Lewiston council debates emergency ordinance limiting ICE cooperation

[7:39] Carl L. Sheline: Hello and welcome to our Hello, welcome to our Tuesday evening council meeting. If we can have it quite in the chambers, that'd be great. If you want to talk head out to the hall, we're gonna kick things off with the Pledge of Allegiance and Administrator Cainrath if you do us the honor. Madam clerk, I believe we're ready to begin. [8:29] Bryan Kaenrath: Yes, sir. All roll call votes for this meeting will begin with a counselor of Ward 4. Understand we have minutes. Yes the minutes of the February 3rd meeting [8:40] Carl L. Sheline: I have a motion please move to accept as [David B. Chittim: Presented and corrected] councillor Chittum seconded by a Second councillor Herman. Madam clerk, please call the vote [8:52] Bryan Kaenrath: Yes, [8:57] Susan G. Longchamps: Yes, [8:58] Carl L. Sheline: Thank you very much madam clerk. I see some of you have brought signs. I think that's great. firmly believe in our First Amendment rights, but I don't want to block people's view so You sir if you could either You know you can stand in the back and hold your sign, so you don't block people's view or do that would be wonderful. Thank you We're now up to public comment. Bear with me here there We go. any member of the public may make comments regarding issues pertaining to loose in 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 Lewiston resident. because this is the business meeting of the City Council all questions should be directed to the mayor who will ask 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. [10:13] Michael R. Roy: ANDREW JONES, WARD TWO. I JUST WANT TO COME UP HERE AND SAY THAT I THINK THAT CIVIC ENGAGEMENT IS PRETTY IMPORTANT. PEOPLE TAKE TIME OUT OF THEIR DAY TO COME HERE AND SPEAK TO YOU FOLKS, AND AS I BROUGHT UP LAST WEEK, IT'S REALLY DISHEARTENING TO SEE SOME FOLKS NOT PAYING ATTENTION. YES, MR. ROY, I'M GOING TO ADDRESS YOU IN JUST A SEC. YOU KNOW, THE REJEST OF grievances I saw that wink that was cute. the redress of grievances is a constitutional right and I'm sure you all feel pretty strongly about that. all I can say is that the least this council can do is pay attention. I recently put in a photo request for the notes that were taken during public comment at last two weeks ago at public comment so you know mr. Roy, I owe you an apology. I saw your notes and the commentary that you provided along with them via e-mail. You were paying attention. You were writing down a whole lot of stuff, and I do appreciate that. All I ask is that you look engaged, and you're doing that right now. That's perfect. The other person who I called out last week clearly doesn't appear to be paying very much attention this week either. Scott Harriman. No eye contact whatsoever. Strangely enough, even though you were doing a whole lot of writing last week, or excuse me, two weeks ago, for the FOA request, you submitted nothing. I was kind of surprised by that and asked Brian O'Malley for a follow-up on that, and you told him you had no notes. Yet you're up there scribbling away with your pencil just like you're doing right now. Have no idea what you're doing. So I can only think of two situations that make sense. Either what you're doing right now is not city business, and why are you doing that when we're trying to talk to you, or you lied to Brian O'Malley. You know which is it. Thank you. [12:25] Carl L. Sheline: Further public comment. [12:34] Public commenter: Matthew Agron, Ward Four. Members of the city council and our city government, we all want the city of Lewiston to improve for everyone. What that means is we need to be able to come together and agree on what issues are facing Lewiston. That means we need to be able to cross all party lines and find those central points we all agree are issues, and then work on solutions that we can all agree on. I don't expect the left and the right to agree on everything, but there comes times you all see the same issues. Let's work to fix them. You are all elected to represent your wards first and the rest of the city citizens and taxpayers. We all want improved public safety. I've been told by some members of our community that the reason they don't come to these meetings is they don't feel safe down in downtown Lewiston. I've been told by people who used to work and operate businesses in downtown that they don't feel safe downtown, but let's be honest, it's not just downtown where we need public safety. We Need it over the entire community, because if we push public safety only in one area, we just drive the issue somewhere else. Is it going to cost money? Yes, but will it be money well spent to make our city safe? Yes. We all need you to help improve for all of our city citizens and taxpayers, that the city of Lewiston's government is going to be as fully transparent as accountable as possible. It's up to you all to help the members of the city of Lewiston to have belief and trust in our government. I'm going to repeat an idea that I've said before. All emails sent to public comment at lewiston.gov get published on the city's website within a week of receiving it. That way, one, the public can see that their emails have been received, because sometimes nobody responds to them, and two, other people can see what other people are saying. And lastly, I would love to see what was brought up by in the last council by Councillor Nejean, that the council hold regular public meetings where instead of a one-on-one conversation like I'm having with you all now, we have a meeting where we can go back and forth on issues. Now to me it doesn't really matter, I can walk up to any of you and talk to any of you, 've all had me do it, but there are other people who don't have that confidence. But if you had regular public meetings where they could, maybe we'd have more inter interaction. Also, Martel School, anyone got an update? So the previous speaker had mentioned, if you can still, I'm [15:36] Carl L. Sheline: sorry, if you can identify yourself, sir, and where you live. Ryan Salvator, and that would [15:41] Public commenter: be Ward Three, I believe. That the previous speaker had mentioned crime in the city. I think this is kind of a nationwide issue, and I'd like to make a couple of comments relating to the agenda, particularly with the immigration enforcement and then the Lewiston [15:56] Carl L. Sheline: shooting fund as well. I think we're going to have in, so this is for public comment, that for items that are not on the agenda, there will be public comment during those agenda items and you can speak to those items then. So yeah, for [16:11] Public commenter: the record, I'd, you know, like to say that the number one agenda for immigration enforcement is getting violent criminals off the streets first, and I think that is really important if we're going to be discussing crime in any fashion. I think everybody's concerned with the way that the country at large is going, particularly in our smaller main cities like Lewiston, Portland particularly. We have a lot of homeless issues as well that aren't really addressed, and I think something that's off the agenda would be an audit. I think there's a lot of audits that need to take place when it comes to funding that is going around, not just the Lewiston Shooting Fund, But there's a lot of things that are taking place in our city in our state and in our government itself That have not been audited in a long time And I think that's really important that we all kind of open that up for the public to view and then everybody can take a fair assessment Individually at what's to go what's going on behind the scenes? Thank you. [17:04] Carl L. Sheline: Thank you for the public comment [17:16] Public commenter: Martin chartrand ward 3 I Want to speak about the flock cameras that have been being put up around town for maybe a year now or six months this is connected to the agenda item of immigration enforcement but it's also a overarching issue separate from that because there are two big concerns with these cameras one is that they store data on members of the public indefinitely on a remote server owned by flock and it's not highly secure that means various entities and agencies can access it even if that's not the intention of the police department to have them access it that way and there's a lot of concerns with that about privacy and we're basically allowing surveillance of everyday people. And the other issue is that where they are placed is in neighborhoods where there are a high concentration of immigrants and people of color. So even if the intent is not to racially profile, the result is. And courts have said that it is the result, not the intent, of a policy or practice that's the test of whether it's racially discriminatory so this could be a liability for the city and it is necessary to either have a very clear way of making sure that footage is not stored or is only used for a short period of time or storage in a secure place if needed for an investigation or discontinue the use of these they There's a lot of liability concerns as well. Thank you further [19:20] Carl L. Sheline: public comment public comment is now closed Administrator Kane Rath I understand you have your report. All right. Thank you. Mr. Mayor. Appreciate it [19:30] Bryan Kaenrath: Starting off just an update on our FY 27 budget process. So we have now concluded Meetings with department has to discuss their budget proposals for the new year. I can say that there will be no new headcount requests put forward, and departments have been advised against any major NEW INITIATIVES OR PROGRAMS OF SIZABLE FISCAL IMPACT. THIS IS A VERY CHALLENGING BUDGET. I'VE SAID THAT A COUPLE TIMES, BUT AS WE DIG INTO THIS MORE, IT LOOKS EVEN MORE CHALLENGING. I CAN JUST SHARE THAT, YOU KNOW, LAST YEAR THE CITY USED A LITTLE OVER 7 MILLION DOLLARS OF FUND BALANCE TO OFFSET THE BUDGET LAST YEAR. THIS YEAR WE'RE HOVERING AROUND 10. THERE'S 8 REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE. WE REALLY DON'T HAVE THAT ABILITY TO DIP INTO FUND BALANCE THIS YEAR. SO WE ARE BASICALLY looking at right now, over the next couple of weeks, myself, the finance team, and some others, we need to find about 6.2 million dollars to cut from this budget just to get down to what we have targeted as a reasonable increase over last year, kind of the maximum amount we want to present, which is about five percent. So just to get down to a five percent increase over last year, we have to find over six million dollars to cut in the next couple weeks. It's, it's a very tough task. It's a tall order. This is a very challenging budget. So we're going to do our best work over the next few weeks. We want to present a budget that is investing in the city but also responsible to our taxpayers. Of course we're going to try to get there. Like I said, our target number is hopefully not more than a 5% increase over the last year, which is still a sizable increase, but it is going to be extremely difficult. I can say this is PROBABLY THE MOST DIFFICULT MUNICIPAL BUDGET I'VE WORKED ON IN MY TIME DOING THIS. SO JUST PUTTING THAT OUT THERE, BUT WE HOPE FOR A RELATIVELY SMOOTH AND ORDERLY PROCESS OTHERWISE, BUT WE HAVE CERTAINLY OUR WORK CUT OUT FOR US THIS YEAR. MOVING ON, SOME COMMUNITY SURVEYS AND INPUT OPPORTUNITIES COMING UP. WE HAVE STARTED WORKING, DOING SOME WORK WITH A NEW MARKETING FIRM. SO THEY'RE ON WESTON MAIN BASE FIRM TO DISCUSS SOME NEW STRATEGY OF HOW TO IMPROVE THE CITY'S IMAGE AND DEVELOP A POSITIVE BRAND FOR THE CITY. SO A MAJOR PIECE OF THIS EFFORT, I THINK, AND WHAT WAS SHARED STRONGLY WITH THIS FIRM IS THAT THERE NEED TO BE MULTIPLE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND INPUT OPPORTUNITIES TO REALLY ASSESS WHAT'S OUT THERE IN THE COMMUNITY AND TO GET COMMUNITY BUY-IN AS WE MOVE FORWARD FOR HOW TO PRESENT OURSELVES AND REALLY IDENTIFY THE BIGGEST BARRIERS TO THE CITY'S GROWTH AND LONG-TERM POTENTIAL. SO IN LIGHT OF THIS THERE ARE GOING TO BE SOME upcoming opportunities sometime the next month. We're going to begin advertising an opportunity for a community-wide survey for residents, community members to participate in. It can be done electronically. We're also going to have paper copies at various locations around town that can be dropped confidentially into drop boxes in certain places. Then we're also going to have public meetings and listening sessions in different parts of the city to really again get public buy-in and really get some public focus on their thoughts on Lewiston, where do we go from here, and how do we best showcase ourselves and market ourselves for the future. So I'm excited about this process. I think the public buy-in, like everything I've talked about, was really important for the work we do here and in going forward. So we're looking forward to that and look for some news on this in the coming weeks and months of how the public can participate and help us develop Lewiston's next campaign to market ourselves. Speaking of community events, I'm really excited, Counselor Noble and I are going to be doing a joint community listening session and meet-and-greet in her Ward 5 March 25th starting at 530. We're still scouting out some locations. We'll have more details to come before that time obviously, but looking forward to that. Some staff updates, we have some new hires, Nicholas Hobbs, Public Works custodian, David O'Donnell, Public Works, a GIS manager, Ronan Curtis, a new PD, P.D. PATROL OFFICER. CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL OF THEM IN JOINING OUR TEAM. WE HAVE SOME PROMOTIONS, CORY CHAMBERLAND, P.D. DETECTIVE, NICHOLAS KINNELIN, SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER, AND ANYA OLETTE WAS PROMOTED IN FINANCE TO DEPUTY TREASURY MANAGER. SO CONGRATS TO ALL OF THEM AND ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK HERE FOR THE CITY. ANOTHER SURVEY AVAILABLE IN OUR ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. this one is to help plan and identify community specific needs for the federally funded cdbg program. That survey, this is available electronically, louis domain.gov cdbg 26, you can please contact our department also if you need some help accessing that. Some upcoming agenda items, we are going to be, we had to postpone our ag foa training due to an illness there, but we will be scheduling that at the earliest possible date. Again, we're gonna have a workshop on March 10th, we're going to talk about the Charter Commission slash committee process with our city attorney that same night on March 10th. We're also gonna be presenting the fiscal year 27 budgets. That would be a big a big night for us. Lastly, I just want to thank the police department. They did participate in a Special Olympics fundraiser aroma Joe's last week. They did raise about seven hundred hours in just a few hours. So thank you for them for taking part in our community for a good cause. Thank you. Thank you very much. [25:00] Carl L. Sheline: Administrator Kane Rath, we appreciate your service to our city. Madam Clerk, I believe we have a [25:05] Bryan Kaenrath: consent agenda. We do. Yes, Mr. Mayor, there are five item five items on the consent agenda this evening. Item number one, order authorizing the transfer of funds from the 2025 Lewiston Capital Improvement Plan redundant water transmission main bond account to the 2025 LCIP pump station repairs bond account for the Main Street pump station upgrade project. Item number two, order authorizing the transfer of 38 000 from the 2025 Lewiston Capital Improvement Plan Nancy Charles water line replacement bond account to the 2025 LCIP Granite Lowell water line replacement bond account. Item number three, amendment to the traffic schedule to add stop signs at Rideout Avenue where it intersects with Fisher Avenue creating a four-way stop. Item number four, authorization for the city clerk and or deputy city clerk to approve and sign all licenses for mobile home parks on behalf of the municipal officers. And item number five, order authorizing the public works department to prohibit vehicles with a gross weight greater than 23 000 pounds from certain roads for the period from February 18th to May 1st 2026. I have a motion. Please so moved. [26:18] Carl L. Sheline: Councillor Chittim. Second by Councillor Martel. Madam Clerk, please call the vote. [26:27] Bryan Kaenrath: Counselor from word four yes. Word five yes. Word six yes. Word seven yes. Word one yes. Word two yes. Board 3. Yes. Motion passed by a vote of 7 to 0. [26:38] Carl L. Sheline: And with that, we're up to item number 6. Item number 6. [26:40] Bryan Kaenrath: Public hearing on an application for a new liquor license for Franz Restaurant 1485 Lisbon Street. Requested action to authorize the city clerk's office to approve a new liquor license application for Franz Restaurant 1485 Lisbon Street. [26:54] Carl L. Sheline: May I have a motion, please? You may. Councillor Chittim. Second. Seconded by Councillor Nijing. Discussion? Public comment for this agenda item? Back to the council. [27:05] Bryan Kaenrath: Council. Madam Clerk, please call the 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 the vote of seven to zero. Item number seven. Item number seven. Public hearing in first and final passage regarding an emergency ordinance pertaining to federal immigration enforcement. Requested action that the proposed emergency ordinance entitled an emergency ordinance pertaining to federal immigration enforcement received first and final passage by a roll call vote. May I have a motion, please? So moved. [27:38] Carl L. Sheline: Councilor Chittim, seconded by Councilor Harriman. Councilor Chittim, did you want to? [27:45] David B. Chittim: Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is an ordinance that's modeled after the state law which will become effective sometime in July or perhaps August, depending on when the legislature adjourns. It actually does not have a great deal of effect on the current operations of the police department. This ordinance has been, I'm sorry, one second, so [28:07] Carl L. Sheline: I see we're lining up for public comment. You know, this is great, we're all excited about public comment, but we really need to keep these aisles clear. If I can have you all take a seat back in your seats, and there's going to be plenty of time to line up for public comment where everyone's going to get their three minutes, I promise. The honorable counselor Galant, this includes you, good sir. Thank you so much. I've got one right up front for you. Okay, we're gonna, okay, I appreciate everyone's patience. Thank you so much. [28:45] David B. Chittim: councillor Chittum as you were Thank You mr. mayor as I was saying I coordinated with the police chief on this ordinance all of the comments that Chief Connolly made have been incorporated into the draft, which is presented in the packet. This is prepared as an emergency ordinance because our normal ordinance process requires 44 days for an ordinance to become effective. Emergency ordinances become effective immediately upon passage. However, they are limited to 60 days duration and they require a super majority of five votes by the council. If the council approves this emergency ordinance tonight, it will also be reading on a first reading a permanent ordinance at our next council meeting. With a second reading of that permanent ordinance using identical language at the meeting following that, which is mid-March. That will then implement this ordinance, which affects all departments and all employees of the city of Lewiston, an extension of what LD 12 21 17, I believe it is, applies only to the police department. I iterate that the police department has consulted, has contributed to this ordinance, and that it really has no effect on the actual operation that has been conducted by the police department in the past. They have not been coordinated and collaborating with Immigration and Customs. Customs, thank you, ICE, right, so this has not been a standard operating procedure and this ordinance will not affect the operating procedure that the police department currently uses. [30:36] Scott A. Harriman: That's it for me, Councilor Ironman. Thank you, so I just have some concerns with some of the recent edits that were made to the ordinance. So what happened was, where it says except where legally required to do so, it was changed to accept we're legally authorized to do so, and then similar language was added in a couple other places, and I'm concerned that really weakens the ordinance because something being legally required or legally authorized are very different things, and the original language. Where it said legally required, I believe is what we are looking for to help protect the community, because after all, some of the, some of the things that we are concerned about are legally authorized, and that's the problem with them. So I just wanted to discuss that, those changes as well, and see if we could maybe go back to the original language of except we're legally required, counselor. [31:42] Carl L. Sheline: Chinum, do you want to reflect on that, are you. [31:44] David B. Chittim: Encouraging a inter-council debate, which is fine with me, I just want to make sure we're comporting with the rules. Yes, I would like your feedback on that. All right, there were three changes to the ordinances originally proposed. The second two changes are merely reiterations and they're not necessary, but they were requested by Chief Conley. I had no problem with including them because they already were included in a previous paragraph. The section that Councillor Harriman is talking about requires that no person acting, and I'm reading now, no person acting in their capacity as a city employee shall assist, cooperate with, or allow any municipal monies or resources to be used to assist, cooperate with, or facilitate any federal agency in any immigration enforcement operation, and that's important that everyone understand that, except we're legally authorized to do so by state or federal law or judicial order. The authorized was originally required. Chief Connolly has requested and I concurred that authorized is sufficient. It is not as strong as required, but it does put language in this ordinance which requires a judicial order rather than an administrative order. One of the problems that we've had with ice activities nationwide is that the organization has been operating under what's called an administrative order. This specifies that it is a judicial order, which is the standard for legal entry for activities that ice has alleged to have been undertaking. It now is not covered in Lewiston with an administrative order. It has to be an order signed by a judge, and those are typically done on a case-by-case basis, so i agree that authorized is slightly weaker than required. However, it does still provide the protection, and it is, it was suggested by the police department, and i think the police are important allies in this effort. Further [33:53] Carl L. Sheline: comments from the council. [33:59] Scott A. Harriman: Ironman, back to you. I, yes, i'd also ask, i just don't know if our legal council has reviewed this, including the recent changes. Yes. [34:11] David B. Chittim: Our city attorney has reviewed it, and I do believe, although I honestly may be mistaken, that the change from required to authorized was reviewed by council, I mean by my council, not council all the way around, sorry, by our attorney. [34:31] Carl L. Sheline: Further questions, comments from the council. Councilor Nagine, yes. [34:38] Joshua L. Nagine: So just referring to that line again, we're legally authorized to do so by state or federal law or judicial order, right? So there's a separation between state and federal law, and of course we're going to comply with all state law and all federal laws. And the or judicial order would be the instances in which an order was issued or a warrant for an order instance was, it was issued that was not a judicial warrant, right? Same concept. So it sounds like we're, we're hitting all three. There are all three separate actions. I guess my question is when there would there be a judicial order that wouldn't be under state or federal law, I guess. [35:26] Carl L. Sheline: councillor do you want to speak to thank you mr. mayor yes as I said earlier I [35:30] David B. Chittim: believe judicial orders are issued on a case-by-case basis. The state and federal laws would be blanket and would cover a variety of situations. The judicial order is signed by a judge for a specific purpose, so that's why it covers all three of those individually. They don't, they do not all have to exist at the same time. It's either state law, federal law, or a judge's specific order. [35:59] Carl L. Sheline: That clarified for me, thank you. Okay, it's Mr. Kerry back there. Can you come to the podium for a second? Have you been listening to us back there? I have been, yes. Wait, you have or haven't? I, yes, I have been. Okay, excellent. Could you just, and I'm not sure if you were, if it was you or the esteemed Mr. Eisenstein looking this over, but could you just speak to the concern that some of us are having regarding the use of word choice here, authorized versus required? I mean, I [36:45] Bryan Kaenrath: I think there is a difference, as Councillor Chittim acknowledged, and I don't have anything to add to the issue that you're discussing. The key issue is there is a big difference between judicial order and administrative order, and that is captured under the judicial order. The question would be the scope of what is federal law. Is it simply statute? Doesn't include regulation, and typically it would, and whether or not includes executive orders would be probably the key question. Okay. [37:28] Carl L. Sheline: Thank you. Further questions, comments from the [37:31] Bret Martel: council? Martel? