITY OF LEWISTON AND ITS FUNDS I JUST FEAR THAT WE MIGHT BE SETTING A PRECEDENT AND opening a can of worms in the future where if we don't do this it I Just think it could be icky, but I'm very glad this is happening. I would support it if it came to a vote I just I wanted to put my concern on the record for the future and again I want to stipulate it has nothing to do with your situation or Everything that you've asked of the city and I'm really glad that you're gonna get the help that you need [5:48:30] Joshua L. Nagine: Councilor Nagy. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First, you certainly earned this money sitting through this meeting. I'm glad, I'm very, glad that our administration and staff was able to figure out a way to solve this issue. Ultimately, force majeure is a difficult situation. You think it's important that our city staff and our elected officials recognize and work with our residents especially when we're not necessarily at fault but I would say that we're absolutely at fault for delaying some of these repairs in our in our water system if we hadn't deferred maintenance probably wouldn't be an issue and so yeah again very happy that we found a solution [5:49:33] Carl L. Sheline: Public comment for this agenda item. I [5:49:45] John Bachia: Just want to say I really appreciate it to all you. Can you just identify yourself, sir? What's it? Oh, John Bachia. I guess it's Ward Five. I just wanted to start off by saying, you know, my wife, this is her first house. This is where she choose, she bought this house, this is where she choose to live. I'm more the front man to this, you know, she's been dealing with a lot. I do really appreciate every one. He is, you know, I try to keep a cool head with things, you know, it's nobody's fault. I do appreciate all The apologies and, you know, the sorries and stuff. It's just an incident that happened, you know, we get it. We've been sitting here patiently and, you know, I haven't beat anybody up. I don't know why you guys are so quick with all your meetings. [5:50:55] Carl L. Sheline: You know, you should be a little bit longer if we can stay on topic. Good sir. [5:51:03] John Bachia: Oh, lighten up, that was a joke. Please continue. Come on. No, I just appreciate it. This has been a long thing coming and I patiently waited. I wish somebody would told me I was at midnight, I would have went to dinner. No, I just wanted to say thank you, that was basically it, and just acknowledge that, you know, this was my wife's first house and, you know, this means a lot to her and thanks you guys. Now I gotta finish building the friggin family room. I appreciate it, thanks. Oh, and I need my, I'm gonna need my Permit extended just a little bit. No, thank to all you, I appreciate every one of you, thanks. Further public [5:51:57] Carl L. Sheline: Comment back to the council. Sorry you've been magnanimous and yeah very patient, so thank you. 've been magnanimous and very patient, thank you very much. Further COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL? MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. COUNCIL FROM WORD FOUR? ABSOLUTELY, YES. WORD FIVE? YES. WORD SIX? [5:52:21] David B. Chittim: YES. WORD SEVEN? YES. WORD ONE? YES. WORD TWO? YES. WORD THREE? YES. MOTION PASSED, ADDITIONAL 7-0. [5:52:30] Carl L. Sheline: GO HOME AND GET SOME SLEEP. [5:52:36] David B. Chittim: I'M NUMBER 18. ADDITIONAL 18, APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW, REQUESTED ACTION TO APPOINT TYLER YOUNG TO THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW FOR A THREE-YEAR TERM SAID TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 17th 2028. SO MOVE [5:52:48] Carl L. Sheline: COUNCILOR CHIDDOM SECOND BY COUNCILOR NAGING DISCUSSION PUBLIC COMMENT VOTE FOR THE COUNCIL [5:52:57] Unidentified speaker: MADAM CLERK PLEASE GO VOTE COUNCILOR FROM WORD FOUR YES WORD FIVE YES WORD SIX YES WORD SEVEN YES WORD ONE WELCOME ABOARD TYLER YOUNG YES WORD TWO YES WORD THREE YES MOTION PASS [5:53:12] Carl L. Sheline: By vote of seven to zero, thank you very much, Madam Clerk. Do we still have LHA scheduling [5:53:19] Bryan Kaenrath: update? The LHA update will be at our meeting on the 16th. Okay, under understood, we are now up to [5:53:28] Carl L. Sheline: our, thank you very much, Administrator Kane Rath, ran up to our second public comment period. For those that did not speak at the first public comment period, public comment is