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to point out the ICE is law enforcement, and for a city that seems to be so focused on public safety and creating committees and focusing on safety here, I think it's important to remember that ICE and Homeland Security are the largest federal agencies involved in the child sex abuse material investigations, online exploitation networks, human trafficking, child trafficking, forest labor. These are people that are serving our country, that are enforcing our laws, that are keeping our cities safe. And if there was any indication here in Lewiston that wasn't the case, and I could understand an ordinance like this, but I have done a lot of research and I cannot find any substantial tangible evidence that makes this ordinance anything other than strictly performative for political posturing. If [38:41] Carl L. Sheline: we can have it quiet in the council, please. No applause, no booze. Thank you. Councillor Nagine? Yes, so just to come back to speak to [38:51] Joshua L. Nagine: The comments that are legal had shared with us, so I think one of the concerns that I have is that an executive order actually needs time to work through court process. So you can write an executive order that says anything. For instance, we've written executive orders that say English is the only language that you can speak in the United States, right? That's the accepted national language through executive order. And so the balance here is that the judicial balances the executive. And so if we're skipping the process and what if we say executive orders are actually law without being vetted through both the elected officials who actually pass laws and the judicial branch, I think it's a it sets us up for Not covering a gap You know ultimately To speak just quickly to councilor Martel's point all of the things that he mentioned are absolutely the purview of DHS and absolutely our federal roles and we're a municipality and our concern is municipal and not federal. We're not paid to do federal work And we're certainly not Empowered to do federal work Whatever is passed on a federal level concerning immigration enforcement It's not my purview. My purview is the city and considering the fact that we've seen Multiple occasions where for instance out of the 206 individuals that were picked up in our city during or sorry in this state during Operation catch of the day over three dozen of them have been released already. There are six lawsuits that have been filed so far The violation of the first fourth fifth and fourteenth amendments That's something I don't want culpability or responsibility for on a municipal level. We have a financial responsibility to protect our city So I just want to point that out [41:03] Carl L. Sheline: Further comments from the council before we head to public comment. We are now going to public comment So a few ground rules here each of you will have three minutes Please state your name and then where you're from and if I can ask everyone both for and against to be respectful while people are delivering public comment that would be greatly appreciated and Yeah, we will start to line up here and please continue in your when you're ready good, sir. Thank you mayor [41:35] Public commenter: Tim Gallant Ward 7 prior councilman here for this fine city. I'm here Against this ordinance. I just can't believe we wasted this much city money. We're crying about a budget paying a lawyer to look at things. We don't need That is just beyond my comprehension of stupidity. Let's be real here. There's something coming down the pike. We can wait three months, four months, if that's the case, if it even gets anywhere, because our governor's afraid to sign it, so she's just going to sit on her desk, which will add another month to it, okay? That's the way I already know that. So it's just a bunch of BS. Yes. You know, our job as a city, and your job as councilors, is your ward, and then the overall city, right? We started our ward, that's how we get elected, and then we blend out into the city. My biggest problem with all this is, you're trying to support 10% of the city by the census in 2025. What about the other 90%? What are you doing for them? What have you done for them? Five percent tax increase and then we had our mayor and I'll quote ice operations in Maine have failed to improve public safety. How many gunshot issues have we had since ice came to town? How about zero. Look at the police blotter zero. When's the last time we had three or four months of zero problems but that don't count that's not a crime problem obviously to the mayor so I think we need to smarten up and think about this you don't need this ordinance. There's one coming. You need to think about public safety and how we take care of it. You need to think about how to get ICE back in here, because if we didn't have people who were illegal, they wouldn't be here. You know, I keep hearing they're hiding in their houses. If you're not illegal, why do you hide in your house? Or you have an illegal friend or a partner or somebody else involved in the system. The kids are hyped up in school for the simple reasons our teachers hyped them up. Just like in Bangor when they did a march against ICE and had really ugly signs all organized by teachers, not kids, during school hours. What is wrong with people? They're out there trying to help and save us. Do they make mistakes? Sure. Raise your hand up there who's never made a mistake. I don't see no hands. So yeah, there's going to be problems, and we'll let the legal system take care of it, but not at the city level. We have enough problems right now to try to take care of on our own. So stop wasting your time and money and our time on an ordinance that means nothing to 70, 80, 90 percent of our community. It means nothing to them. It gives them nothing. No value. No value added. That's not true. Because when ICE is here, the value added is it's safe to come downtown. It's safe to walk around some of these communities we've missed. [44:36] Carl L. Sheline: That's time. Thank you. Thank you. [44:45] Public commenter: Charles Sowell, [address], Lewiston, Maine. I just want to ask these people here, everybody's jumping all over ICE, whatever happened to those people at DACA? Are they being swept up in this too because the Democrats failed to pass it because they didn't want Trump to put up his wall on the board, if you remember those years? You know, I'm 70, I'll be 73 in about two weeks, so I have a little history behind me. But I mostly feel sorry for those people about on DACA. How are they being handled in the press? We don't hear about them anymore. Are they being swept up in this? And as far as I sometimes think the news media needs to be reined in because I think it's pressing an issue and yes, you know, like the stuff that's been happening in Minnesota with people putting in false accounts, that's happened here in Lewiston. We don't blame the whole for the actions of a pot or the one of a whole, at least I knew we didn't do that when I was growing up. You know, you can't blame the whole society or whole organization or whole community because of the actions of a few or one and you know that's all I'm gonna say day have a good day night contrary to sorry Ryan Salvator Ward Three. Contrary to popular belief, a lot of people in this community do support ICE. Is because like the previous gentleman before me have stated, the gross majority of people in this city are legal immigrants and a lot of the legal immigrants, for example a lot of the Hispanic legal immigrants, welcome ICE into their communities because they did it the right way. There are a lot of people doing things the wrong way and the people who are already breaking the law as their first act into the United States are obviously going to be more comfortable breaking law. I would hope to think that all of you councilman and mayor up there do value the safety of the citizens in the city and value the money spent that we already spend on protecting our citizens when we could take the for the gross majority of it free. From the federal government, protection in our city, the removal of violent, illegal immigrants, people who have murdered and raped countless people across the country, but nobody talks about that. The media does not pick that up. Instead, it's focused on radicalizing our children. Teachers were, if you even look at the emails that the schools have sent out, the teachers were working with student leaders to coordinate the ICE walkout. I've been to public school myself, and I can testify to the example of the radicalization that takes place in our public school systems and the gross misspending of funds, things need to be opened up and revealed to the public. I don't think that anybody is seriously opposed to, like I said, public safety, and I think this is a measure that goes against public safety and protects child sex offenders, it protects murderers, it protects illegal immigrants who, upon their first act into the United States, was to break our law. That's the whole point of being an illegal immigrant. They did not do the process legally. They did not come through the system that was designed for them to effectually assimilate into our city, into our country, into our communities. And a lot, like I said, of legal immigrants, the majority of legal immigrants, especially Hispanics, welcome Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, which I can't believe some of if you don't even know what Immigration and Customs Enforcement is, what ICE stands for. I was watching a video online the other day of a gentleman in Charlotte, a prosecutor who didn't even know that he worked for the judicial or the executive branch, not the judicial branch. He didn't even know what branch of government he worked for. He couldn't even label the three branches of government. And I hope that you all are more educated than that and know the positions that you sit in, know that the weight that's on your shoulders, because a lot of these city Councils all over the country are just misusing their position. And that's why you're constantly being voted out and new people are voted in. And I'd like to just restate, too, that the number one agenda on the Immigration and Custom Enforcement's priority list is dealing with the illegal, violent offenders. That's time. I have been an American all my life, and there is a reason why I'm wearing a purple top, because it is an equal blend of red and blue. I am not a Democrat, I'm not a Republican, I'm an American. And I don't know about any of you, but I choked up when I said the Pledge of Allegiance today, because it reminded me of when I was a kid and we used to say that in school. And I know that everybody here, whether you are for or against this ordinance, you want that pride back again. We want that pride back in our country. We want safety. We want the American dream back again. And I look at what's going on now and what I see everywhere is fear. The bottom line is fear. The undercurrent is fear. Either fear of immigrants, fear of ICE, fear of us versus them. And fear just drives so much of what we are doing. We're afraid of illegal immigrants coming in because we assume they're going to be violent criminals. Are there violent criminals? Yes, absolutely. Are there violent criminal Americans? Absolutely. So all I ask is that when you are deciding on this ordinance, you ask yourself, am I making this decision out of fear? Do I truly believe that this is right for my country? I don't believe that any of you, whether you are a Democrat, Republican, anything, you say yes, let's go into the school, let's terrorize the kids. No, I don't believe that for a second. I believe that everybody here wants a better country. And I think in order to do that, we have to get rid of the fear. And I think a few ways we can do that is by making sure that immigrants coming in are doing it legally, and a way to do that is by upping the staff, you know, that needs to process them, because the process is very, long. So if we put more staff on them, it would actually let us better scan immigrants for violent backgrounds. It would help to speed up the process of the become citizens. It would take that fear of us versus them away. I think that is more important, you know, really, ICE, I don't think it, I think ICE originally is a good thing to stop violent criminals from coming in, but it has become a terrorizing group, and whether you agree with my language, that's not what I'm here for. My suggestion is bringing Immigrants in the right way, putting more staff so we can speed up that process, Americanizing them without losing their, you know, own custom of course, welcoming them in and doing it the right way so the fear does not dictate our decisions. I believe that we all want a better American, a better America, and I think the way to do that is by addressing the fear, facing it, saying am I making this decision out of fear or because I truly believe it's right for my country. So that's all I ask. That's time. Thank you. [52:41] Carl L. Sheline: Good evening, Matt Roy, Ward six. Well first of all, we're, let's start with the word emergency, which is in this case a manufactured emergency. The legislature did their job, quote unquote, passed the LD, the governor sat on it until last month when it was finally enacted. She could have, like 95% of all bills are either signed or veto within the session which ended in June, so we sat seven months. The state police has already said they're gonna enforce this new state law without anything as the police department posted on their social MEDIA LAST MONTH. THEY ARE BASICALLY DOING WHAT THE COUNCIL IS ASKING BY THIS ORDINANCE. AGAIN, WE ARE WASTING TIME. COUNSELOR NEGINE IS THE ONLY ONE WHO UNDERSTANDS THE ANTI-COMMEDIERING DOCTRINE WHICH IS DEEPLY ROOTED WITHIN PRINCIPLES OF FEDERALISM IN THE TENTH AMENDMENT. DHS, ALL FEDERAL IMMIGRATION OUTSIDE OF A UNIFORM QUOTA or naturalization per the enumerated powers clause in the Article I, Section 8, is unconstitutional. The word immigration does not even appear in the Constitution. So just because Congress passes something, which apparently Jared Golden has forgotten recently, he decided to stand on an issue and not actual, the retaking of congressional authority which for decades they have gave to the executive branch, again wasting more time and again it's unconstitutional. Thank you. Hi. [54:36] Public commenter: Good evening, my name is Kevin Ready, I'm a resident of Ward six. I want to thank councillor Chittum for bringing this forward. I strongly support this measure. Forgive me if I struggle to collect my thoughts, but I've spoken to, I'm a, I'm a union member, American Postal Workers Union, Local 458. I'm on the board of the AFL-CIO in Maine, and I've spoken to numerous union members and other working-class people about this, people of color, you know, friends of mine, colleagues of mine, brothers and sisters in the labor movement, and there is genuine fear among people that are, you know, look a little bit different from me. You know, people are afraid, have been afraid in the last few weeks to leave their house. You know, kids that, you know, don't understand politics or are being traumatized by this, the, these thugs. You know, the, with respect to the counselor, I guess ICE is technically law enforcement. You know, frankly, in the same way that the brown shirts were law enforcement. You know, those are the guys that were rounding people up in 1933. You know, because they told, they had a different religion or a different culture. Or different ethnicity. My people came to this country 100 years ago, 150 years ago from Ireland, and there was a lot of French people, you know, in Lewiston that, you know, came here around the same time. I think the experiences were probably pretty similar. You know, my people came here and we were treated like dirt because we had a different religion, we worshiped differently, we looked different maybe, a little bit different, you know, maybe we dressed a little different, talked kind of funny, ate weird food, you know, whatever. You know, and to think that my cousins, you know, the, to think that people look just like me are throwing in their lot with this white nationalist malarkey, it frankly, it makes me sick. And if you got a drop of Irish blood and. You're, I can't speak for any other community, certainly not the Hispanic community, I can't speak for them, unlike some other folks in here that don't seem to be Hispanic, but I can speak for the Irish American community a little bit, at least as an Irish American. If you've got a drop of Irish blood in your gut and you support this, these thugs and you ought to be a shame to yourself, you got to be, you know, just cash in your Irish American card and go, I don't know, it just makes me, at the risk of you. Know, I don't know where I'm going with that. Thanks for your, thanks. Further. [57:04] Carl L. Sheline: Public comment, please step right up. Good. [57:11] Public commenter: Evening, my name is Jennifer Ross and I live in Ward 7. I'm here tonight because I am fed up. This council repeatedly tells residents public safety is your top priority. You hold meetings, create committees and issue statements about lowering crime, yet when you are presented with a concrete opportunity to support and remove the removal of individuals who have active judicial warrants, some charged with aggravated assault, theft, child endangerment and evil, even fatal incidents involving pedestrians, you. choose to consider limiting cooperation with ice instead these are not abstract policy debates these are real crimes with real victims these are warrants signed by judges and instead of standing firmly on the side of law and public safety this council is debating whether the city employees should restrict cooperation You cannot claim to be tough on crime while tying the hands of agencies working to remove individuals who have already been charged with serious offenses. That is not leadership, that is political calculation. So I ask each of you plainly, are you voting to protect the residents of this city, or are you voting to protect your political standing? Those are two very different things. The people of this city and state are paying attention. We are watching your votes. We are listening to your justifications, and we will remember them. Public safety should not be conditional. Respect for the rule of law should not depend on politics. Do the job you were elected to do. Prioritize the safety of the citizens of this city. [Carl L. Sheline: Further public comment.] Good evening. My name is David Jones a little Falmouth been here a couple times surprised that I'm here tonight having to talk to you guys about this so this is you know you're politicizing this and for me it just it 's disgusting you guys really have to stop the reason people are afraid is because of the actions that you guys have taken the position you've taken against law enforcement law enforcement is put on the planet to make sure we stay within the guardrails that were given under the rules and laws and Constitution of the United States of America. For you to not want to enforce the law, for you to want to put another blockade with this judicial order, it's all it is. It's another stalling matter. You want to just have this as another step. And we know that we've had trouble with judges throughout the country and here in the state of Maine. I don't depend on judges anymore. They do whatever they're being paid to do. They don't follow the law. they 're legislating from the benches so we got you know basically the inmates are running the asylum so you know you got a bunch of people here tonight they're there here because they care I walked down Lisbon Street and it was pretty quiet as I've seen in a long time and you have to ask yourself why are they hiding you know the people that are the maddest about this are the ones that came here legally. They paid their dues. They went through immigration. We have a process. We let in about a million and a half people a year. That's a tremendous amount of people that come in here, and so they follow the law. And then we have people who choose not to follow the law, and they were illegal. They've broken the law. And like he said, it's the first act they have committed when they come into our country is to break the law and disregard the very thing that each and every one of you are supposed to protect. So to come out here tonight and say that we need this is absolutely absurd. We haven't had gunfire here since I've been around. I think that's really good without bullets flying in Lewiston. Isn't that amazing? Now is that a bad thing that ICE was here and stop that and maybe someone or many didn't get shot or killed? Do you not care? Why do you want to use the people as pawns? Why do you want to put people in harm's way? When you don't support your law enforcement at any level and then you direct your local PDs to not cooperate, you are endangering the people you are supposed to protect. And if I had my way, I would hold each and every one of you accountable for the actions that happen as a result of getting in the way of law enforcement. Thank you. Further [Carl L. Sheline: public comment. Good] evening, members of the council. My name is Matt Kershaw. I am [1:02:17] Carl L. Sheline: at one second, sir, if we can have it quiet in the chamber, that would be great. Thank you. If you need to talk, just head out to the hall, please. Continue. Good [1:02:24] Public commenter: evening. My name is Matt Kershaw. I live in Ward 6. I am a resident of Lewiston. As I mentioned, I'm also a combat veteran of the United States Marine Corps, and I am rising to voice some support for this measure. I understand that there are some very strong opinions on both sides of this. I understand I've been hearing a lot of totalizing all or nothing language. I've been hearing you either support law enforcement or you don't. You either care about citizens or you don't. I don't think the issue is that clear cut. I think the issue is complicated. I think these issues always are. Are. However, I also think that a mass deportation regime, which is currently underway, seems to threaten the rule of law in some fundamental ways, as the courts are showing in other parts of the country. There are serious concerns about First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment violations. There are concerns about human rights and the way these people are being detained and held. We're seeing broken glass on the streets without warrants, and in some cases without probable cause. We have people who are scared to come out, and I have seen this personally. We have people in my church who are afraid, we had to lock the doors in our church because people were afraid to sit through the service. So whether or not that's the intent, that is the effect. And I don't think there's anything ridiculous or over the top in exerting some reverse federalism here and saying, you know what, until you guys figure this out, we're not going to go along with this. And I don't think that's overblown. I don't think that necessarily leads to mass murder in the street. I don't necessarily think that leads to any, you know, broad spread negative outcomes. I do believe that giving broad latitude to an agency that has plussed up in an insanely fast amount of time, right, and seems to have a very dubious mandate and very questionable methods, as we're seeing, is worrisome. And I think that it is perfectly responsible for this council and for this government to exert some force in response. And beyond that, I think we should all maybe, again, I'm going to exert my moral authority as a veteran, I guess, here, and say, guys, take a step back, okay? We're friends. We're neighbors. We should love each other. And our opinions are going to differ, and they're going to differ for very good reasons. But in my opinion, when you do have children afraid to go to school, when you do have my neighbors, right, who are in fact legal immigrants and wonderful people, really good gardeners, too, by the way, beautiful garden, who are in fact afraid to walk outside in their yard when ICE is around, I think we need to look at that seriously. And I think we need to maybe make some accommodations based on the facts on the ground. That's my time. [1:05:21] Carl L. Sheline: Step right up. Thank you [1:05:25] Public commenter: Walter Shostak, I live in we're word for Good evening, everyone there's been a lot of eloquent speakers before me and I Prepared some remarks, but I'm not sure that I could top what other folks have said. I think a lot of Good thoughts have been put out this evening. But here's what I'm gonna add. I'm speaking this evening in support of the proposed emergency ordinance, and I urge the council to pass the ordinance. As a Lewiston residents resident and a Mainer, I do not approve of the tactics employed by ice and related federal agencies here in our community and in our state. If passed, this ordinance would help span the gap between now and the next 60 days or so when ld1971 goes into effect. It will prevent cooperation with ice and related agencies. It will keep city resources focused on local issues. It will protect the constitutional rights of our community, and it will protect city staff with clear direction on their response to requests for resources and information. In summary, i urge the council to pass this ordinance. Thank you for considering my comments. [1:07:02] Carl L. Sheline: Good evening. My name is Elizabeth Eames. I live in Ward 3, but I am reading something from a person who lives in Ward 6. These are not my words. They're hers. When Zoran Mamdani spoke about immigration, I was deeply moved. His words inspired me to reflect on the principles that guide both faith and public