now closed. We ARE NOW UP TO REPORTS AND UPDATES. UH, SHOULD THERE BE ANY FROM COUNCILORS? COUNCILOR MARTELL [5:53:46] Bret Martel: THANK YOU MISS MAYOR. UH, I DO HAVE A REPORT. I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE EVERYONE IN THE COMMUNITY AS WELL AS EVERYONE UP ON THIS DIAS UH TO TAKE PART IN THE COMMUNITY CONVERSATION ON GUN VIOLENCE TOMORROW NIGHT. IT'S AT THE CAVALRY CHAPEL AT 777 MAIN STREET AT 7 PM. EVERYONE IS WELCOME AND WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM EVERYONE IN THE COMMUNITY. AND WE HOPE TO SEE AS MANY PEOPLE THERE SO WE CAN GET AS MUCH INPUT AS POSSIBLE. THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT AFFECTS EVERYONE IN THIS CITY, AND IT'S GOING TO TAKE EVERYONE'S EFFORTS IN THIS CITY TO HELP REMEDY IT. SO THE INVITATION STANDS, AND I HOPE THAT WE HAVE A GREAT TURNOUT. [5:54:26] Carl L. Sheline: COUNSELOR ERRMAN. THANK YOU. [5:54:28] Scott A. Harriman: I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT JUNE IS PRIDE MONTH, AND THE GREAT FALLS PRIDE HAS THEIR MARCH AND festival this Sunday, June 7th, and events all week. You can check out great falls pride.org [5:54:44] Carl L. Sheline: Following up on that, thank you, Council Hermann. Administrator Kane Rath, what would we need to do to get a pride project flown at City Hall for the month of June? [5:54:57] Bryan Kaenrath: Mr. Mayor, I'm honestly not sure of our previous flag etiquette. If there's consensus on the council for us to [5:55:04] Carl L. Sheline: to do that, we can, we can certainly do that. I am familiar with the flag policy [5:55:16] Unidentified speaker: for the city, and we only fly the flags that are out there in order to avoid any [5:55:21] David B. Chittim: controversy with any of the flags, we only fly the flag because they used to fly one for St. Patrick's Day, but we don't do any of that anymore, we just do [5:55:29] Carl L. Sheline: The American flag and the state flag. So you're, you're saying the flag policy prevents us from, flying another flag. That is correct. I would have said it that probably [5:55:41] Scott A. Harriman: two hours ago that way, but yes, that's what I'm trying to say. Yeah, okay, we will. That's it. [5:55:47] Carl L. Sheline: Yeah, I guess that's that for now. Further counselor and agent. Yes, just want to remind [5:55:54] Joshua L. Nagine: mind everybody, the Lewiston area public health monthly meeting is next Thursday on the third floor from 3 30 to 5, open to the public, so anybody who wants to attend can attend. I'll be there, we'll have snacks, a big good time, a [5:56:17] Carl L. Sheline: concern was raised earlier about what happens when a counselor has concerns about another counselor and how that's adjudicated. I would like to recommend to the council that myself and the council president will talk with counsel corporate counsel and then determine what's the best Avenue for that. Further counselor long champs, did you know counselor in aging, back to you. I'm just [5:56:46] Joshua L. Nagine: wondering why we talked to our lawyers concerning how we regulate ourselves. Why are we spending money with a law firm in order to decide how we communicate with ourselves? That's... As a body, I'm just saying, as a body, I think that we should all come to some type of consensus or agreement concerning how, I mean, it's just a recommendation. recommendation. You know ultimately I think that what we decide upon is how we actually Then function going forward. Just a suggestion and I know it's late and I'm not trying to give you a hard time. Yeah. No, I appreciate [5:57:37] Carl L. Sheline: all hard all hard times and so what I understand that we can set council rules for ourselves and we can We can make those make those changes. I do think it would be appropriate just to Check in with corporate counsel about what laws may be affected and so on and so forth. Just I think it's just prudent. Further [5:58:06] Susan G. Longchamps: Counseling longchamps. Did you have something? I do have something, but what's what's the next thing we're going to discuss? What, I'm sorry, [5:58:14] Carl L. Sheline: EXECUTIVE SESSION AFTER THIS. [5:58:15] Susan G. Longchamps: CAN I ASK FOR SOMETHING TO GO ON THE AGENDA? [5:58:18] Carl L. Sheline: RIGHT NOW. LET'S DO IT. [5:58:22] Susan G. Longchamps: I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF WE COULD PLACE AN ITEM ON THE NEXT AGENDA. I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE OUR MEETINGS