service. service. He began not with politics, but with moral clarity. In the Qur'an, Surah An-Nahl, 1641, reminds us, If we can have it in the chambers, that would be great. Please continue. Wow. Case in point. Quote, As for those who emigrated for the cause of Allah after they had been wronged, we will surely settle them in a good place in this world. This verse speaks to a timeless truth. Those who flee harm and injustice deserve protection, dignity, and a safe home. Migration is not foreign to faith, it is central to it. The stranger is not a threat. The stranger is someone seeking safety, just as many of our own ancestors once did. Our cities are strongest when trust exists between neighbors and local institutions. When local governments cooperate with U.S. immigration and customs enforcement in ways that create fear, families withdraw, crimes go unreported, and communities fracture. Limiting cooperation is not about rejecting the law. Federal enforcement remains federal. Local government exists to protect community trust and public safety. Inspired by that message, I believe we must set thoughtful limits reflecting constitutional balance and the moral duty to stand with the stranger, defend human dignity, and build communities rooted in justice and compassion. I sincerely hope the City Council will thoughtfully consider these words and reflect on the values that define who we are as a community. Thank you. Hi. [1:09:19] Public commenter: Beth Ames, Ward 3 in Lewiston, and I'm speaking in support of this ordinance. You're probably aware that Bangor City Council, I think last week, passed a draft ordinance that's similar, the language is similar to this one, and I wanted to read just a paragraph from their ordinance because I thought it really nicely summed up the intention behind passing something like this. So the ordinance is grounded in a public safety rationale. When residents are afraid that routine interactions with local government could expose them or their family members to immigration enforcement, they are less likely to report crimes, seek emergency assistance, cooperate with investigations, or access basic city services. This ordinance is intended to preserve trust between the city and the people it serves, which is essential to effective policing, emergency response, and community well-being. Furthermore, this policy ensures that Bangor's limited tax dollars are reserved for local safety priorities rather than being diverted to unfunded federal enforcement mandates. So passing this emergency ordinance would have some tangible outcomes, such as making sure that the limited city resources and budget are focused on community initiatives. We've heard a lot about the budget being stretched very thin tonight, but also at its core, it's really about the importance of establishing and maintaining public trust between the employees of the city and the residents, which is a really important part of public safety and, you know, good for the health of the community, which is something that I think we all want. We've heard a lot about public safety this evening, so I hope that you will support this ordinance. Thanks. If [1:11:32] Carl L. Sheline: we can silence cell phones, that'd be great. Hello. [1:11:40] Public commenter: My name is A Fras. It is, I am a Ward 2 Lewiston resident, and I am a proud Somali American immigrant who lived and who has lived in Lewiston for the last 23 years. And I just want to remind everybody, the majority of the people here are immigrants, and some of your forefathers did come here illegally. This land is the Wabanaki land, okay? It's, oh, it was owned by the Native Americans. The immigrants have done a lot for the city, and they will continue to do great things for the city. Lewiston is my home. It is where I grew up, where I graduated high school from, and where I am now raising my children. It is where I work, pay taxes, and contribute to this community. Over the past two decades, I have seen immigrants help revitalize Lewiston. We work in hospitals, factories, schools, and businesses. We started businesses, strained the local economy, and contribute millions in taxes. For example, immigrants make up over 32,000 workers in Maine, and they contribute 625 million dollars in taxes, and they have, they have 1.7 billion dollars in spending power. Immigrants are not a burden. We are part of the strength of the city. We are the future for the city. Immigration is nothing new to Lewiston. For hundreds of years, immigrants, including the English, the Irish, the Franco-Canadians, have shaped and straightened the city. They paved the way for all of us, and immigrants today will continue to pave the way for Lewiston's future. During the recent surge in federal immigration enforcement, many immigrant residents who have lived here for years felt the same fear they experienced back home. For the first time since living in Lewiston, many of us felt unsafe. No one should have to live in fear in their own home. Lewiston's resources should be used to serve Lewiston residents. Our police, schools, City Hall must remain places people can access without fear. When families are afraid to report crime or send their children to school or seek medical care, IT HARMS PUBLIC SAFETY AND PUBLIC HEALTH FOR EVERYONE. OUR CITY EMPLOYEES ARE ALREADY STRETCHED IN WITH VACANT POSITIONS AND RISING OVERTIME COSTS. THEY SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON SERVING LOUISTON, NOT FEDERAL. [1:14:42] Carl L. Sheline: That's time. Thank you. Step right up. [1:14:53] Public commenter: GOOD EVENING, MAYOR SHEMEEN, MEMBERS OF THE LOUISTON CITY COUNCIL. I'M QUENTIN CHAPMAN. I'M FROM AUBURN, MAINE. As leaders, our primary function in a broad sense is to take care of the people that we were elected by. That is our number one function. I'm sure you all agree with this assessment. With that being said, if you or anyone here believes that the federal agents are here to cause harm, wouldn't it make sense that we have our local county and state law enforcement work with them, communicate and monitor actions that are taken? They got the body cam footage right in our own City Hall, right? Maybe not assist with an apprehension, but is a minimum to be a professional witness and ensure that no one has their rights trampled. Imagine a frightened family already scared by laws facing federal intrusion with no local oversight, dad arrested during the dead of night, children crying in confusion or elders bewildered and alone. These are human stories we risk if we turn a blind eye and not offer any professional assistance. Resistance or oversight, I would also strongly suggest that every effort is made to restore faith in the people of this community by finding a way to return the funds that were raised for the mass shooting victims. Is he going to be a different agenda items if he rolls all together in a whole spiel about leadership and the lack thereof? [1:16:11] Carl L. Sheline: Please continue on, but oh, thank you very much. [1:16:14] Public commenter: I would also strongly suggest that every effort is made to restore faith in the people of this community by finding a way to return the funds that were raised by the mash from the mass shooting victims. It seems to me that by doing nothing in the misuse of these funds, they have been generated off the blood and tears of our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters in this community. We are neglecting and are clearly derelict in our duties as leaders. Think of those who donated from their savings in memory of someone they knew, only to see those dollars vanish into mismanagement, or the young survivor battling nightmares and [1:16:44] Carl L. Sheline: medical bills. That's a different agenda item, sir. If you could please move on to the next paragraph. Sure. I'll move on. Absolutely. Absolutely. [1:16:50] Public commenter: Additionally, by requiring our law enforcement to avoid aid and communicate with federal counterparts, we leave our citizens to fend for themselves, an antagonist to escalate an already tumultuous situation. Picture a neighborhood gripped by fear where whispers of unrest turn into shouts and old friends become divided by suspicion, all because we chose to isolate instead of unity. I truly do not believe this is being good stewards to the people we serve. I do however feel that these two issues are related, and the fact that both will show what kind of leader we have chosen to be. And by the way, my mother's Micmac Indian. She has a little plot of land in Readfield. I don't think she wants to be in Lewiston. Thank you. [1:17:32] Carl L. Sheline: Further public comment, please step right up. Good [1:17:42] Public commenter: evening. My name is Sophia. I'm from Ward Three. Scott Hammond is my counselor. So I'm here today in support of the emergency ordinance because this is fundamentally about community safety. Public safety is not just about policing. It is about whether families feel safe calling 9-1-1. It is about whether parents feel safe sending their kids to school. It is about whether victims of domestic violence, workers experience wage theft, or witnesses to crimes feel safe speaking to law enforcement without fear or retaliation or deportation. When people are afraid to interact with city officials, crime goes unreported. Public health risks increase. Trust breaks down. That makes every single one of us feel less safe. Lewiston's resources are already stretched very thin. Overtime spending statewide has risen dramatically in recent years. Our officers are not trained in complex federal immigration law, nor should they be expected to add extra responsibilities of federal enforcement. Their job is to protect Lewiston residents and respond to local emergencies. This ordinance provides clarity. It protects city from liability and ensures that constitutional rights, including due process and equal protection, are upheld for everyone in our community, and it keeps local resources focused on local residents and local needs. Immigrants are vital members of our community here in Lewiston. They are vital to our community, our culture, and our society overall. They work essential jobs, they are business owners, they contribute millions of dollars in taxes statewide. When they feel safe participating in civic life, our city, our entire city benefits. All community safety depends on trust. This ordinance strengthens that trust. One thing I would say essentially is today I was driving and I saw an ICE officer with a Lewiston police officer. They got into their car. I witnessed that. I have a picture and I have a video. Thank you. Further [Carl L. Sheline: public comment. Good] Evening, my name is Julia Harper. I live in Ward 4 and I just want to thank you all for your service to our city. I'm here to support the emergency ordinance. This ordinance, which is similar to one passed in Rockland last year, smartly ensures that Lewiston is abiding by the law and is protecting limited city resources as well as the constitutional rights of our residents. This ordinance isn't just about police, although it protects our law enforcement officers as well. All city staff would be protected from having to comply with potentially illegal requests of federal immigration enforcement unless there is a valid judicial warrant where a serious crime is involved. This ordinance provides a non-exhaustive list of the types of crimes that would enable cooperation, listing as examples human trafficking, sex trafficking, drug trafficking, or firearms trafficking. Lewiston City resources, as you're all well aware, are quite limited, and this ordinance ensures that local staff time and other resources are staying as locally as intended, and also that we are, they're not spent on costly lawsuits where city staff are implicated in violating constitutional rights of our residents. I also agree with the decision to pass this on an emergency basis. Lots of folks have mentioned tonight about the importance of, you know, making sure that people are able to go to work, go to school, and go about their lawful daily activities. A lot of people have also made a comment about why are people afraid if they're not illegal, you know. I think that we know that it's been widely reported that ICE has been using tactics that include racial profiling that have, yeah, while people are going about their daily activities such as dropping their kids off at school, like it happened in Portland just 30 miles away. So I also just wanted to say that I agree with the changing the language to legally required versus legally authorized again, because the exec, what we're seeing with executive orders and those being wildly different from what lawmakers are passing. And finally, because this ordinance is more protective of city resources and constitutional rights than the state law in 1971, I urge you to at the next meeting consider making it permanent and not expire. Thank [1:23:08] Carl L. Sheline: you very much. Thank you. If we can have it quiet, most of you have cell phones, just text each other, head out to the hall. Thank you. Good evening, I'm Shanna COX I'M A WARRANT 3 RESIDENT I'M HERE IN SUPPORT OF THIS ORDINANCE THIS EVENING MOSTLY IN SUPPORT OF IT. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE LANGUAGE. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF COMMENTARY TONIGHT ABOUT THE TRUTH OF THE IMPACT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE IN OUR COMMUNITY, OUR NEIGHBORS, OUR FRIENDS, AND IN SOME CASES OUR FAMILY MEMBERS. AND WHAT I KNOW TO BE TRUE IS THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE LEGALLY WHO ARE AUTHORIZED TO WORK HERE legally and these folks are not able to attend to their daily life their operations at work, their ability to attend school, their ability to grocery shop has been impacted. And not just out of unbased fear, but out of fear of the reality of facts. Who are community members, who are residents and citizens, who have been taken, folks who are here legally who have been taken and are later released. That is fear that is based in reality, and it is impacting day-to-day life for our community, our businesses, our schools, our teachers, and that impact is not small. It's lasting, it's not just concrete, but it is also trust based, and it'll be a trust that's hard to rebuild for people who need to return to daily life or trust the institutions of our community. I think this ordinance takes a small step in the right direction. I am concerned about the change of language not being meaningful. There was some concerns about this being performative. I'm concerned that if we don't have teeth in this ordinance, it is indeed performative. And while I think that is a lovely gesture to remind our neighbors and our friends that they are welcome here and should be safe here, I'm concerned that this might not actually make that the reality. I urge council to consider that change and to think about this. I think if there is enforcement efforts federal that need to be in this community, they can be funded and operate legally without the additional support. Our resources are stretched thin and should be targeted at local needs. Thank you. Step right up please, Martin. [1:25:29] Public commenter: chartrand what three I support this ordinance and I want to thank councillor Chittum for putting it forward and making it an emergency ordinance. I also think that it may not be sufficient and I'll explain that, but I still support you to pass it in whatever form and I would like to see you all support it. That would then our new Mainer, our immigrant and refugee neighbors would know that you all have their backs. For those of you who aren't sure, I'll explain why this is the right response and why We are in a state of emergency. If it probably doesn't seem like an emergency to some folks here, and in truth, I can walk around and it doesn't feel like an emergency either. I have the option to go to work, get groceries, and go to social events without fear. However, I have been made aware by some of my neighbors of the very different Lewiston that my immigrant and especially non-white neighbors are living in, and it is a Lewiston where fathers and mothers have suddenly been taken away from children. Where any unfamiliar vehicle might mean a life that has been carefully and painstakingly built being shattered, and where trips outside the home need to be carefully thought through. I've heard reports of Immigration and Customs Enforcement detentions as recently as yesterday, and those detained have been taken to faraway prison camps and absorbed into an inhumane bureaucracy without due process, without judicial warrants, and without regard for their legal rights. Some have been sent to countries. Where they do not have ties or family, and where they fear for their lives. ICE operations continue to create life-altering trauma for too many who have already had to face too much of it, and to be clear, many of these people are legal immigrants. Beyond that though, the reason there is such a thing as illegal immigration is because our system hasn't been able to keep up with the number of people that need to migrate and to be workable for people to migrate legally. ICE has also shown that they do not want to be accountable to the Constitution. I've been threatened with arrest simply for observing and documenting their work. So is this ordinance necessary? I heard Deputy Administrator Kainrath and Chief Conley address a public forum on January 15th about concerns around ICE, and the response I heard from them was vague, basically saying, "We're not ICE." "We don't do what they do," which is good, but it leaves room for interpretation, and it also is not a policy that states clearly what individual employees and officers can do. That's what this is and why it's needed. I also agree on going back to legally required to do so, and I also think there needs to be a mechanism in the ordinance to say what will happen if somebody breaks the ordinance. Hello. Hello, my name is Bridget Bartlett, and I have worked in downtown Lewiston for over 20 years, and so definitely very familiar with this area and many people living here. And recently, yeah, I just feel like the cruelty of people being scared. And I know there's some people that can't be here tonight, and so I wanted to share a text from somebody. So, as I said, hello, everyone. It's good to feel I have a voice in some way in this community. I'm married and a mother of a beautiful boy and have lived here for almost five years. I can say I've lived these days all the fear and anguish that I've never felt before. Afraid to go to the supermarket, refuel my car, take my son to school. My son got sick. I was afraid to take him to the hospital. This is an endless fear. I'm afraid of having my family separated. We are just what sums up all this. Since we arrived in this country, we have been here working and living with dignity. Something that in our country was taken away from us. We are honest people. We pay our taxes. We follow the law. But this period has made me feel that none of that makes a difference. I only ask peace to the immigrant community of immigrants who are good. Good evening, Mayor and member of the council. Council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I'm here as a Lewiston resident and as the State Representative for House District 95, which includes many of the families directly impacted by this discussion. I also serve on the Legislature Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee. [1:30:27] Carl L. Sheline: Can you please introduce yourself, please? [1:30:28] Public commenter: Oh, excuse me. My name is Mana. Thank you. Where I regularly examine how local law enforcement policy affect public safety outcomes across Maine. One principle is clear, public trust is foundational to effective policing. Lewiston Police Department has worked hard to build and sustain that trust especially during some of the most difficult moments in our city's history. Trust requires clarity, transparency and consistency and how roles and responsibilities are defined. It's not automatic, and it must be protected intentionally. During the previous legislative session, the legislature passed a law clarifying the relationship between the state and local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. The governor allowed that bill to become a law without her signature, and it will take effect 90 days after adjournment. Because of that timing structure, there is a temporary implementation gap before the state framework becomes operative. The ordinance before you tonight mirrors the state language and is structured to expire once the state law takes effect. Its purpose is continuity and clarity during the this transition period, so that residents, officers, and city leaders are operating under consistent expectations. The emergency designation reflects a timing issue, not public safety crisis. It is it ensures that there is no period of uncertainty between now and when state law becomes operative. Clarity matters. When residents understand that local law enforcement is focused on local public safety priorities and not serving as an extension of a federal civil immigration enforcement, corporation improves. Victims report, witnesses come forward, community relationship remain intact. When there is uncertainty about these roles, fear grows. When fear grows, trust erodes. That affects the safety of the entire community. Clear boundaries are also protecting officers. They reduce confusion, prevent mission drift, and ensure that local resources remain focused on core public safety responsibilities rather than being diverted during a period of legal transition. This is not about diminishing law enforcement, it's about enforcing due process, transparency, and accountability. These principles strengthening public safety. In diversity like Lewiston, maintaining trust requires deliberate action and clear communication. Public safety and civil rights are not competing values, they reinforce one another. other. This ordinance is temporary, aligned with state law, and designed to provide stability during a defined implementation window. That is measured governance. I encourage the council to support this ordinance. Thank you for this service. Francis Lin, Ward 1. I've heard a lot of concerns raised today about why ICE would make our communities safer. I want to explain why this ordinance is really what will protect our communities. A lot of damage can be done in a short time. That's also a reason this needs to be an emergency ordinance. Even just during the recent surge we had, we saw people afraid to come out to go to work, not going to local businesses, employees not showing up, and students not going to school. It's also well documented in many places that attendance at schools is greatly disrupted by ICE presence, and that is not just that includes students who are in fact born in the United States. I believe that this community is at its safest when our population is well educated and has good work opportunities. In order to maintain that, we need to have consistent student presence at school, and I am speaking as an educator with Lewiston Public Schools. I would also raise the point that we've often heard that there is a lack of trust between Lewiston communities and police. I cannot see a world in which this would improve that trust. If you're afraid that you'll get given over to federal immigration at a routine traffic stop, that is not going to improve your trust with police. Lastly, I want to raise the point that it's not good to set a precedent of cooperating with administrative orders that, as Counselor Nguyen noted, are made with very few guard rules. They lack the same checks and balances that most bills going through our government system have to go through, and they may or may not be constitutional. It does not serve our offices, officers, or our communities if there's a precedent in which they are enforcing laws that have not gone through these guardrails, and that could change very rapidly. Thank you [1:35:18] Carl L. Sheline: come on down. Who's next? Good [1:35:27] Public commenter: evening. My name is Jimmy. Hello, I am a Lewiston resident and I'm proud to call Lewiston home. People ask why immigrants are scared. Fear doesn't come from nowhere, it comes from uncertainty. I am a Somali American and I still understand that fear. This is, this is about trust and safety for the whole community and not politics. Sorry, excuse me, politics. Please vote yes. Thank you. Hi Everybody, my name is Amran. I live in Ward 3. I grew up in Lewiston, and I've lived in Lewiston my whole life. And I've been hearing people say that like people shouldn't be scared if they're illegal. But somebody who's lived here my whole life, went to preschool here, I'm still afraid. I have to walk around with my passport, having to walk around with your ID. That's not a part of like the legal system. Like why are people having to walk around with documents to prove that they're American and getting pulled over because of the way that they look, the color of their skin. Families are scared, children are scared, communities are scared. Each one of my siblings were born here, and they're still scared to go outside. That doesn't mean that they're doing anything illegal, they're not. That doesn't mean that they're doing anything wrong. We've seen people be taken by ICE that were illegal here. We've seen kids get taken and being held in places that we don't even know what the circumstances that they're being held in is. This ordinance is not abstract. It's about parents, it's about community, it's about families, it's about people keeping people safe. It's about people feeling like they belong here, especially a lot of communities who have built up Lewiston, who have made Lewiston the way that it is. They shouldn't live in fear. They shouldn't live in a space where they do not feel like they belong. And I know a lot of people have come here and said, oh, why are you guys afraid? They have every right to be afraid because they're being targeted because of the way that they look, because the color of their skin, because they quote unquote don't belong here. But if we're talking about people who don't belong here, nobody in this room belongs here unless they're Native American. Nobody belongs here, like this is not any of our lands. So I believe that each of you should vote yes for the better of our community and the betterment of every single person here and for every child who's afraid to go to school. We have kids who are looking at maybe not graduating because of the fear that they have of going to school. We can't do that. Thank you, Melissa. dunn ward 5 lake street i've helped support people in community who were citizens who had legal rights to be here work permit who had paperwork some process and abducted from Lewiston and I believe that we need an ordinance like this because Lewis and Police Department's going to continue to work with their federal entities and do what it is that they do to you know when they get judicial warrants or when they have to carry out raids and even use raid toxin agents so it doesn't impact you know the limit or the level of when they have to work on those most severe cases but to randomly racially profile people it's not okay. and so yesterday I actually witnessed a federal agent who actually abducted a pastor at the Bernard peace bridge, December, I think 23rd or 24th, 2025. And the same officer even twisted his words and was trying to insist that the person and said he was illegal and the pastor didn't say that he had legal rights to be here and that pastor was returned back home you know to where he belongs to us because he had legal rights to be here but yesterday i witnessed this federal agent racially profiling black and or african men at the pier street birch street parking lot across from the root cellar and i asked them twice you know do you have a warrant do you have a warrant and that was enough to kind of like deter him black dodge charger 9589 cp license plate but you know it's it's concerning to me that these federal agents would be just racially profiling people in the street hoping to entrap people just because they didn't know their rights and they didn't know they had a right to remain silent or you know what to do if they're questioned by an agent if they're in their vehicle you know and things like that and these are everyday ordinary people who are citizens People who have legal rights to be here, you know, and that shouldn't be the justification or bar to Determining whether somebody's worthy to be here or not whether they're undocumented or not. Thank you [1:41:20] Carl L. Sheline: Any further public comment? Quiet in the chamber, please. Thank you. Thank you, Carl [1:41:37] Michael R. Roy: Andrew Jones Ward, too I just think it's interesting that we managed to get through public comment with just one Nazi reference. 