ONLY LAST UNTIL A CERTAIN HOUR, LIKE 9 O'CLOCK. OR 10 O'CLOCK, THE LATEST. THIS IS JUST, YOU KNOW, It's just too long. How can you really make the right decisions, I mean I see even including myself. It's like just want to kind of get it out there so we can get home. I mean, so I would like to see if we could place that on the agenda, something that we could come up with a time that we're just we're done. [5:59:07] Carl L. Sheline: Mr. Mac, Administrator Kenrath, counselor. [5:59:10] Bryan Kaenrath: Councilor, perhaps we could talk further on what you're looking for. There were some recent agenda items introduced by Councilor Harriman and the mayor. Councilor, I believe there were a couple items that talked about a 10 p.m. and then a supermajority to continue. So we've had some proposals. Those did not pass muster. So you can add, obviously, whatever you'd like to the agenda, but if you'd like to give me some more specifics or some ideas how to shape that, perhaps we can do that before the next meeting. [5:59:40] Susan G. Longchamps: At a different time, is that what you mean, just more of what you'd like to see, because [5:59:46] Bryan Kaenrath: we've had a couple proposals dealing with a 10 p.m. cut off already, did we, yeah, yep. [5:59:53] Carl L. Sheline: You voted it down. It was such a great idea by our mayor. Well, okay, we'll figure it out and bring it back. okay, Councilor Nagine, then Councilor Roy, then Councilor Harriman. Yeah, just we did we [6:00:12] Joshua L. Nagine: did vote it down, I think twice actually. but one of the things that we keep pushing back against is more meetings, and so there's plenty of stuff to do. I mean, how many agenda items do we have tonight, and some of them were very controversial and took a while, and so you know we're going to head to that point where we're like, we're not going to do anything in July and August, and when I say we're not going to do anything, everybody's doing things, but we're going to meet once, and so yeah, once in July and once in August, which is usually no. Okay, we scrapped that. Okay, yes, yeah, okay, well, that's good, yeah, okay, I'm just gonna be quiet. [6:00:53] Michael R. Roy: it yeah we're yeah we're counselor roy thank you mr mayor so one of the questions that i have how do we how and who puts the agenda packets together because we have this poor gentleman who's been here all night we could have probably placed him first then maybe some of our directors and stuff like that to get them home at a reasonable night put them first and then have all of our rest of the business afterwards I think we really got to look at that a little bit better just to be courteous to our constituents. And then a question I have is, and I know this was brought up before and I apologize for not remembering it, but I had somebody reach out to me, can citizens get an extra trash can for free, or do they have to pay for it, and how do they go about doing that? It [6:01:53] Bryan Kaenrath: Is free for one additional. There is, I will, if you'd like to give me this person's name, there is some where they can go to request a 65 or 95 an additional. Can I'm just blanking on where that is right now, but there is, there is a process for that. [6:02:12] Carl L. Sheline: Councillor Harriman. Thank you. Got a few items here. [6:02:19] Scott A. Harriman: I guess along that same line, I reached out to administration seven days ago, haven't heard back. Good morning. Can a multi-unit building that is on the city's trash program receive 65-gallon carts for trash and recycling instead of 95-gallon ones? Is anyone going to answer? Yes, administration. Can a multi-unit building that is on the city's trash program receives 65-gallon carts for trash and recycling instead of 95-gallon ones. [6:03:04] Bryan Kaenrath: I believe they can follow up on that. I want to make sure we have the right information. [6:03:09] Scott A. Harriman: I appreciate it. I've also got this one sort of answered, but six days ago I'm just checking in to see if we have received an update as to when the warming center on Horton Street will be transitioning to an overnight homeless shelter. Is there anything they need to from the city in order to make this happen? Is there anything further that the city needs to do besides what the action that we took tonight? This is from six days ago and no response. [6:03:47] Bryan Kaenrath: I don't, I think that was the agenda tonight. I don't believe there's