36 years later and Godwin's law is still in effect. I appreciate that. With regards to this ordinance, I just have to ask why. Where's the fire? Where's the emergency? This is going to be state law in, what, two months? And the LPD is already on record, they posted on January 23rd on their social media page, that they already do not participate in any cooperation efforts with federal immigration. And I'm not familiar with any, you know, city cooperation either. I mean, I could be wrong about that. I hope when this goes back to the Council, somebody asks the Administrator or the Deputy Administrator about that. And if you don't, then I guess I'll issue a follow request. Sorry, Brian, with ICE having been here for the period well for a measurable period of january 14th that's when you carl posted on social media that the surges were coming and january 29th which was when the office of susan collins announced the end of these surges if you look at that time period last year there were 114 people booked into the andrew scoggin county jail for various crimes you look at that same period now and that number was down to 79. So that's, that's public safety right there, about a 30 drop in people getting booked into jail with federal law enforcement on our streets. So take with that what you will. I hope you vote this ordinance down. Thank you. Further public comments, Matthew [1:43:34] Public commenter: Egren, Ward 4. I am seriously, the concern that what requires this is an emergency, it's already the stated policy of the city's police department that they will not assist in immigration operations. Also, emergency rules once starting to be used more regularly become the new way that the councils want to pass things quickly and easily. I know last council we had one with New Beginning Shelter that was not code ready to operate as a shelter. You use the emergency rules and allowed them to open, and the next day they opened as a warming shelter because their paperwork was not ready yet, and they could have waited until the next council meeting to get shelter status. I hope that you'll ask how many emergency rule use has been done by this council, by the Councils in the last 25 years. Also, if this is to be passed, there's some serious concerns with the Flock camera system, because they have been allowing the federal government to access the feeds for immigration purposes. Let's look at Virginia, who has over 4,000 cameras in there. There were 3,000 searches conducted by agencies that appear to be related to immigration enforcement, all after the local agencies said we will not share data for this purpose. So the Flock system doesn't seem to care what the city wants. If you're going to pass this, shut down the flock system because otherwise the feds are going to continue to use their system without city approval. And, remember, one of the groups that's brought in here is human trafficking. We had an officer, I don't know if we still do, working human trafficking through Homeland Security. A lot of these human trafficking victims are illegal aliens. They're brought in here for a better life. Well, that better life isn't always what they think it's going to be. We don't... This ordinance needs... I don't understand why the ordinance is needed, because the state government and Janet Mills refused to sign it into law. But using this as an emergency sets a horrible precedent for the next time you guys wish to use an emergency use. [1:46:25] Carl L. Sheline: Have you already spoke for this agenda item? Yes. Okay, thanks. Yeah, we're done. No,, no,, no. Wait. Wait, no order, isn't this, we can not speak again, please sit down, please sit down, thank you. Yes, public comment for people who have not spoken on this agenda item, please. Any further takers? Anybody? Public comment is now closed. Thank you all very much. Back to the council. Councilor Chiddum, how would you feel about offering up, I don't know whether it can be a friendly amendment or whether it needs to be an actual amendment, changing authorized back to required? [1:47:23] David B. Chittim: Every legislation is a manufacturer of sausage. And in order to get the buy-in, and I'm careful not to use the word support, but the buy-in of the police department, this change was made. I cannot speak to how the police chief and the police department would react or feel should we revert to the required language, so I'm, I'm not willing to make that amendment. I think we have worked together in good faith, and the language is crafted in the packet uses the word authorized as opposed to required, so I'm not willing [1:48:02] Joshua L. Nagine: to make that amendment. Councillor Nagy, I would ask that we be apprised of any condition or situation that would permit authorized versus required, and so ultimately, if the language is being requested that it says authorized, why, what are the, what are the specific incidences in which we would be looking at the language of authorized versus required? Because I think that it's an important distinction. I don't think it's going to change how we vote tonight, but I would like to know specific reasons why. That language is so important. What are the enforcement actions that we're looking at that cannot be done under required versus authorized, which again, immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility and not a local responsibility. So, I would just like to know that. Ultimately, can [1:49:09] David B. Chittim: you speak to that? I cannot, this was requested by the police department. I can't [1:49:16] Joshua L. Nagine: get into their minds. Well, we can certainly ask. I mean, not right this second, but we can, we can [1:49:23] Scott A. Harriman: ask. Councilor Herman. Yeah, I would have a similar question. I mean, Councilor Chiddum was very clear that this ordinance should not change the position or the activity of the police department based on their statements about immigration enforcement. So I would wonder why they would insist on changing required to authorized if this, if this will not affect their operations. [1:50:02] Bryan Kaenrath: I do not. I was not involved in the conversations between the chief and Councillor Chittim. So I don't want to comment on their behalf. I don't think we have the chief here this evening. We can certainly obviously talk to her and answer those questions. [1:50:23] Carl L. Sheline: I think. Oh, we did. Oh, never mind. Chief Conley, do you mind answering this question for us? Thank you for being here. [1:50:32] Bryan Kaenrath: Certainly. So for us, authorized is really sort of like when we're dealing with laws and statutes and things that we're required to follow. That's really the language that we look at versus required. Required would be similar to when you're referring to the judicial warrant. [1:50:50] Carl L. Sheline: Do you mind speaking into the mic, please? [1:50:51] Bryan Kaenrath: The judicial warrant authorized is required. I could guess we could give you an example of, we have a lot of things that were authorized to do in law enforcement. Like I can pull you over, but I'm not required to pull you over. I can give you a ticket, but I'm not required to give you a ticket. It's whether or not we're authorized. So it's just when we're looking at, looking at languages and statutes and laws, authorizes much more a common term that we look at. Thank [1:51:26] Carl L. Sheline: you, councilman. [1:51:29] Scott A. Harriman: Yes, yeah, I guess that is exactly what we're trying to protect against here with this ordinance, is that there are many things that the police are authorized to do, and we're trying to get at only those things that they are required to do with this ordinance. So I think that this, if this language were to stand, this severely weakens the effect of the ordinance, because now it's anything that is authorized and not just things that are required. [1:52:06] Carl L. Sheline: Further council Tridham. Yes. Yes, if I may suggest [1:52:09] David B. Chittim: As I mentioned earlier there will be a reading a first reading. I hope of a permanent ordinance two weeks hence. In order to get this passed tonight to become effective now as opposed to waiting for 44 days from two weeks from now I would suggest that we incorporate the language as it's presented and Then we can have further discussions when we come to adopt I hope the permanent ordinance and we can go back to this required versus authorized discussion Which is a valid point? and I hasten to add that in my conversations with chief conley this was the request that was made and i felt that it was an appropriate request given the urgency of having this become effective immediately as opposed to waiting for a month plus 30 days so 60 days or so [1:53:04] Carl L. Sheline: further questions comments from the council [1:53:08] Bret Martel: council martel yes thank you mr mayor one thing that i think we hear a lot up here on different topics is to excuse me to trust the experts and i think we've got some experts at the police department with the chief and the administration even down to our patrol officers and i think we should give them a little bit of difference and take their wording and their suggestions into consideration rather than just have it be drafted by people on the council that aren't experts in police enforcement of the law and that have never policed a street and forced a law did an arrest and we have no indication that there's been any mistakes or wrongdoing by our police department the mayor quoted I believe in the Sun Journal recently saying I'm unaware of any city cooperation including the police department with any ice activities so again i don't understand the emergency nature of this ordinance but i certainly think that it comes at the expense of our police department and our public safety officers i think it demonstrates a lack of trust that they're already complying with the stated policy which is not to assist ICE in their federal tasks and investigations, and to suggest that this is necessary should come from a place of factual, evidentiary occurrences where maybe we have some examples of where the Lewiston Police Department has been kicking in doors alongside ICE and arresting people and actually helping in these investigations and in these tasks and i don't think we have any of that I did have some email back and forth with Chief Thank you regarding stats about calls made to 9-1-1 regarding ICE involvement. I had contact with her on the 22nd, 23rd, 26th, and 27th of January checking in on the stats of calls to 9-1-1 regarding ICE involvement with the police department, and it was confirmed to me that there were nine calls in total, but they were mostly third party calls not associated with excuse me there was no out of those nine calls there was no reports of community requesting aid resulting from interactions with ICE, and there was exactly zero responses from the police department to assist ICE or to support anybody that was being targeted or harassed by ICE, and no one seems to have complained about any issued any calls complaining about their interaction with ICE directly and the actions of ICE agents. So we have a police department that has a policy, we have police officers that are following that policy. We have a mayor who states that he's unaware of any city cooperation with ICE activities, and we have no documented proof of issues created by ICE agents in our town. So again, I'm going to go back to the word. This feels very performative. This feels like political posturing. I don't see any emergency here. When we had a rash of shootings last summer and when the residents were genuinely fearful and at risk of real violence real physical harm no emergency ordinance no calls for emergency and interaction into that public safety issue. So the fact that this is already city policy there's already state law coming down on this that's going to take effect in just a matter of time, and the fact that there seems to be no acute symptoms here to be treated in an emergency matter completely removes the idea that this needs to be done in an emergency fashion. Again, I think this is performative. I think this is to create an issue that isn't really there. I expect people to be fearful when their city leaders are using words like fascists are at our front door. Fascism, Nazi, stuff like this, it invokes fear for a reason. Nazis were actually killing millions of people. That isn't the case here. Even in the worst case scenarios, if you want to take Minnesota into account or whatever else, these are at worst isolated incidents. If they're found guilty of misuse of force, this is not a rash rounding people up that have no broken no laws and have done nothing wrong. We're not exterminating people in mass. That is not what happening with ICE, and I think it's irresponsible to drive this fear and to stoke this fear in the community when there's no evidence to back it up. And I think that it's a waste of time to even be addressing this tonight, and it's sad that we are sitting up here discussing policy that already is in place, [1:58:40] Joshua L. Nagine: Councilor Nagine, yes. So I just want to speak to a few things really quickly. First and foremost, approximately one in three people in the city of Lewiston as a first or second generation immigrant. I've got friends of mine whose parents came over from China who are still absolutely alive and kicking, who have concerns about ICE enforcement in our community. 73% of the people who have been picked up have absolutely no criminal record in this country or any other. Of the 27% that do have some sort of criminal record, many of those records are not violent crimes. And so when we say that people are being detained that are the worst of the worst, that does happen, and also people just get detained whether or not they have status in this country. We've seen multiple times where this administration has picked up people they didn't like the speech of and then and held them and tried to deport them, even though they had legal status in this country, green cards, the ability to be here as resident aliens as long as they want. Nothing precludes cooperation with the federal authorities outside of immigration enforcement. And we are allowing any cooperation that is stipulated by state and federal law already. So again there's there's no concern about cooperation with federal authorities. I think when we talk about due process and equal protection under the law, these are the things I'm concerned about. These are the things that make our city financially culpable should we be complicit in civil rights violations. I also think that none of us are constitutional scholars, and it's going to cost us a lot of money to fight through some of these things should we be found to be complicit in violating somebody's Civil rights good systems means you don't need perfect people to be perfect all the time. And putting this ordinance and into place makes it so that we don't have to worry about good people being perfect all the time. I also enjoy the fact that it extends past law enforcement. It protects our municipal employees from lawsuits. I think it's incredibly important. And ultimately, just to speak really quickly to the trust issue, putting systems like this in place build trust in the community. That's what these things do. It doesn't undermine any department. It doesn't undermine any activity that the city does. It simply says, these are the rules that we follow and this is why. So for all of those reasons I'm greatly in support. I do want to thank everyone for coming out to speak tonight both pro and anti. [2:01:44] Carl L. Sheline: Your opinions do matter. Thank you Mr. Deputy Administrator O'Malley are we okay over there? Okay thank you chief we should be all set for now. Thank you appreciate you being here. Further questions comments from the council? Yes Councillor Longchamps yes we. [2:02:10] Susan G. Longchamps: Are definitely living in a scary times right now. This ordinance though doesn't really stop ICE from coming here right? And I do tend to agree with some of the comments that Councillor Martel has stated today. There is all already a policy for our police department. We have had zero engagement with our police department and the immigration enforcement here. I spoke with the police department today as a matter of fact asking QUESTIONS. TO DATE, WE HAVE HAD NO ISSUES WITH OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT HELPING ICE. FOR ME, I WILL NOT AGREE WITH THIS ORDINANCE. THOSE ARE MY REASONS. THANK YOU. [2:03:11] Carl L. Sheline: WHAT I'VE SAID ABOUT ICE IN LEWISTON HAS BEEN WELL DOCUMENTED ONLINE IN THE NEWS, IN THE PRINT MEDIA. I don't want to repeat all of that here. I really appreciate Councillor Chittim for bringing this forward and Yeah, we absolutely need this. It is not an attack on the pleats it's about sending a strong message to our community that we are with you and you know in some of the comments I've. Yeah, that would be great thank you comes for a long chance. Some of the comments that have, you know, we've heard tonight, and, you know, why should people be afraid? You know, we have immigrants and refugees, asylum seekers who have come here from other countries. When they find out, like, you know, the government can just grab you from your home or grab you from your car through the broken driver's side window, you know, that's a, they understand what that's like. That's where they came from. And, you know, that's a fear that up until recently Americans have never had to deal with. And yeah, fully support this. Yeah, and I appreciate everyone's input. [2:04:27] Susan G. Longchamps: Councillor Longchamps, back to you. Yes, I would just like to share that I am NOT saying that we should not stand with our immigrant population. That is not what I'm suggesting. I think we should, I think we should support them. But my position IN THIS IS THIS IS NOT GOING TO STOP ICE FROM COMING TO LOUISTON, AND TO DATE OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT ENGAGED IN ANY ACTIVITY WITH ICE. SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT YOU [2:05:00] Carl L. Sheline: KNOW THIS WILL THIS IS GOING TO BECOME AN ORDINANCE FOR THE ENTIRE CITY, AND IT WILL BE IN EVENT WE DIDN'T DO THIS THE POLICE WOULD BE under the new state law, I think 1971, in a couple months. And so if it's good in a in a couple three months or four months or whenever it is, it can be good now. Councillor Martel, I [2:05:24] Bret Martel: said it twice, I'll say it again. I feel like this is performative, and I think a good example to point that out is or what happens if someone holds a door open for an ice agent or assist them a little bit. I don't see any language in here that has any consequence for that. This is just a political posturing statement with no teeth, and if someone helps ICE, there's nothing in here that determines any consequences or any course of action. So again, this might sound nice on the surface, but it doesn't accomplish anything. Final [2:06:00] Carl L. Sheline: thoughts from council members before we take a vote. [2:06:03] Joshua L. Nagine: Councillor In Aging, yes, I just want to talk to correlating shootings with immigration enforcement. It's a weak argument. If you want to send the FBI here, the DEA, the MDA, ATF, That would be fantastic. We would appreciate federal law enforcement to help us figure out how Federal gun laws are being broken in our city, to give American kids got one second counselor if we can have it quiet in the [2:06:33] Carl L. Sheline: audience chamber, that would be in the council chamber, that would be great. Just head to the hall and talk all you want, but the youth shooting incidents [2:06:42] Joshua L. Nagine: that happen in our community are actually happening with American children. So I just wanted to make that comment. Final thoughts from counselors. [2:06:55] Carl L. Sheline: Madam clerk, please call the vote. Yes. [2:07:02] Bryan Kaenrath: Six yes, no, yes, no. Applause. [2:07:14] Carl L. Sheline: Necessary. Thank you. We are now counselors. Do you want to take a brief recess? We're gonna take five and then we're gonna start right back up. And we're back. Thank you all very much. Thank you to all of you, we appreciate your patience. Thank you to our audience at home. Madam Clerk, what item are we on? Excellent, I'm number eight. Please public [2:20:35] Bryan Kaenrath: hearing and first passage for a moratorium ordinance regarding rent increases for lots in mobile home parks. Requested action that the proposed moratorium ordinance regarding rent increases for lots in mobile home parks receive first passage by a roll call vote and to continue the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting. I have a motion. Please [2:20:57] Carl L. Sheline: please so moved by Councillor Nagine. Councillor Herman? Yes, thank you. Yes, I [2:21:05] Scott A. Harriman: asked for this agenda item to be brought forward. I've heard from concerns from a lot of residents about the main issue seems to be out-of-state corporations buying up mobile home parks. Often when residents want to purchase it and these corporations are still able to take control of them. And then raising the rent very rapidly, very, to very high levels as well. And I know our city across the river here, Auburn, recently passed a similar moratorium. My concern, though, about this one is that it doesn't seem to go into effect until the ordinance goes into effect, which is approximately 44 days from now. So I think it needs to have language in it to be retroactive to at least today if not, if not earlier. And I don't know, I don't know why that is not in there. I suppose I didn't specifically ask for it, but I thought that would be part of the intent of it because the issue is once you know if this passes first reading tonight there's still a very long time until it goes into effect where rents can still be raised to unaffordable levels. So I just wonder what other counselors think about adding a, adding a retro clause to at least today if not earlier. Thank you Council Herman. I think there [2:22:37] Carl L. Sheline: there is already some delay in which a mobile lot home rental could increase rent, but perhaps Councilor Chiddom could speak to that. [2:22:52] David B. Chittim: THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. YES, STATE LAW CURRENTLY REQUIRES A 90-DAY NOTICE TO ANY TENANT OF AN IMPENDING INCREASE. THAT 90 DAYS FALLS COMFORTABLY WITHIN THE 44 DAYS, I'M SORRY, FALLS WITHIN THE 90-DAY NOTICE. IN FACT, IF MY CALCULATIONS ARE CORRECT, UNLESS NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO MOBILE HOME PARK TENANTS BEFORE JANUARY 2ND, THIS WOULD PRECLUDE ANY MOBILE HOME LOT INCREASES UNTIL OCTOBER 1ST IF IT PASSES. [2:23:25] Carl L. Sheline: COUNSELOR HERMAN, YES, DO YOU HAVE SOME THOUGHTS ON THAT? [2:23:27] Scott A. Harriman: YEAH, AND I GUESS I JUST WANT TO DOUBLE CHECK THAT THIS, COVERS NOTICES OF INCREASES AS WELL AS INCREASES IF [2:23:40] David B. Chittim: MR. MAYOR, CHAPTER 399, AN OWNER OF A MANUFACTURED HOUSING COMMUNITY SHALL PROVIDE NOTICE OF A LOT INCREASE OR FEE, RENT OR FEE, NO LESS THAN 90 DAYS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE INCREASE. THAT'S CURRENT LAW, SO NO INCREASE CAN BECOME EFFECTIVE WITHOUT A THREE MONTH OR A 90 DAY NOTICE. THAT PRECLUDES THE NEED OR THE NECESSITY FOR HAVING A RETROACTIVE PROVISION IN THE LOCAL ORDINANCE, WHICH BY THE WAY WOULD SUBJECT THE LOCAL ORDINANCE TO SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE TRYING TO CIRCUMVENT THE EMERGENCY PROVISIONS PROVIDED IN THE CHARTER. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE CAN MAKE AN ORDINANCE RETROACTIVE WITHOUT RUNNING THE LIABILITY OF THAT CHALLENGE. [2:24:30] Joshua L. Nagine: COUNSELOR NEI JEAN, ONE THING I'D JUST LIKE TO, I ALSO ATTENDED A MEETING WITH SEVERAL MOBILE HOME COURT RESIDENTS WHO HAD SPOKEN TO EITHER A 25% INCREASE IN ONE YEAR IN THEIR LOT RENT OR A 33% INCREASE IN THEIR LOT RENT IN ONE YEAR, WHICH IS CONSIDERABLE, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THAT A LOT OF THE FOLKS THAT ARE LIVING IN SOME OF THE MOBILE HOME PARKS ARE LIVING ON FIXED INCOMES, AND IT'S A DIFFICULT THING TO QUICKLY ADJUST TO, FOR SURE. THERE'S ALSO A COUPLE OF ISSUES, I THINK, THAT CONCERNING MAINTENANCE FOR SHARED SPACES WHEN YOU'RE ON RENTED LAND. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME UP WAS WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD BE CHARGED FOR THE REMOVAL OF TREES ON LAND YOU DON'T OWN, WHICH SEEMS PRETTY AWKWARD AND PROBABLY NOT LEGAL. BUT WHAT I WOULD ASK IS THAT IF WE ADOPT THIS MORATORIUM, WE ALSO ASK A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE HOUSING COMMITTEE CONCERNING THE OVERALL SET OF ORDINANCES AND LAWS THAT ARE, THAT HAVE BEEN PUT IN PLACE AT THE STATE LEVEL TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER ORDINANCE WE MAY ADOPT IN THE FUTURE, IF IT IS EVEN NECESSARY, COMPORTS WITH WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, WHICH IS MAKE IT SO THAT IF YOU OWN A HOME BUT NOT THE LAND UNDER IT, YOU AREN'T TAKING FOR THE PROVERBIAL RIDE WHEN THE OWNERSHIP CHANGES HANDS. SO FURTHER [2:25:58] Carl L. Sheline: COMMENTS FROM THE COUNCIL. COUNCIL MARTEL, YES. THANK YOU, MR. [2:26:03] Bret Martel: Mayor, if we're going to invite socialist economics to Lewiston, let's do it across the board and rent freeze and make sure every landlord gets everyone renting an apartment gets the same treatment as everybody renting a mobile home. If we're going to do rent freezes and decide what people can charge with their own personal property, then let's not discriminate against people who live in apartments too. But I don't think that policy will go over too well with the landlords in Lewiston and I don't think we should be isolating out one group of property owners or just giving this benefit to one group of people who live in a certain subsect of rental housing. I think this is going to have a negative effect on investment. Lewiston is desperately in need of capital investment and, excuse me, development. And I just think that if you're an investor of any kind and you're looking at the behaviors of the council right now, even if your business isn't mobile home parks, which granted good luck getting anyone to build another mobile home park if we tell them what they can and can't charge for their rents, and that is more affordable housing if they were to come here and make that investment that we're desperately in need of. But I think this is going to have a serious chill on investment, and if I'm looking to invest in Lewiston and I need to come here and bring millions of dollars in investment, I'm worried about the council telling me what I can sell my goods for or charge for do with my private property. I would be very hesitant about bringing my money and my business to this city. Secondarily, I'm just curious if I'm missing a page where we also put a moratorium on the increased in costs. So are we going to give them a pass when the re-evaluation comes and their property taxes go up? Are we going to give them a moratorium on plowing services and landscaping so that they don't have any increase in their expenses, or are we just going to cap their ability to be profitable? And I think that it's going to have a really negative effect on housing too, should some of these property owners decide that maybe a self-storage locker building would be a lot lower maintenance and a lot less headaches and a more effective use of their land. So I think we need to be careful about not forcing out the housing that we have in an effort that it seems compassionate, but is counterproductive to the entire supply and demand structure of a free market economy. [2:28:48] Carl L. Sheline: Councilor Najing. [2:28:49] Joshua L. Nagine: Just really quickly, the folks that own their homes but not the land under them, or a particular subsection, I'd be very careful about what you ask for, because I do think that there is support, at least in some segments of this community, for rent controls for apartments. The difference is you can move in an apartment, you cannot move your mobile home. We've had multiple situation, excuse me, we've had almost all of Little Canada at one point in time was owned by a third party underneath the buildings that were built back in the 1850s all the way through the 1925s. They were paying rent for land that they built their own homes on. That process can be cheap home ownership, absolutely it can be an affordable housing option, but when it's exploitive, then we're actually forcing people out of their homes and then they do become rental properties. [2:29:58] Carl L. Sheline: I think you hit the nail on the head. You know, mobile home owners are an extreme disadvantage if they do not own the land underneath where their mobile home is, and it is extremely difficult to move a mobile home that has been there for decades. Yeah. [2:30:16] David B. Chittim: Counselor, should, thank you, counselor Martel. You make some excellent points, and these points I hope we raise when we come to the difficult issue of deciding whether or not to make this a permanent ordinance. The moratorium gives us an opportunity to explore your concerns as well as the concerns of the people who are now being exploited by out-of-state owners. So thank you for raising those points, and I look forward to a robust discussion about them as we discuss a permanent ordinance. We [2:30:48] Carl L. Sheline: are now heading to public comment for this agenda item, Mr. [2:31:02] Public commenter: Mayor, ladies and gentlemen of the council, my name is John Geary. I'm a resident of Box Run Mobile Home Park. I decidedly have a self-interest in this ordinance. I'd like to see it passed. Many other members of mobile home communities are here in the audience. Will you raise your hand? Anyone that has his hand raised that doesn't support this ordinance? The important thing to consider is that in its entire history, this is the first time this type of ordinance has been brought forward to the City Council, and the reason for that is none of the parks are owned by local mom-and-pops anymore. When they were, they were affordable. They were well-maintained. There was pride of ownership, and the profit that they realized from the rents stayed in the community. We got notice at Thanksgiving a year ago that the Jitrises, who had developed Fox Run and had given their lives to building a community to be proud of, they wanted to sell. Over the two years prior to that, they raised the rent by 25% so that it would be more attractive to investors. We were given an opportunity to put an offer in, but at the state level, it wasn't a right of first refusal. They had $2.4 million on the table, and they weren't willing to wait. So Boavita, an equity firm from California, bought us up. Within three months, they raised the rent another 10%, and soon after served us with new leases, which showed that if we sold our property, our units on the lot, the new owners had to pay even more of a rent first thing in, plus they had to pay an entrance fee equal to a month's rent. It is these types of predatory practices that we're asking you to help us with. We're not asking this to be permanent. It's a temporary situation, and six months may not even be enough time for the council to do its job to come up with a plan for something permanent, but it's a good start, and as has been said, we really don't need any retroactivity because we haven't been served with a notice of a rent increase yet. We're certainly expecting it because the new owners have to pay already more than what we're paying, so we are expecting to get a notice real quick. All we're asking for is that you enforce this moratorium for a time period and consider it. And if your views prevail, sir, and it doesn't pass, then we have to live with it. But we would certainly like you to give it serious consideration on both sides of the issue. We no longer can pay our rent. Thank you. That's time. [2:34:20] Carl L. Sheline: Further public comment? My [2:34:27] Public commenter: name is Bruce Lovett. I lived in Cushman Lane Park now for about 18 years, and I'm going to say they're not, I paid my mortgage off 10 years ago. My house isn't a rental property. I rent the land, not the house. I own the house. But for me to move it, that's an arm and a leg. And yes, they're mobile homes, mobile, they can move. When I first moved in the park back in 2008, we actually had community involvement. The owners were just like Fox Run, they were involved, there were nice big community events, you know, Halloween things with the kids and the whole nine yards, places of all kinds, and care was maintained. When I moved in 2008, my lottery was $215 a month. Now, that's a great deal. That price isn't bad and you can pair that with what you're paying for a mortgage. It was livable, it was a lot better than an apartment, you have the freedom to raise of children and actually save some money for an estate for the future maybe buy something bigger down the road if you want or maybe take care of your kids and invest in the local economy and keep that money in town now after the law was passed to give us the right of first refusal we went ahead and got the community together and we made an offer which was more than they actually ultimately accepted and we were left you know with new corporate owners and my lot rent is now up to four hundred and seventy five dollars but where I have nothing in return for that there's no policing services the roads are falling apart already the hours for us to actually dispose of our trash because even though we pay taxes here in Lewiston we can't get you know curbside service from trash we have to bring to the dump ourselves we have nothing in return a lot of folks that can't afford to rent an apartment if they can get the gradual point where they can't afford to buy a home a mobile home is great gateway to get started it keeps people in Lewiston we need more people in town we need to keep people here living in town to fill the jobs that we need I've been working for John F Murphy Homes for 20 years and a lot of folks can barely afford the rent working overtime long hours more than they probably should be just so they can afford an apartment which is in a horrible neighborhood where you know they have landlords that don't take care of their homes and they want to move on to something else they can't afford to because what rents keep going up and prices keep going up so I do seriously urge you to please consider you know passing this because it would be a great help for all of us because honestly we're not getting paid much more and my rock runs almost double so that's kind of crazy thank you [2:36:53] Carl L. Sheline: Hello, my name is Laurie St. Lair, Ward 6 and a resident of Fox Run in Lewiston. At 71, I'm eager to thrive in retirement, but skyrocketing expenses force me to keep working. Sadly, my Social Security benefits fall short and health issues make working tough. Despite these hurdles, I'm determined to rise above. Many fellow residents, seniors on fixed incomes like myself, face identical struggles. Together, we're seeking empowerment to take charge of the high annual rent increases, which soared 10% last year. With hope and resilience, we urgently need your guidance to overcome this challenge, so please help us as we just can't afford to keep paying these high costs every year, and with apartments being like 1800, 2000, or the other way is low income but we make too much, we're stuck, you know, I mean, I don't know what we're gonna do if we have to keep paying these high lot rents. We won't be to sell because no one's gonna want to buy them and we have no place to go, so we're hoping you can help us by putting a stop on these high lot increases so we can at least afford to keep our homes and stay where we are. Thank you. Hi, my name is James Malcott, I live at in Fox Run and we moved up here in October 2022 and we were paying 425 for locker room, now we're paying 550 dollars for a and I'm 78 years old, my wife's 73 and I had to go back to work. I was sort of semi-retired, now I'm working 20 hours a week just to make ends meet, and my wife and me are on Social Security, her Social Security is very minimal. If something happens to me, she's she's done for, and I mean I've I don't mind going back to work to at least survive, but pretty soon it's at 78 years old, I'm not going to be able to do it much longer, so we need we need your assistance to try to eliminate these constant increases. I know I got another $50 rent increase coming because people that moved in are already paying $600, so I thank you for your time. Hi, my name is John St. Hilaire. I'm a resident at Fox Run Mobile Home Park, and I'm in Ward 6. You've been hearing a lot of stories about people, that we don't have no place to go because, like my wife said, either you cannot afford an apartment or you overqualified for seeing houses to be retired to be retired, so we're not asking for a handout. All we're asking for is an honest look at what we pay, what we've been paying has been huge increases, it's not sustainable, we can't, we're gonna lose our homes. So I just want to say like Jim said, if one of us goes, we're losing, they're losing home. There's no way they can, and then where they're going to be out in the street. We pay our taxes, we shop in Lewiston, we work in Lewiston, we dine in Lewiston. So keeping us here is actually beneficial. It's an economic income for the city of Lewiston. It's not just charity. So I thank you and I really appreciate. We had a few counselors come visit us and the mayor, which we really appreciated. Just think about it. [2:42:22] Public commenter: Hello. My name is Jean Perrault and I live in Country Lane Estates, I believe that's Ward 6. When my partner and I first moved here from Florida, we went to this park because our lot rent was $263 and I could work. work. I was going to continue to work, but I turned 74 and I had a stroke at work. So that caused me to wind up not being able to work and struggle. And we're still struggling. He is disabled, so he gets less money than I get. And when the park was sold about two years ago was before they sold the park, before they signed the papers for the park, what they did was is they went up on us $50. Then when the park was sold, they went up again another $50 and when we got the notice last year, I paid $38. So at 79 years old, I'm paying three times $138. And I have had a few things done to my mobile that I had to pay for even buying it, but I had to pay for to make sure that, you know, it's a decent place to live. But the way we were offered, we offered them to buy the park ourselves because we went to several meetings. And the owner's daughter was running our park and she brought it to her parents. And she said the parents said no. Now they were selling two packs, they got 21 million dollars for two packs. So that meant that our rent was going up again and we cannot afford it because I had to quit my job when I was 74 and if I go to work now I will have hospital problems and I just don't think that they're right. They offer, oh we're going to do this and we're going to do that with the new park. The only thing they put in was new stuff like for your computers. We have a terrible road, the main road is so bad and there's nothing about fixing it. I question it and they get well, you know, and thank you further. [Carl L. Sheline: Public comment am] Am I supposed to say that? I've got three minutes, though, is that? [2:45:16] Carl L. Sheline: No,, you're good, sir. We appreciate you being here. [2:45:20] Public commenter: Well, a public comment I have is the only thing I was saying was when I owned my mobile home park down in Florida, we owned the land with it, and that's what we were trying to do. And we had the 51%. So where does that go? [2:45:40] Carl L. Sheline: I mean, you know, we're sorry. That's time if I give you time. I have to give everyone time. But I really appreciate you being here. I appreciate meeting with all of you the other day further public comment leader Russia Ward 5 [2:46:00] David B. Chittim: locally owned mobile home park [2:46:02] Carl L. Sheline: Within a matter of roughly two years [2:46:05] David B. Chittim: the rent was raised [2:46:10] Carl L. Sheline: $190 and [2:46:11] Michael R. Roy: That's a little too much as far as I'm concerned. And that's all that I want to say. Hi, [2:46:29] Public commenter: my name is Ray. I live in Stetsonbrook Home Park. We were bought out by Boa Vista a couple of years ago. We tried to organize, but there just wasn't enough time. And like was previously mentioned, the owner sold within the 90-day period. period. And the two lots that were sold went for over $21 million. I'm retired, but I also cannot afford to be retired, so I still work. I work a part-time job. It's very difficult. There's many of my neighbors that are on fixed income, like myself, and it's very difficult for them just knowing how they're going to make the rent for the coming year. Now we just had a rent increase back in November and I just would like to read to you a portion of the letter. Basically it was saying please be advised that per terms and condition of your rental agreement, title 10, chapter, whatever it is, enacted your new monthly space rent for the property located at my address will be increased by $35. Not as much as others have had to a new amount of 455. Again, for me, it's not so much, but this is the point I want to make. The letter goes on to say the average lot rent increased by one percent above the consumer price index for the northeast region is twenty dollars and twenty eight cents. Therefore this thirty five dollar monthly increase does exceed the consumer price increase plus one percent allowed lot rent increase set forth by law. And then it goes on to say if you have any other questions feel free to ask them about it. The point I'm trying to make is in a lot rental letter that they sent me with the price increasing they were acknowledging that they were outside of the law. They increased my rent law by more than what was allowed. They told me about it and they just didn't care about it. So that's my point. If they can raise it by 20 bucks more than they should have, what's stopping them from raising it 120 bucks from what they should have been raising it. There's so whatever you do put some teeth in the law. Thank you that's time [2:49:32] Carl L. Sheline: thank you further public comment members [2:49:45] Public commenter: of the council do you want your citizens [2:49:48] Carl L. Sheline: To die in their own homes. I'm sorry, can you please identify yourself and state [2:49:53] Public commenter: where you live? Ryan Salvatore, Ward 3. Do you want your citizens to die in their own homes or in Walmart? Okay, I'm gonna take off a lot of people that are on the right in the free market portion of this because most things I do agree with you on, but investors can look elsewhere other than housing to make their investments fruitful. For example, the S&P 500 historically has a better average return than, you know, housing and real estate. So I want to refresh the memory of anybody here including the council who's over the age of 60. I think you all remember when we cut the gold standard. This is a systemic problem. We've seen an immense inflationary spike. It's called a parabolic curve. I'm not sure if any of you guys are familiar with that. It's a parabolic curve in terms of inflation that is massively outpaced the average earnings and including retirement and Social Security, of which we're about to run out of funding for federally. So I think the big issue here is a systemic problem to where cost of living has vastly out exceeded wages and average earnings, especially when you look at factory workers and the majority of jobs that have created and founded the economic foundation that we sit on today. So I am not in favor of socialism, I'm not in favor of communism. I am so glad that Zorah Mondani won in New York because we're going to see what exactly those systemic things are going to show. We're going to see exactly what that shows and I think you're going to see a mass exodus in New york for example out to places like man beautiful here so like I said, do you want your citizens to die in Walmart or die in their own homes? And that is all up to you guys. What we do on this, it's a very complicated issue. This is free market gone amuck. You have Walmart, for example, and Amazon that have pushed out all the old mom and pop shops. Like I said, anybody here over the age of 60 remembers the old system that we had? We had cobblers, we had textile factories, paper mills all throughout Maine. Where'd all those jobs go? They went to industrial facilities, and if you could just bring it back around to the agenda item, that is the agenda item, that they all went to industrial facilities that are all through the state of Maine right now, and we need to do something to actually help people like my godmother, for example, who lives in a mobile home law, that's seen the rate and the price of her lot rent go through the roof way and massively outpacing, it used to be I think around 10 to 20 percent of her retirement benefits covered her lot rent, and now that's far exceeding 30 to 40 percent, and that's a serious issue that we need to address. If we're going to just let capitalism run amok and these big corporations take advantage of us, then we're going to have to do, and if that means that capitalism runs into the ground for a little bit, then we're going to have to do that. Like, listen to these people, they're suffering, we have suffering people in Lewiston, and that is what the agenda should be every day, not where you put a parking [2:52:46] Carl L. Sheline: you know, a parking garage or a stop sign, thank you. Further public comment, back to the council, or wait, after [2:53:00] Public commenter: you, hi, I'm Jackie Willett, Country Lane Estate, I went around our mobile homes and I got like at least 125 signatures, and that's only half of it that I could do, and at my age I'm 82 years old, and it's getting at the point paying 525 a month for 12 months, it's like six thousand dollars something like that a year, but if something happens on my land I have to pay for the snow plowing and of course the cutting of the grass, but the problem is it is so dangerous to go put our trash in that it's so slippery, they don't fix it, they don't put even sand, and the stairs are so slippery that I'm afraid to go to fall, so I have to keep put it leaving it, you know, on in my house, and after you know four or five days I have to call one of my kids to come and do it for me because I don't want to fall, and other things like if something happens on my lot, like if a tree is sick or something, it's not my land or anything, I'm renting, and I have to pay maybe 400 to cut the tree, I have to take care of that which it makes no sense that it's not my lot and I have to pay for having the tree cut, you know, so at my age the only thing I'm worried about is living off Social Security, where am I gonna go, there's no place else to go, and that's the fear that I am thinking of, at 82 years old you think of those things, thank you for listening [2:55:04] Carl L. Sheline: FURTHER UH COUNCILOR AND AGING DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING JUST REALLY QUICKLY COULD WE [2:55:09] Joshua L. Nagine: GET A COPY OF THE POSITION THAT COULD BE GIVEN TO YEAH WE'RE GONNA THANK YOU WE'LL FACILITATE [2:55:16] Public commenter: THAT THANK YOU UH PLEASE CONTINUE SIR HI MY NAME'S STEVE OSNELL I LIVE AT STETCHAM BROOK ESTATES I'VE BEEN THERE FOR ABOUT SIX YEARS AND THE OLD OWNERS THAT USED TO OWN IT OKAY THEY WERE PRETTY good they didn't go up that much he went out probably every three years which was pretty good okay and I'd say the year he sold it okay for 21 million point something I'm a little nervous and I really don't like speaking but this is THIS IS IMPORTANT TO ME, OKAY? I HAD A PRETTY GOOD JOB, OKAY? PLUS I'M RETIRED. I WAITED UNTIL I WAS 66 AND I HAD TO RETIRE. PLUS I HAD A PRETTY GOOD JOB. SO MY HEALTH WENT RIGHT DOWN. SO I HAD TO QUIT. I HAD TO QUIT. BUT ANYWAY, THEY SEEM TO KEEP GOING UP TWICE A YEAR. I CALL THEM BOA CONSTRICTORS. THEY ARE FROM CALIFORNIA. [Carl L. Sheline: PLEASE CONTINUE, SIR.] IF THEY KEEP GOING UP TWICE A YEAR, THAT WAS $75. YOU ARE GOING TO SEE OLD PEOPLE LIVING IN THEIR CARS BECAUSE have no other place to go there's a lot of people on fixed income where they're not making that much that's why they moved into a trailer park to own their own trailer and if they keep going up who's going to buy the trailers chances are they probably want to shove us all out