any further action. Okay. [6:03:56] Scott A. Harriman: I was also wondering about if there, if we have or if we would develop a policy on the use of artificial intelligence in the workplace for the city. I've been asking about this for over three months now and there's been no response,. [6:04:14] Bryan Kaenrath: This is on the parked agenda items list with many others. We did discuss this. We had budget season, we had budget workshops, so there are a number of items including items from Councilor Najean, Councilor Noble, that are on the parked agenda items list that will be coming up and be scheduled. So we're obviously trying to schedule these items as soon as possible. The budget process was, as you know, lengthy and exhaustive. It clogged our agendas for a bit. So if you do, councilors have agendas pending. The clerk's office is keeping it, we're calling it a parked agenda items list. So that item, along with rental registration, along with Flock cameras workshop for Councilor Noble, and a number of others are all on that list. Okay. [6:04:57] Scott A. Harriman: So also the, I've been asking for about two months now the policy on partnerships with city employees and content creators. Is that also on that list? [6:05:08] Bryan Kaenrath: YES. THAT WAS THE, WELL, YOU HAD ONE ON SOCIAL MEDIA ALSO, CORRECT? [6:05:15] Scott A. Harriman: I BELIEVE THAT WAS, I BELIEVE WE VOTED THAT DOWN A WHILE [6:05:18] Bryan Kaenrath: BACK. WE HAVE A NUMBER ON THE PART LIST. SOME WILL REQUIRE FURTHER DIALOGUE WITH US OF WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE, HOW IT WORKED UP AND PLACED ON THE AGENDA. agenda. For example, the AI policy, I think we'll need to have a little bit further dialogue on that of what you'd like to see, how it worked up in place on the agenda. So we're happy to do that. But again, some of the delay is just with the, we're talking about length of agendas, with the meetings, with the budget. We do have a bit of a part list that is ready to go. We're hoping now that budget is passed, LCIP has passed, we're moving forward. We're SO HOPEFULLY WE'LL HAVE SOME TIME TO GET THROUGH SOME OF THIS BACKLOG. [6:06:02] Scott A. Harriman: OK. THANKS. THERE'S JUST BEEN NO COMMUNICATION OR RESPONSE ABOUT IT. SO THANKS. [6:06:08] Susan G. Longchamps: COUNSELOR LONGCHAMPS. THANK YOU, MAYOR. I'VE HAD A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO THINK ABOUT THIS. SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE PLACED ON THE AGENDA REGARDING OUR COUNCIL MEETINGS IS PERHAPS MAYBE LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF AGENDA ITEMS. SO MAYBE TO TEN. [6:06:34] Bryan Kaenrath: if the audience could please refrain from sure again we're happy to talk further whatever you'd like to place on the agenda we'll help you work it up i think anything is possible obviously we were just talking about the parked agenda items list i think we'll certainly make that let's grow if we limit it to say 10 maybe 15 is a compromise but that's for the council to debate and figure out but we're happy to work something up and get on the agenda As soon as possible. Thank you [6:07:02] Carl L. Sheline: Anything further councillors We madam clerk heading to a bunch of executive sessions [6:07:09] David B. Chittim: So executive session number 24 and 20. I'm sorry 23 and 24 Can be postponed or withdrawn? for this evening due to some changes regarding scheduling but Executive Sessions 25 and 26 will proceed this evening. So item number 25, Executive Session Pursuant to Maine Revised Tattoos Annotated Title I, Section 4056A to Discuss a Personnel Matter. Requested action to enter into an Executive Session Pursuant to Maine Revised Tattoos Annotated Title I, Section 4056A to Discuss a Personnel Matter. and item 26 executive session pursuant to main revised statutes annotated title 1 section 405 6a to discuss the personnel matter exact requested action to enter into an executive session pursuant to main revised statutes annotated title 1 section 405 6a to discuss the personnel matter I'm have a Motion, please. So move to both search. Second. [6:08:05] Carl L. Sheline: Seconded by Councillor Nagy and Madam Clerk, please call the vote. [6:08:07] David B. Chittim: Councillor from Ward 4? Yes. Ward 5? Yes. Ward 6? Yes. Ward 7? Yes. Ward 1? Yes. Ward 2? Yes. Ward 3? Yes. Motion passed by a vote of 7 to 0. [6:08:18] Carl L. Sheline: Thank you very much, Madam Clerk. Yes, have a wonderful night, Lewiston.