so they can get CONDOMINIUMS THANK YOU FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS MATTHEW EGGERIN WARD 4 I DON'T LIVE IN A TRAILER PARK MY GODDAUGHTER LIVES IN A TRAILER PARK I HAVE FRIENDS WHO LIVE IN A TRAILER PARK MY GODDAUGHTER'S TRAILER IN THE TRAILER PARK CANNOT BE MOVED EVER AGAIN moving it in they broke the frame but part of the problem we're dealing with here is local businesses are no longer controlling local stuff be it mobile home parks apartment complexes stores DOORS, BUSINESSES, MOST EVERYTHING IS OWNED BY LARGE CORPORATIONS NOW. IS THAT A BAD THING? YES, NO. BUT IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS MONITORIUM, WHAT ABOUT EVERYONE IN THE CITY? WE HAVE A RE-EVALUATION OF OUR TAXES COMING. And I guarantee that my house is going to go up. Is there going to be something put in to stop the massive increase that I'm going to have to pay? No, there isn't. Are we going to cut city services so that we can keep our seniors who own their own homes in Lewiston and have owned them for 40 years in those homes? I hope so, but I'm not sure you guys have any way to do that. I don't know where you to go on this because let's face it, prices are going up everywhere. I know that my house is going to go up. How long can we ALL STAYING LOOSE AND THE PRICES ARE GOING UP AND UNLESS OF COURSE YOU'RE WILLING TO CUT CITY SERVICES BACK EVEN FIGHTER THAN THEY ARE AND LET'S BE HONEST WE CAN'T REALLY YOU GUYS ARE IN A DISPORTATORIUM WELL I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF IT MIGHT AT LEAST STOP TEMPORARILY WHILE YOU GUYS THINK ABOUT WHAT TO DO FOR THE ENTIRE CITY BECAUSE WE ASK THAT OF YOU TO BE RESPONSIBLE WITH THE CITY with the city's funds it's you guys get to make the hard choices here not any of us it's you guys and Gals we are all just trying to survive. Thank you. Further [3:00:29] Carl L. Sheline: Public comment back to the council. Councillor and aging, yes, just to [3:00:37] Joshua L. Nagine: clarify, people who live in mobile home courts, they do pay tax on their on their home, am I correct? Yeah, so when the mill rate changes, it also affects what they're paying in tax, not yeah. [3:00:56] Carl L. Sheline: I appreciate everyone speaking and yeah, I urge the council to pass this moratorium so we can take a hard look at what's possible. Further comments from counselors. Council Martel, yes. [3:01:12] Bret Martel: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would just like to say that I am not without compassion. I do not want to see anyone out of their home and I understand the situation that a lot of you have expressed this EVENING. IT IS A VERY DIFFICULT TASK THAT WE ARE CHARGED WITH AND WE SIGNED UP FOR THIS SO NOT LOOKING FOR ANY PATS ON THE BACK. THE REASON THAT I WANTED TO KIND OF EXPLAIN SOME OF MY PREVIOUS COMMENTS IS THAT I DIDN'T MEAN TO COME ACROSS HARSH AND I APOLOGIZE IF I DID. I'M JUST A FIRM BELIEVER IN PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND THE RIGHT TO DO WITH YOUR PROPERTY WHAT YOU WILL and I'm not a fan of massive corporations buying up private housing or rentals. I disagree with that and I do think there's a problem that needs to be addressed. I do not believe the way to go about that is by making punitive city ordinances that affect some property owners, some investors, some business owners and not others, and I think that we run a very serious risk of alienating housing investment in the future if we show a tendency to take actions like this and I wouldn't want to see that. The last time I checked, I believe Anderskogen County was below 5% vacancy rate for rental housing, and I think that points to supply and demand being the driving force behind these rent increases. I'm not saying that corporate greed does not exist, but if we're going to put freezes like this in place, I just fear the long-term out the long-term effect of future housing development in Lewiston. Like I said, I feel like that's desperately needed. And this is also an unfortunate truth, but when someone put their mobile home on a property or invested and bought their mobile home and moved it there, it was done with the understanding that you don't own the land under it and you were renting it. And it was the prerogative at any time other than finishing out the contract that is signed by the mobile homeowner or whatever that they're not compelled to continue to use their land as a mobile home park, and I just fear that while maybe a hundred or two hundred dollars a month may be very difficult to come up with and that's a perfectly reasonable issue to have, I fear what might happen if someone just decided to say that all the part although all the mobile homes need to be removed and they're just going to change the use of that land to something else, and I think that would be way more costly and way more disruptive to the lives of the people that are in those situations. So again, I don't want to see anyone out of their homes. I just believe in a free market capital economy, and I don't think that it's our place to tell landowners what to do with the property that they invested in. I heard a couple people mention that it was over 20 million dollars to purchase those parks, those people need to get return on their investment. The reason that they paid so much for those parks is because the value has gone up and rental housing rental housing is so rare that supply and demand has driven up the price to live in the Lewiston Auburn Anderscoggin County area, and while that is going to have unfortunate outcomes in certain situations, I just don't think this is the right way to go about policing it, and if any of the individuals who spoke tonight or anybody would like to discuss This with me personally, I want to invite you to come approach me after the meeting. I'd be more than happy to give you my information, engage you in conversation. If I'm wrong about this, I would love to hear your stories, and I don't want to see anyone suffering any unnecessary hardship. [3:05:38] Carl L. Sheline: madam clerk please call the vote counselor from word four yes word five yes word six yes word seven [3:05:47] Bryan Kaenrath: no word one yes word two yes word three yes motion passed by vote of six to one thank you very much madam clerk item number nine item number nine public hearing and first passage regarding an amendment to the administrative code to establish a 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 that the public hearing on said ordinance be continued to the next regularly scheduled City [3:06:23] Carl L. Sheline: Council meeting mava motion please so moved second by councillor herman administrative kainrath yeah thanks mr mayor so you have [3:06:34] Bryan Kaenrath: the ordinance here. I think just to follow up with some of the discussion from last time, I think it does need to be clear when this new committee will begin its work. As you know, there are there is an existing committee on this topic. It actually met earlier today, the mayor's ad hoc committee. So I think it just needs to be clear of when this committee will actually be commencing its business. I think we certainly don't want to have two committees on the same topic running concurrently from our perspective. I don't think it'd be productive, so I think we just need to clarify when the start date of this committee will be. I know there's some discussion last time we had talked about, I believe in the August September timeframe. If you can please head out to the hall to talk, [3:07:22] Carl L. Sheline: that'd be great. Sorry, please continue administrator. Yeah, I think if I remember the discussion [3:07:26] Bryan Kaenrath: correctly, it was sort of in the august or september time frame that was a discussion among the council and mayor of when this new committee would begin its works. Yes, I am [3:07:37] Carl L. Sheline: planning to have both this and the economic development committee run through august. That will probably coincide nicely with when this committee will be approved and find people slotted to serve on it, et cetera. Councilor Chiddom. [3:07:52] David B. Chittim: THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. IF I MIGHT OFFER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. THERE'S A CLERICAL ERROR IN SECTION 2, 233. THE REFERENCES TO SECTION 4 IN THAT SHOULD BE REFERENCES TO SECTION 2-232 IN TWO INSTANCES. [3:08:11] Carl L. Sheline: DID YOU SECOND, COUNCILOR HERMAN? I DID, YES. AND YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? YES, SURE. Have you noted to that madam clerk? Yes, sir. Thank you. Excellent. Anything further councillor Chittum. No, sir [3:08:25] Scott A. Harriman: Counselor Harriman. Yes. Yeah, I just wanted to speak to the time frame. I would think that this committee could probably start Once 30 days passes after the second reading which is when this would this ordinance would become effective I just think that these committees need to really get going and Work on these that the top two issues that were concerned with public safety and economic development [3:08:52] Carl L. Sheline: further comments from the council And I apologize chief Conley. I did not mean to ignore you. We have the chief back Anything you'd like to say? [3:09:02] Bryan Kaenrath: No, I was just up here in case you had any questions or feedback [3:09:08] Carl L. Sheline: Public comment for this agenda item him Matt Roy Ward 6 at the last meeting when you guys were discussing this you were two things you were based fretting over the size of this committee well may I can help because apparently like the word shall with our city attorney we do not understand the context of designee in a contractual legal environment designee means somebody who a substitute yeah so the chief or and designee does not conform to the norms of word designee if we're going up if it's the council's intention to have the chief and a other officer of the Lewiston Police Department the way this is written that does not conform or you can just have the chief and have 13 members and you don't have to worry about ties. [3:10:15] Public commenter: Matthew Egren, Ward 4. I speak in support of this item, but request a little clarification. Because unless these people are considered under membership code eight, two city residents with demonstrated interest or experience in public safety, criminal justice, or community advocacy, because what seems to be missing are to residents of the city, but they might not have expertise in public safety, criminal justice, or community advocacy. What you lose is an outside voice who might be willing to raise issues that others may not see. Now, if they're covered under that, I have no problem with that. But, you know, I look at somebody who has experience with public safety, being ex-law enforcement, ex-federal law enforcement, legal within the justice system at some point, lawyer, community advocacy, you work for one of the NGOs in the city. That doesn't actually make, that may not make you a resident who is interested in the public safety feature. But I'm hoping to get clarification on that term. Thank you further. [3:11:43] Carl L. Sheline: Public comment back to the council. Yes, counselor should have. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Roy. [3:11:53] David B. Chittim: The reference to the police chief and or his or her designee doesn't apply to membership. It applies to the individual who is going to be providing training to the individual members, unless I'm missing it in another place. Thank you, Councilor. [3:12:11] Scott A. Harriman: Herman, I think the reference is section 2-232, number or subsection A, number two. I [3:12:30] David B. Chittim: I'M I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT THE WORD DESIGNEE APPEARS in subsection C and two doesn't refer to designee under the list of membership yes there's a with 11 categories of membership comprising 14 members be talking about all members shall be residents except for ex officio members and see all members shall receive an initial public safety orientation from the chief of police and or his or her designee and i think that's what mr roy was referring to [3:13:11] Scott A. Harriman: There's also under subsection A, number two, it mentions the chief. You're right, I stand corrected. [3:13:19] David B. Chittim: Thank you, counselor. [3:13:25] Joshua L. Nagine: Yes, counselor Naging, which as I count up all the members it comes to 14. So it's the chief and the chief's designee, those are two positions, and I don't see any issue with that if it's intentional, which I would refer back to the chief and the administrator to determine. Yes. [3:13:51] Bryan Kaenrath: We included two members from the police department, which has been consistent with the current ad hoc committee. Makes [3:13:58] Carl L. Sheline: total sense. Thank you so much. The idea is that a lot of moving parts in the police department, and so today as we talked about, you know, an introduction from the chief to the members of the committee, you know, explaining her vision for the department, and then also was joined by Sergeant Mishu talking about community policing, for further comments from the council administrator, Camera. [3:14:27] Bryan Kaenrath: Did you have something? I just want to ensure there is, there's clarity for when this committee will begin its work. City staff is already staffing one existing committee, that's your committee. I think there does need to be more discussion about what's happening with your committee and when is this committee starting, because I will say it's not gonna be ideal for us to have city staff staffing two committees in the same topic for the next five months. Remember that, so I think there needs to be further clarity on that of when this committee will begin. I know the discussion last time was August, I guess from what I remember, but I think that just needs to be clear as we go forward here, because I think having two running concurrently on the same topics being staffed by the same city staff members, the chief of police and her designee, this is not gonna be a great situation as far as staffing is considered. [3:15:17] Joshua L. Nagine: Understood, Councillor Nguyen. Yes, I would echo the administrator's concerns. I think that's something we've all brought up a few times, so once we've all voted in the membership of this standing committee, the other committee could probably sunset. So also in the language for the Standing Committee, is there a mention of what happens if the mayor fails to a point? My [3:15:48] Carl L. Sheline: guess is it would just revolt to the, revert to the 60-day appointment in elsewhere in council rules, or I'm [3:15:59] Bryan Kaenrath: clerk, what's the, I honestly can't remember off hand if it's in the charter, in the administrative code. No, it's not in the charter because the council did vote on that at the last term, last session, so it would be, I think, in the administrative code. The mayor has 60 days to make an appointment when an appointment becomes vacant, and after that, then the appointing [3:16:16] Joshua L. Nagine: authority becomes the council. So ultimately, once this is read in, which will be, we'll read it this time and then we have one more reading, it should be 90 days from now that we have a full wait. Council President Chittum has things to say. 30 days, 30 days. Yeah, so well, we're saying if the mayor doesn't appoint, which I believe he will, I have full faith and confidence the mayor will fill this committee, most probably with some of the members that are currently on the committee, that hot committee, but again, we're trying to set a date, right, and so I would think that the ad hoc COMMITTEES WOULD EXPIRE AFTER 90 DAYS AFTER THE FINAL READING OF THIS ORDINANCE OR UNTIL, I mean, WOULDN'T IT BE EASIER JUST TO SAY ONCE THIS COMMITTEE IS ESTABLISHED THE AD HOC COMMITTEE IS [3:17:06] Carl L. Sheline: IS NULL YOU KNOW I'VE UH THANK YOU COUNCILOR NEJJANE UH COUNCILOR SHIDDOM DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING [3:17:13] David B. Chittim: WELL AD HOC COMMITTEES SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE MAYOR I BELIEVE AND IF THE MAYOR CHOOSES DISBAND the ad hoc committee when this committee is constituted that would be a decision that the mayor would have to make and I think we could urge him to make that decision I don't believe that 's a council decision the other point I'd like to make is that the mayor only nominates members of this committee they are appointed by the council so I would call on you mr. mayor to disband the AD HOC COMMITTEE ONCE THIS COMMITTEE HAS BEEN CONSTITUTED AND CREATED. [3:17:50] Carl L. Sheline: YEAH, I MEAN, I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A TUSSLE RIGHT NOW OVER WHEN MY COMMITTEES END AND WHEN THE NEW COMMITTEES START. YOU KNOW, I CAN GO BACK AND TALK TO MY CO-CHAIRS. I WOULD PREFER THAT THEY RUN THROUGH AUGUST AND THEN A NEW COMMITTEE START UP AFTER THAT. that. Councillor Longchamps. [3:18:13] Susan G. Longchamps: Yes. Basically, I was just trying to reiterate what the administrator was asking, which is they need more clarity. I think that your ad hoc committee should end immediately as soon as this one is put together. So I would ask you, Mr. Mayor, that you would agree to that and I hope that we can get this committee put together very quickly. [3:18:47] Joshua L. Nagine: Councillor Nagy back to you. I just wanted to say this is also your committee Mr. Mayor. The committee shall serve in an advisory capacity to the mayor and City Council on matters relating to public safety with particular emphasis on the prevention and reduction of gun violence. You will be able to appoint whoever that we then approve I would just suggest that it would behoove us to kind of move into a realm where we can expect some guidance from both the police department and administration in order to identify concerns and priorities around public safety from that standing committee [3:19:25] Carl L. Sheline: perspective that's all I appreciate that we don't need to go on further here yeah I've heard the you know the council members who spoke I will I 'm in favor of this committee absolutely we're just talking about when it starts I will go back and talk to my co-chairs and then we'll we'll take it from there we're we're coming back for at least a second reading correct okay yeah I urge the council to vote this through yes councillor Chittum final thoughts thank [3:20:01] David B. Chittim: You, Mr. Mayor, Madam Clerk, it's happening again. If we add an effective date for when this committee will become effective at second reading, is that a substantive change or is that an amendment we could made, we could make? [3:20:18] Bryan Kaenrath: Two weeks from now would you, with the change, be with the effective date, be much longer than the 30 days that's in the books right now? If the mayor and [3:20:33] David B. Chittim: members of the council can't come to a mutual understanding as to when these two committees will end and begin, then we could address that with this ordinance, but it would have to be done either as an amendment today or as an amendment on the second reading. And my question is, that substantive? [3:20:54] Carl L. Sheline: I'm sorry, what, Madam? Yeah, please continue, Madam Clerk. I mean, at no point do I want, I feel like we're like two parents here in the in the and the kids are caught in the middle, so no, I 'm amenable as always, so I trust that we can all come to a conclusion together without one side feeling forced, and we can pick up this conversation at a future meeting. Seeing, you know, it's also 1017, I urge us to pass this as is. Final thoughts from counselors? Madam Clerk, please call the vote. Council from word four Yes. [3:21:49] David B. Chittim: Word five, yes. Word six, point of order, did we go to public hearing? I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor, we did in fact. Okay, I'm sorry, thank you. Yes, you're you're forgiven. [3:22:01] Bryan Kaenrath: Word seven, yes. Word one, yes. Word two, yes. Word three, yes. Motion passed by vote of seven to zero. Item number 10, item number 10, receipts of recommend, I'm sorry, receive the recommendations from the Finance Committee and the Planning Board on the fiscal year 27 Lewiston capital improvement plan. Requested action to receive and review the recommendations from the Finance Committee and the Planning Board regarding the fiscal year 27 Lewiston capital improvement [3:22:30] Carl L. Sheline: plan. Maverick motion, please. So moved, counselor. I'm saying by Councillor Harriman. Comment from the councillor Chittum. Yes, thank you, Mr. [3:22:43] David B. Chittim: Mayor, I serve as the chair of the Finance Committee, and I wanted to point out several things that are consistent between both the Planning Board and the Finance Committee. We did not collaborate on this, but both had specific recommendations for specific projects, and strangely enough, they aligned to a great deal. So I would make sure that the council is aware that both the Finance Committee and the Planning Board made recommendations pursuant to particular programs within the LC IP. The other point That I would like to emphasize is the request of the Finance Committee that at the bottom of page 2 the City Council should direct that this detailed information should be included in the FY why 2028 LCIP that refers to a much more robust cost benefit analysis within the information sheets that are appended to each program in the LCIP. So I would like the council to I don't know if a formal motion is necessary but I would like the council to recognize that the finance committee has recommended this two years running and we would like to have the council perhaps direct staff to incorporate these changes in next year's LC IP documentation further. [3:23:58] Carl L. Sheline: Comment public comment Matt. Roy Ward six well mr. mayor mr. council president you forgot to mention the second part that's a consecutive running feature of the Finance Committee's recommendation explore other ways of the cap like this has been As you rightly stated, as council president, you get to appoint your two members of the council, and the committee has, again, selected you as chair, so that gives you power over the agenda. So notwithstanding the busy agenda the finance committee and council in general will have over the next 60 days, generally speaking, when is this going to be an agenda item? Because, again, it's been in the cost of benefit analysis. this has been the second time and then you and council go in the last term agreed that this should be looked at and you have failed in that matter thank you yes for the public government good evening Shanna Cox Ward 3 and chair of planning board I wanted to thank president Chen and for raising the alignment between finance and planning board both on some of the items to preserve as well as some of the ones to take a second look in terms of reaching the cuts that you need to I'd also add I'm not aware of what you're requesting for fiscal year 28 but there was a universal comment among planning board to request that the year-over-year books that we get have an indication about whether it was approved carried bonded and actually started in the previous year and so when we are seeing a request that has a multi-year request we oftentimes see this, obviously in Public Works, where you're looking at street paving, you're gonna see that every year. Though we do track which streets are being kind of lifted up in that process. But specifically, we spoke about things like the roofs for the middle school and the high school, which has multi-year requests. Did it get done? Did a portion of it get done when that was approved last year? Oftentimes, we spend three meetings at Planning Board reviewing the capital improvement plan and looking at the years prior. Most of us keep our prior year books to try to do an analysis, but it would be very easy on that front page where the summary of the page numbers are to simply put a little bit of a legend that helps give a key to both what our feedback actually resulted in, but oftentimes projects are approved but not enacted, and they might even be bonded without being started. And we're just looking to understand that a little bit better when, I mean, essentially it's four times the amount that we can see. I would also be remiss to not bring Planning Board member Mark Hott's voice into the room, who annually would very much like to see the discussion of the bond cap really revisited about what that means and how that would be enacted, and there was full support with that as well. So thank you again for raising that. Further public comment back to the council. Madam Clerk, please call the vote. [3:27:14] Bryan Kaenrath: 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 budget 7-0. Item number 11. Item number 11, resolve adopting the fiscal year 2027 Lewiston Capital Improvement Plan, requested action that pursuant to Article 6, Section 6.06E of the City Charter, the City Council hereby approves the resolve adopting the fiscal year 2027, seven city of Lewisting five-year capital improvement program as prepared [3:27:45] Carl L. Sheline: by the city administrator. May I have a motion please? So moved. Councillor Nguyen. Second. Second by Councillor Martel. Comments from the council? [3:27:56] David B. Chittim: Yes. Councillor Chittim. Thank you. I would just like to inform, assure, reassure members of the council and the public that acceptance of the LCIP does not guarantee funding of the projects and programs that are included in it. Those will be discussed during budget season as we move forward, so the mention of a project and its associated cost in the LCIP is not a guarantee that project or cost will be [3:28:23] Carl L. Sheline: implemented. Public comment back to the council. Yep, budget season's coming up. Madam Clerk, please call the vote. Council, from Ward 4? Yes. Ward 5? Yes. Ward 6? Yes. [3:28:39] Bryan Kaenrath: Ward 7? Yes. Ward 1? Yes. Ward 2? Yes. Ward 3? Yes. Motion passed by a vote of 7 to 0. Item number 12. Item number 12, resolution authorizing and directing an assessment of shooting-related needs and financial burdens of individuals affected by the October 25, 2023 mass shooting. Requested action to approve the resolution authorizing and directing an assessment of shooting related needs and financial burdens of individuals affected by the October 25th [3:29:09] Bret Martel: 2023 mass shooting. I have a motion. Please so move. Okay. Yep. Councillor Martel, it's getting late, Mr. [3:29:18] Carl L. Sheline: Mayor. I apologize. No need. Second by Councillor Naijin. Councillor Longchamps, [3:29:25] Susan G. Longchamps: do you want to say something? Yes. I just wrote something that I'd like to read, and I know it's really late, so I thank everybody for being here. I asked for this item to be placed on tonight's agenda to formally request that we as Council and administration take a closer look at the survivors and the victims impacted by the tragic mass shooting that occurred on October 25th, 2023. The events of that night deeply affected our city and our nation, and the impact continues to be felt today. Many victims and survivors are still living with lasting emotional, physical, and financial effects. Over time, members of our community have come before this Council asking us to look into the donations that were generously given to support those affected. In response, leadership met with the Maine Community Foundation and reported back that there were no findings of wrongdoing and nothing further for Council to pursue. For the past two years, I accepted that conclusion, and I remain silent, and I want to acknowledge that. I also believe our responsibility as elected officials is not only to accept reports, but to ensure that the needs of those impacted have truly been met. It is about making sure we have done everything within our power to support those affected. It is about assuring accountability, compassion, and care. I believe it's time for us as Council to come together and take a renewed look at this. If needs remain unmet, we must ask what more can be done? Done? And how can we better support those who continue to carry the weight of that night? I do not stand here tonight with all the answers, but I do stand here with the responsibility to ask the questions, have we truly done everything that we could? Because for those whose lives were forever changed on October 25th, this is not in the past. It is something they continue to live with every day. They deserve to know that their city has not forgotten them. Thank [3:32:12] Carl L. Sheline: you, counselor. Or anything further, counselor? Along Champs, I would just like to ask the [3:32:18] Susan G. Longchamps: council, I hope that this does pass, and it's basically just for us to look into to make sure that victims and survivors, their needs have been met, and if they haven't, what can we do as a council? [3:32:34] David B. Chittim: Further? Yes, Councillor Chittim. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Longchamps. The compassion is evident in this. The concerns are evident. Motivations are pure, I'm sure. I do however have concerns about asking the city specifically and especially city staff to participate in an assessment or an investigation. I think assessment is the word that you used. I think it's more appropriate. I'm not altogether certain what an assessment could result in. I think that it's very clear that many of the 161 people who were directly affected by this shooting on October 25th continue to carry physical and emotional and mental scars. They probably will do so for the rest of their lives. And for that, you. And you have all of our absolute sympathies. The question remains, what more can be done, and how do we establish that? One of the commissions that was created after the 9-11 attack on the Twin Towers in New York City wrestled with this very question about what is the value of pain and suffering. And I don't know that a reasonable answer can be determined for that. Even if one could be determined for that, where do the funds for this come from? If it boils down to money, I am concerned about the tasking city staff to participate in this. I think the main resiliency center is perhaps a better organization, although I'm not certain how the City Council can do anything other than request that the main resiliency center, who has intimate knowledge of the people who were involved in this, other than asking them questions. But what happens when those answers come back with I need more money, I need more support? How do we supply that? So those are my questions. I think your resolve is well-intentioned, but I have concerns about the outcomes of that. [3:34:44] Carl L. Sheline: You know, the tragedy of October 25th was the darkest hour our city has ever faced. And absolutely, I share some of the same, some of the same concerns as Councillor Chittim. And then the one thing too that we would need to check into, you know, I don't, maybe I don't know what the correct term is for this, but I'm, you know, our city does not have, you know, a statutory obligation for confidentiality. So any records that we create over this, you know, would be, you know, as far as I know, subject to FOA. And so You know, it's probably not in anybody's interest if we started creating a database of, you know, the victims and, you know, families of, sorry, the survivors and families of the victims. I'm, yeah, I'm just concerned about that. Furthermore, you know, anyone who has medical, unmet medical needs can contact the Resiliency Center and the Victims Compensation Program at the AG's office and receive support for any ongoing medical needs relating to the shooting. And then that also covers mentor mental health needs as well. So they're, you know, the, you know, you're coming from an excellent place, right? And all of us here care about the people who are affected during the mass shooting. But I cannot, I cannot buy into the narrative that they have not, you know, that there's been no ongoing support. You know, immediately after the shooting, the city helped establish the Resiliency Center, and then the Victims Compensation Program has done noble work at the AG's office to ensure that people's medical needs are met and people are supported. Council Ironman. Thank you. Yeah. [3:36:51] Scott A. Harriman: I was just wondering what the main Resiliency Center's feedback was on this. [3:36:54] Bret Martel: Are [3:36:58] Susan G. Longchamps: you asking me that? Anyone who knows, well, that's my point is I think instead of us being silent like we have been, we should look into that. We should ask the Resiliency Center. As far as I knew, and I was aware of, like, this has just been a silent thing. There's nothing we could do, let's not talk about it. And you've said that yourself, there's nothing we can do. I'd even repeat what you said, but I'm not going to again. I'm asking that we look into the fact or the thought that there may be some needs that were not met. Maybe we need to direct them. I don't know exactly what that's going to look like, but I know that there are people that have come here time and time again. We have received emails that have had complaints about this, about their needs not being met, and it's, I believe, our responsibility. This happened in our city. [Public commenter: We've] remained silent long enough and I know what you guys are suggesting you know the thing that you guys don't want is the nonprofits to be dragged into this and that's not what I want to do I want to make sure that the people that were directly affected by that mass shooting mass shooting have been taken care of and that they continue to be taken care of and it is our responsibility to do that and if you don't think so i'm not gonna say what i think should happen [3:38:43] Carl L. Sheline: council herriman back to you [3:38:46] Scott A. Harriman: yeah i guess my question is still what the what the main resiliency center's feedback was and if they have been part of this conversation because they've they seem to have been driving the you know the response to this event and if I just wonder I mean it doesn't seem to speak to it in the agenda item so I just [3:39:09] Bret Martel: wonder if they had any feedback yes counselor noble so I just want to say [3:39:17] Susan G. Longchamps: that I have people that I know that have been affected by the shooting and their needs are not being met. And so, I'm not saying, like Susan said, you know, that we need to drag non-profits across the coals, but I think that it would do right by the people who were affected by the shooting for us to just take the time to look into what they're asking us to look into. That's my opinion. [Carl L. Sheline: Councilwoman Longchamps, yes.] So although Councillor Harriman did not directly ask me that question, I know where you're getting at. No, I did not contact the center yet, but I will be. Does that answer your question? [3:40:09] Carl L. Sheline: Councillors, we're not going to go back and forth. Thank you. Further comments, questions from councillors who haven't spoken yet? Yes, Councillor Martel. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. [3:40:20] Bret Martel: I wholeheartedly support this resolution and I think it should represent a first step not every step so I think they're reaching out finding out what the needs are finding out what the unmet needs are and establishing that and once we establish what needs to be done or what's failed to been done at this point then the next step would be to address those needs and I think that addressing those needs can take a lot of different forms but I would certainly begin with 1.9 million dollars in the main community fund thank you sorry please [3:41:00] Carl L. Sheline: anything else for further councilor Marta we're gonna hold off council airman we're gonna go to public comment at this point my [3:41:16] Public commenter: name is Keith Tremblay Ward 7 and I am a survivor of the Lewiston mass shooting. I'm actually a fortunate one. My injury is not due to the mass shooting, it's separate related incident. But the fact of the matter is we need some voices because we have counselors and we have a mayor that are on our city board that say they care about us but won't do anything about it. They won't even look into things. We have so many questions that are unanswered. We have so many people that are going day-to-day lives way worse than me. I am okay, my friends are okay in some ways. But not in a lot of ways and you won't even look into it. Take a consideration, please. Come on [3:42:00] Carl L. Sheline: further public comment Shana Cox Ward 3 and I want to be very clear that I'm here as a resident and a community member. I Really appreciate this coming forward. What I did not hear in the language of your proposal tonight was a desire that has been expressed in other places. What I heard was a desire for this city to lead, to provide leadership and the opportunity to understand what is unmet and what resources might be able to be marshaled to meet it, not to commit those resources. We probably don't have them. There is a great amount of need that is unmet that is beyond I think what can be valued and what can be repaid. That doesn't mean there aren't resources to support or to be coordinated. Think an inventory of those resources, I think an understanding and not an inventory of need so that you aren't putting people in uncomfortable places and that folks can choose to contribute to a conversation or a process. I think is a safer way to do that. I think the concern is the reality that of the 160 plus folks who were impacted not all of them are Lewiston residents and that passing this WOULD BE A CHOICE TO LEAD AMONGST THE COMMUNITIES, THE MANY COMMUNITIES THAT WERE IMPACTED AND THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SPREAD ACROSS THOSE COMMUNITIES. AND I THINK THERE IS MUCH TO BE DONE AND IT IS NOT TO HAVE THE ANSWER OR TO HAVE THE RESOURCES TO SOLVE EACH UNMET NEED, BUT IT IS A CONVERSATION THAT SHOULD BE COORDINATED AND LED ON. AND I'M GRATEFUL PERSONALLY TO HEAR THIS REQUESTED TONIGHT. FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? [3:43:56] Public commenter: Ryan Salvatore, Ward 3. So the Maine Community Foundation told everybody that 100% of all donations would go to victims and survivors without mentioning the non-profit grants that later became the center of this intensifying public scandal. So everything I believe needs to be public and I hope that everybody else agrees with me. There should be no, there should be no disagreeance with that. Everything should be public regarding the funds connected to the tragedy and Lewis, and the public deserves complete transparency. How much money was raised, how much of it came from private donations, how much of it came from state and federal sources, how much has actually been distributed to the affected families, and how much, if any, of it remains. What were the administrative costs to control the fund, who controlled the funds, and when were payments made. This information should already be available. When people donate after a tragedy, they are giving in good faith. When government allocates funds, it's acting as a steward of taxpayer dollars. Every dollar must be traceable. We have seen several oversight failures in other states, including medical funding fraud in Minnesota and in our state in Maine. That alone justifies demanding documentation instead of assurance, and transparency is not just a local issue either. At the federal level, Americans have raised concerns for years about audits of National Reserves, including the gold at Fort Knox, a symbol of our monetary foundation. Whether these concerns are valid or not, one thing is clear: trust requires verification. From federal reserves to relief funds, accountability must be consistent. Non-profits must also be brought into the light. When organizations collect and distribute funds tied to a tragedy, they assume a serious responsibility. If there is nothing to hide, transparency will prove it, and if there were mistakes, they should be acknowledged and corrected. If there was mismanagement, it must also be addressed. We are talking about funds connected to people who lost their lives and the families they left behind. That makes transparency even more critical. Even the appearance of potential misappropriation in matters involving deceased victims and their families demands immediate and independent review. This is not about attacking anybody, it's about protecting victims, protecting donors, and protecting public trust. Public money, public donations, requires public accounting. Full transparency. Matthew Egren, Ward 4. These are not my words, they're words of a survivor. Imagine you're sitting at a high top table at Schmegi's Bar and Grill. To the right, near the half wall in the corner, you've just sat down. You've ordered a couple appetizers, some drinks with your friends. It's an ordinary night. And then a man walks in and starts shooting. This isn't a movie. This happened during the Lewiston mass shooting. I escaped my attempted been murdered by running through the kitchen at Schmiggy's. I ran for my life. The days that followed, the Maine Community Foundation created a fund to support the victims. The foundation announced that 6.8 had been raised. Of that, 1.9 was distributed to 29 local nonprofit organizations. At first glance, these numbers sound significant. They sound like impact. They sound like help. help. But when you look closer, serious questions emerge. Two of the nonprofit organizations run by an individual who has been previously convicted of murder with a gun each received $65,000, or a total of $130,000. That amounts more than some individual victims and survivors received. For escaping my own attempted murder and running through the kitchen while bullets were flying, living the trauma for the rest of my life, I received $7,000. I am grateful to be alive, but gratitude does not silence accountability. Survivors and families deserve transparency. We deserve to understand how the funds were allocated, what criteria was used, and how decisions were made. When millions were raised in the name of victims, should not be an afterthought. This isn't about politics. It's about fairness. It's about trust. It's about honoring the people whose lives were taken and forever changed in Lewiston. Mayor Chalene, you said you were going to look into this. We are still waiting for response. The community deserves answers. Survivors deserve clarity. Families deserve to know that the funds raised in their loved ones names were handled with integrity and transparency. We can never undo what happened that night in Smegies. We cannot erase the fear, the loss, the trauma. But we can demand accountability. We can insist that what money was raised for the victims, the victims come first. I escaped through kitchen. Others didn't make it out at all. The least we can do now is ensure that their names and the support they were promised in their honor were treated with fairness, transparency, and respect. Destiny Johnson, Wyndham, Lewiston's shooting survivor. And yes, we need to see full transparency here, guys. You know me. That's what I believe in. [Carl L. Sheline: Further public comment.] Benjamin Dyer, Auburn, Maine, Lewiston's survivor. I was shot five times that night. I lost my finger. I lost my bicep, my tricep. You guys can't hide it. You can't miss it. Don't look away. COUNSELOR HERRMAN, PLEASE LOOK. DON'T LOOK AWAY. THAT'S DISRESPECT. [3:50:27] Scott A. Harriman: COUNSELOR, I HAVE LOOKED. [3:50:31] Carl L. Sheline: COUNSELOR, YOU HAVE NOT BEEN RECOGNIZED. [3:50:34] Scott A. Harriman: NO COUNSELOR HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED. PLEASE STOP, COUNSELOR. I LOOKED AND NOW I AM LISTENING. [3:50:43] Carl L. Sheline: COUNSELOR HERRMAN, YOU ARE OUT OF ORDER. THANK YOU. NO, WE ARE NOT RECOGNIZING ANYBODY RIGHT NOW. WE ARE IN PUBLIC COMMENT. Please continue, sir, once [3:50:53] Public commenter: again benjamin dyer arbor main lewiston survivor shot five times i spent 19 days in the hospital when your foundations that you guys set up for fundraising i wasn't part of it because i was still in that hospital beds fighting for my life so when you hear oh you guys were talked to wrong i spent 18 months out of work because of this situation i went back to work because disability payments don't cover your mortgage just because i was shot still needed to heat the house still needed to feed the family, still needed to pay a mortgage to have a place to live. The money you guys raised is missing, and I say you guys or the community, everybody was out there and proud, we're raising all this money, national news. When the time comes, where'd the money go? This council was tasked to set things up. It's kind of funny, I see the bottle of water in front of everybody. That company gave a lot of money. I know, because it's my company. That's who I work for. So when I see money missing, guess what? But they wouldn't like to hear personally to say, hey, stop giving to the community because all they're doing is taking it. You say you want to look into what the needs are. We're not asking to get rich. This isn't about money. It is about survival. Just like everybody else that was here tonight, whether it was the mobile home parks, I'll go to the ice because I'll tell you what, you use three letter acronyms, but you had no problem asking the FBI or the ATF for help to find the person who did this, and you had no problem applauding, tapping on the back, and you know what, I get 180 seconds to speak to you about this tonight. It's less than twice the amount of time it took at Schmeggy's Bar and Grill for the carnage to happen. Think about that. Think about the damage that was done in less than half the time that you're telling me I have to speak about it to you today. Because I'll tell you what, I don't think I've heard from any one of you personally that says, hey, how you doing, just checking in, everything okay, your mental health okay. And I'll answer you about the main resiliency center. They can't tell you because of HIPAA, which you guys keep quoting. They are therapists, they are professionals. They can't tell you without our permission. I stand here and speak before you because I'm not afraid. It's therapeutic for me. All I'm asking is you take the time, review the wrong, and do the right. The simplest part of this is we teach our children not to lie because one little lie grows into a big one. Well guess what, right the ship. Because if you're the captain, mayor, you're not carrying five-gallon pails in your boat telling all of your council members to keep bailing. That way, what you're gonna do is you're gonna stop the ship, you're gonna bring it to port, and you're gonna have it fixed. And that's all that we're asking for, the survivors, the families, the heirs to the deceased. Because you can sit and name them all you want and publicize it and have a yearly parade through town like we're heroes. We're not. We're individuals that are just asking for accountability and support. And guess what, we don't get it. All we're asking for, thank you. Further [3:55:04] Carl L. Sheline: further public comment. Public comment is now closed. Administrator Cain Raff, has a legal weighed in on this about what would be permissible under state law or [3:55:19] Bryan Kaenrath: what would be best practices? I do not believe has been run through legal, is [3:55:22] Carl L. Sheline: that correct, counselor? Okay, I think at a minimum we need to at least do that because I am worried about exposing people's, you know, confidential information and, you know, identity information being able to be forward, counselor in aging. So [3:55:49] Joshua L. Nagine: I just want to say a few things. Ultimately, I realize we don't have the regulatory authority to change anything as far as the expenditures or the decision-making with MCF, as far as the way that they distributed money. We also don't have subpoena power. We don't have the ability to set up an inquest or a hearing. What we can do is account exactly for the city's part of the fundraising, which I think we already have, and then also identify any resources that are available within the community, including The Victims Compensation Fund, the federal funding that just came through, identify these portions that are there to actually help people. I'll say this, I'm, I'm quite positive that many people in this community who were subject to a mass shooting event will never be okay. Like it's, it's, it's, there's a, there's a heavy burden there. I think I have a slight issue with assigning city staff to do this because ultimately, like, I want city staff to be working on budgets and our public safety programming. Things like that, but at the same time, you know, the, I think what we need to look at is how to make all of the things that happen accountable, and that's not, what's not clear, so,. [3:57:29] Carl L. Sheline: Councilor Longchamps. [3:57:34] Susan G. Longchamps: First, I'd just like to apologize to Councilor Harriman. I don't want you to think I'm trying to police you. I do think it is extremely rude when you are not, I wasn't trying to insinuate. [3:57:47] Carl L. Sheline: Councilors, we're not going to be, talking about this, yeah, so please say something else or yield your time. Thank you. Further questions about the, or comments about the agenda item. [3:58:04] Joshua L. Nagine: counselor Neji just to be clear the administrator that was in the council in the seat is not there we're two administrators passed who was in charge when that shooting happened in the city I think it's important that we go through and identify all of these pieces that the people are asking us to do 100% I also know that everybody who's on this council right now we were with the exception of the mayor and councilor Harriman weren't in these seats when the shooting happened and I also know that council and ours were not involved in any of the decision-making that happened around the funding sources so again i think it 's it's incredibly important to identify these pieces that people have questions about i know that they're that no matter what happens there will be people who are not satisfied with the answers but i do think it's important that we go through and point out answer the questions we can absolutely i'm just not sure [3:59:12] Carl L. Sheline: That this does that. Any thoughts, Administrator Kenra or Deputy Administrator O'Malley, who was. [3:59:22] Bryan Kaenrath: Here at the time, I think I will say, I think it may be helpful to define what success looks like, to define some clear goals and expectations and deliverables that may serve as some further guidance on, are we achieving our objectives, are we meeting the spirit of what was intended here. I think just some benchmarks in that regard maybe helpful. Awesome. [3:59:51] Carl L. Sheline: councillor Chittum yes Thank You mr. mayor there are some [3:59:56] David B. Chittim: Questions asked tonight that are valid, reasonable, and certainly understandable questions. The information that I've reviewed has already answered those questions. There has been a full disclosure of the money that went into the city, through the city, to the Maine Community Foundation, and from the Maine Community Foundation through its two funds to the victims and the non-profits. I think those questions have been answered over and over and over again, and I'm not certain, as Councilor Najin has said, that this council or anyone can answer those questions to the satisfaction of people who are not satisfied with the answers that have already been provided. I have no problem at all with believing all of the documentation that's been provided by Maine Community Foundation, by the Chamber of Commerce who was involved, by Consultant Najin and I had a long meeting in early 2024, by the committees that distributed the funds. I see no additional information that can be gained beyond what has already been published and made available to the public. I've shared that with people who have called me begging and insisting and demanding that I and this council take action. I don't really know what other action can be taken. It's very difficult to say this because my sympathies lie with the people who experienced this tragedy. However, I don't know what else can be done to satisfy what I am coming to believe has been politicized recently for the furtherance of some agendas. I think that these questions have been answered, and I don't know how many times we can answer them again before we run into a brick wall. So I'm all in favor of finding out what needs are still out there. I'm not at all in favor of trying to assign blame or say that there were mistakes or errors made, because I believe that the people who were involved in this without exception did so with pure hearts, with good intention. I will tell you that the main community foundation, it was asked earlier what administrative costs there were, none. The main community foundation donated all of its administrative efforts into is distributing these funds. There have been allegations that donors were told 100% of The money they gave would go to victims. They were given a choice. The Main Community Foundation would not accept money without having it designated to one of two funds. If money came in with no designation, that money was split 50-50 because Main Community Foundation could not put its thumb on the scales of either the victims or the nonprofits. And a receipt for that money was sent to the donor identifying that because it was undesignated, half of the money went into each fund. The executive director of Maine Community Foundation has told me that no one complained that their money was misallocated, that it was put into the wrong fund. Had they done that, the money would have been transferred. So these questions have been answered over and over and over again. I really don't want to go down this road. I will, as I said to Councillor Longchamps when we discussed this some weeks ago. I'm 85% of the way there to finding out what needs remain. What I said earlier is I'm not sure how those needs could be ever be met, but let's ask those questions. Let's get off the political agenda of money was stolen from donors and given to undeserving recipients. That is patently false [4:04:14] Carl L. Sheline: One second, counselor. So one option, you know, I'm so concerned about the legal ramifications of all of this. I mean, and I do, yeah, we can assess what needs are still available and then and then connect them with resources. I'm yeah, I think that's what success looks like. I'm yeah, sorry, counselor Lunch jumps, yes [4:04:42] Susan G. Longchamps: Thank you for clarifying all that you just did, Mr. Chittum. That's not what I'm asking. What I'm asking is for this council to assess and figure out what the needs, if there are still needs. You just heard from Counselor Noble that she personally knows two people. So this isn't a political agenda for me. In fact, I will probably never do City Council again. This is something that I believe people have been asking us. We have been silent about this. All I am asking is that we agree to sit at a table and figure out if there are still needs for victims and survivors. That's all I'm asking. And if there are, how can we meet those needs as a city? That's all I'm asking. [4:05:43] Carl L. Sheline: under or sorry i didn't mean to interrupt you well you did yeah understood counselor long champs administrator kane rath what do you think about engaging our city council and figuring out the best method to assess what needs are and then to do so in a way that protects people's privacy and [4:06:06] Bryan Kaenrath: yeah, protects people's privacy. You said engaging the City Council, correct? It's [4:06:11] Carl L. Sheline: It to offer feedback on the way forward here. Something that legal counsel, sorry, you're referring to legal counsel, yes, yeah, general counsel, sorry, our attorneys, okay, yeah. I agree, I agree with Councillor Longchamps's and the spirit of this, like if there are unmet needs we should figure out what those are and then connect them with resources. I just want to make sure we're just going about it the right way. [4:06:49] Joshua L. Nagine: Counselor one, I think identifying the resources and being able to put them in one place so that people can actually see what they are would be helpful too. I think that there's a timeline here that we've explained the city's involvement, but there will be people who will never be satisfied with the fact that MCF gave money to nonprofit organizations, that some of them use some of that funding for general, for general purposes, right, like that's that's a something that's clear that happened and we don't have regulatory authority over MCF, so I'm not quite sure how we can move that forward in any way, shape, or form that really have any further discussion about it. And I, that's that's the issue, we don't have control over, like I can't even get a timeline of where the decision-making authority came from, whether it was in Ellsworth or whether it was the, who decided to split up the money to an even amount between 29 organizations, who knows. That's not an answer I can, I can produce and I think these are the types of questions that people want to hear answers to and I just don't know how to get that. I just not as a city counselor, that's I think that's the issue that we're running into here. I think it's clear that we can identify our involvement as a city, what we did, when we did it, and why we did it. I think it's clear that we can identify resources that are available in the community. We can do both of those things. As far as like having a hearing concerning how MCF spent the money or asking nonprofit organizations to come forward to us to testify as to what they spent their money for, I don't think it's going to happen. We don't have the power to do that, [4:08:44] Carl L. Sheline: at this or Councilor Chinam [4:08:46] David B. Chittim: Yes, yeah, I that's not what Councilor Longchamps is asking. I'm sorry to speak for you, Councilor, but she's asking questions and my diatribe recently was to avoid that going down that very road. I think the road has been traveled way too many times now. That does leave the question of what needs there are out there, what available resources there are out there, and whether the available resources can possibly begin to meet the needs. I don't know how to ask those questions, but as I said earlier I'm leery about tasking this City Council and our staff, city staff, with that. I would be very much in favor of formulating a, as Administrator Kainrath said, a process that determines what outcomes, how the outcomes should be arrived at, and having results that are measurable. I think I don't want to, I'm sorry I don't remember your words, Administrator Kaenerath, but I think your point was well taken. No, that's not good. [4:09:49] Bryan Kaenrath: I think we should just define what does success look like in this effort, not that we fail to do that and fall short of expectations. Somewhere so [4:10:01] David B. Chittim: that, Mr. Mayor, I'm, I am comfortable with doing, but I want strictly to avoid trying to do any Monday morning quarterbacking on what happened to the money that was donated [4:10:12] Carl L. Sheline: thank you Councilor Chinnam. Councilor Longchamps, what do you think about this idea? you know, taking the spirit of this resolution, asking administration to talk to our legal council and to get their feedback on it, about what makes the most sense from a legal perspective, from privacy perspective, and then to, you know, report back to us with, the path forward. Please use your microphone, I [4:10:46] Susan G. Longchamps: respect our city administrator. I just respectfully ask that you know, obviously you're new coming into this, you were not the city administrator, but there are a lot of people that are hurting. You've heard my concerns about it, we've had a discussion, and I think there are a lot of people out there that do want to help families, victims, and survivors. So I guess I would agree to that at this time and trust that we would still look into this and make sure that we move forward with making sure what I asked for was does get done, if that makes any sense. You [4:11:45] Bryan Kaenrath: Know I was thinking we would run this, we would meet with legal, get their feedback, and then bring it back before this body. I mean, does it, does that make sense? Because I think some of the concern is this hasn't been through legal. Want to make sure we're adhering to privacy, etc. So we would get their input, perhaps have some recommended edits, come back with another draft maybe the next meeting, and go forward from there. Does that make sense? I think would alleviate some of the concerns I'm [4:12:11] Carl L. Sheline: hearing regarding this not being vetted by legal yet. I would be okay with that as long as it goes [4:12:20] Susan G. Longchamps: on to the next agenda and that you and I are communicating about what legal is suggesting [4:12:25] Carl L. Sheline: for recommending. And I would encourage Administrator Cane Wrath for you to have legal watch this agenda item so that way they can completely under understand where we're all coming from. So are we at this point, are we looking for a motion to table this to the next meeting? Madam Clerk, would that be, would that be appropriate here? Yes. Okay, I have such a motion. Please may I have a motion to table? Councillor Longchamps, second [4:13:13] Bryan Kaenrath: second. Madam Clerk, please call the vote. Yes,, thank [4:13:26] Carl L. Sheline: you. Councillor Longchamps, item number 13. Item number 13, order approving the [4:13:34] Bryan Kaenrath: option agreement of Bates Mill number five for up to five years. Requested action to approve the order approving the option agreement for Bates Mill number five for up to five years. May [4:13:46] Carl L. Sheline: have a motion, please. So moved, Councillor Chittim, second by Councillor Harriman. Give us a minute here while we make sure presentations are up and running. Let [4:14:03] Public commenter: me see if I get this working here. [4:14:06] Carl L. Sheline: Kurt, please work your magic. While that's loading, perhaps you all could introduce yourselves. [4:14:57] Public commenter: Tom Platz, manager of Bates Middle LLC and president of Potts Associates. Doreen Solves. I'm the property manager of the Bates Mill complex and I reside in Lewiston. John Blaze, interim director, economic and community development. [4:15:19] Carl L. Sheline: I would also like the record to reflect that we have Gabrielle Russell in the audience as well. [4:15:26] Public commenter: The way we're going to do our presentation, Doreen is going to read kind of our statement of what we're looking for, what we've been doing, why we feel we're the right person to get the extension on the option for baseball number five, and while she's talking I will drift through the slides which will show you what we've been doing. The first group of slides shows kind of what the design process and renderings we've done for various people through the last number of years. Will also show you our involvement in Lewiston. Why we think it's a good idea to stick with us, the number of projects we've done in Lewiston over the past, well, for me the past 45 years, but others for a little less time. But we'll show you some of the projects we've done in Lewiston, how tied we are to the community, how much we believe in this community. We're also going to show you as part of our past option, we were supposed to do two pieces of our work, public artwork, we did eight. So we'll just kind of drift through that. And then we'll be open to any questions people might have about the slides as we're going along. So I'll let Doreen. Start. Mill number five is a significant and complex property whose redevelopment has long been recognized as an important part of Lewiston's broader revitalization effort. The environmental, financial, and structural challenges associated with this building are substantial and require patience, continuity, and experienced stewardship to address responsibly. It is important to acknowledge that the last option renewal occurred in tandem with the unprecedented economic impacts of COVID-19. The pandemic fundamentally disrupted capital markets, construction timelines, supply chains, and tenant decision-making nationwide. These impacts were unforeseen by the prior council and disproportionately affected large-scale adapted reuse projects as such as those within the Bates Mill complex. Delays experienced during this period it should be viewed in that broader economic context rather than as a lack of commitment or capacity. It is also important to clarify at the outset of any discussion of redevelopment strategy that mill number five is not well suited to read about to for residential redevelopment. The building size, floor place depth, structural configuration, and mechanical requirements make housing conversion technically challenging and financially impractical. Residential use would require extensive reconfiguration, additional egress, new window penetrations, and substantially higher per unit costs while generating rents insufficient to support the level of investment required. For these reasons, housing has consistently been identified as an unrealistic primary use for Mill 5, which reinforces the need for a mixed-use or employment-anchored redevelopment approach. Additionally, the amount of structural and architectural adaptation required for housing would jeopardize the historic tax credit designation of the entire complex. The projected renovation cost for Mill 5, estimated between $150 and $250 million, places this project among the most complex redevelopment efforts in the state. The pool of developers capable of securing financing at this scale is extremely limited, and even fewer have demonstrated both the capacity and the willingness to invest at this level in Lewiston. This reality underscores the importance of retaining a development team with both the financial sophistication and the local commitment necessary to see a project of this magnitude through to completion. The current development team brings precisely that combination of expertise and commitment. Bates Mill LLC has deep roots in Lewiston. Its principal live and work within five minutes of the mill complex and have demonstrated a long-term commitment to the city. The team has a proven record of securing cornerstone tenants that anchor successful redevelopment, including TD Bank, Baxter Brewing, Androscoggin Bank, and Included Health. The team has also been successful in securing financing and delivering complex projects such as the new police station now located in Bates Mill No. 7. Through their design partner, Platts Associates, the current development team has already invested more than $700,000 in marketing, design, engineering, and redevelopment research specific to Mill 5. This level of upfront investment reflects the serious intent and materially reduces execution risks for the city. Some have suggested that issuing a request for proposals or an RFP may be the next appropriate step. However, for a project of this scale and complexity, an RFP is unlikely to produce a better outcome at this stage. Large institutional tenants and capital partners require certainty of site control and continuity of vision before engaging in substantive negotiations. Issuing an RFP would interrupt active prospecting efforts we can ongoing tenant discussions and effectively reset years of due diligence without any assurance of attracting a more qualified or locally committed developer. From a fiscal standpoint, renewing the existing option preserves sunk private investment and limits city exposure, whereas an RFP would introduce delay, increase carrying and opportunity costs, and heighten the risk of prolonged vacancy with no guarantee improvement in outcomes. For these reasons, we respectfully urge the City Council to renew Bates Mill LLC option to purchase Mill 5 and to continue working collaboratively towards a redevelopment plan that delivers long-lasting economic and community benefits for Lewiston. Thank you for your time, consideration, and continued service to our city. And these, we've been through most of these slides, the last few will just show you some of the projects we've done recently in the city either through design efforts development efforts or efforts of some of our clients and at the end of this year we have a list of about 42 projects that are just recent and we could probably double that list in terms of the number of projects that we've been involved in the city i think that just hopefully will give you a sense of our commitment to the city it's not all about dollars for us it's about what's going to fit what's going to propel the city forward and that's been our goal ever since we started working on the baits mill back in the days of the lmrc when we entered into the joint development agreement with the city so with that said we're certainly open to any questions from council the public any questions we can answer before we do that anything you'd [4:23:15] Carl L. Sheline: like to say acting director blaze Thank [4:23:23] Public commenter: You mayor I just like to say that you know it's it's obvious that plots is a you know highly qualified developer you know with the presentation that we just we just saw and everything that we see around our community here in Lewiston I do I do think that we do need some time to work on an agreement an agreement that I think everybody can be comfortable with I also feel like there should be some additional you know workshops with the council to get your input so it'll be some two-way conversation not at 11 o'clock at night but you know and then you know ultimately a council vote so you know what that being said I you know that's what I think the process should be moving forward from my perspective so we get a good product we're working together with the Platts team we've identified the Platts team as a good team and we're just trying to be SUCCESSFUL HERE OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. [4:24:40] Carl L. Sheline: ANYTHING, ADMINISTRATOR KAENERATH? [4:24:43] Bryan Kaenrath: NO, THANK YOU TO THE ACTING DIRECTOR FOR HIS COMMENTS. [4:24:48] Carl L. Sheline: QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FROM THE COUNCIL? COUNCILOR CHIDDOM. [4:24:53] David B. Chittim: THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. PLATZ ASSOCIATES HAS BEEN A GOOD PARTNER TO THE CITY AS EVIDENCED BY THE MANY, PROJECTS THAT OFTEN PEOPLE don't recognize are the brainchild and the offspring of platz associates. That being said we've been wrestling with mill number five for many decades and we see mill number five not changing other than the fact that there is a new roof on there to the tune of one point something million dollars. I'm very much in favor of continuing this option agreement but I do think that we can't be here five years from now i won't be here five years from now but my replacement won't be here five years from now saying gee we should have had some performance requirements incorporated into the extension of the option. So i'm i'm prepared to make a motion to the amendment i'm sorry make an amendment to the motion that is in the packet but i'd like to hear from other COUNCILORS FIRST UH [4:25:57] Carl L. Sheline: OTHER COUNCILORS YES UH YEAH I'LL JUST SHOW ME IN HERE UM YEAH UM REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN LEWISTON UH YOUR DEVELOPMENT OF THE MILLS UM YOU KNOW IT WAS A TURNING POINT FOR OUR CITY AND UM YEAH AND BATESMILL UH YOU KNOW PEOPLE ASK LIKE WE NEED TO TURN DOWN BATESMILL FIVE AND I TELL THEM ABSOLUTELY NOT AND WHAT I TELL THEM IS YOU KNOW IT'S TAKEN A WHILE TO DEVELOP IT BUT AS SOON AS WE DEVELOP IT WE WILL REALIZE WHY WE WAITED AND IT IS THE MOST ICONIC BUILDING IN THE STATE AND UM YEAH I ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT I JUST WOULD LOVE IT IF IT WAS FILLED UH COMMENTS FROM COUNCILORS OR ANYTHING YES COUNCILOR LONGCHAMPS [4:26:46] Susan G. Longchamps: YES UM YES I WOULD JUST LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR INVESTING IN OUR CITY UM IF THERE'S ANYONE THAT can get that job done it's definitely plats for sure. With that said mill five has been an eyesore for quite some time but you know with covid and all the other projects that you have accomplished with the police department and the other parts of the mill all of that took time. So I think now that you know, if we can get this going you can start focusing again, hopefully Full steam ahead on this and we can get something really great in there. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you [4:27:33] Carl L. Sheline: Does learn aging? Yes. No [4:27:36] Joshua L. Nagine: Thank You. Mr. Mayor, ultimately, as I had said an executive session, there are concerns that I have about seeing some project happen at Batesville number five. And I'm well aware of the fact that one, it's going to change the city overall, whatever happens, basically going to define the future of our city. And then also that you folks are probably the only folks, at least the only folks in the game at this point, that can really do anything with it. I do think that there's a requirement for partnership with the city in order to move it forward. It's just at this point everybody should be selling options for what can happen with Bates Mill number five if we want to see anything happen with Bates Mill number five. So kind of an all hands on deck piece, and I do think that time is critical. I think it's been a, it's been a, it's been a long period of inactivity from the outside, right? I know that you've done a lot of work in order to try to get investment into the mills, but from the outside we see the building and so you know, that's, those are the concerns I had and I expressed, and I realized that if Bates Mill is going to become anything other than a pile of rubble, it's gonna be you who does it. So [4:29:02] Carl L. Sheline: further comments from the council, public comment for this agenda item, Matroy, Ward six. It's been 17 years ago if I do my math right that a council had to use the option to tear this down. They chose not to. Many years later, 2018, we gave Quads Associates, well the city, that we a three-year option, nothing happened. We need to stop using covet as a crutch for lack of foresight, interest, the economic development department, you know, not economically developing. They've had the last five years. Are we really going to go through a whole generation? It's gonna say none of us are getting younger. Mr. Platts isn't getting younger. He's gonna have, are we 're gonna have to find somebody else to take this over for him if based on the track record this project, this building, this site is literally the definition of kicking something down the road. And the little definition of the quote that's attributed to Ben Flanking about doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. In the, in the packet it references room, there's not another hundred million roof Family Foundation money sitting out there locally of course the irony is David grew and his family are from Lewiston but there's the hundred million dollars with North Northeast for their new Graduate Center which will be opening next year by the way main business had a great article on the project by the way yeah so we're going to kick this can down the road again we just need to you know bite the bullet you know bad cliche I know but we need just to cut our losses not to mention if you read all the words in the packet about this there's a Perry no none of you have learned anything in the last two months ie the AI Deno Center there's very buzzwords that are very linked that was a bad idea then of course that raises a question where was Tom platts during all that he wasn't at the meeting far as far as we know well not in executive sessions you guys could have killed that months ago despite everything you've said about that at that council meeting two months ago you had the option to kill that long before it got to a public meeting again just we need to stop kicking the can down the road thank you mr [4:32:04] Public commenter: mayor and honorable members of the Lewiston City Council. My name is Margaret Craven and I live in Ward 1. I'm here tonight to ask you to renew the option with Bates Mill LLC, Mill number 5. As you well know, Mill 5 is not just another building. It's one of Lewiston's most important assets and one of our greatest economic development opportunities. There has been no, so much already invested in Mill 5, it would be such a waste to throw it all away. Renewing the option preserves the momentum and protects years of planning and relationship building. Restarting the process would introduce delays and uncertainty at a time when stability is critical. It could cause investors and future tenants to look for opportunities that are more stable. Renewing the option is not a blank check. It is a strategy to keep moving forward thoughtfully and responsibly. Renewal does not commit public funds. Instead, it preserves private investment momentum. Please renew the option. I do want to tell a little story, though. I spent nine years serving on what was called Museum LA. And Tom Platts has let us live free in that same space for 20 years while we were trying to raise money to for the new museum. It is now called Maine Mill, and his commitment helped us hold on long enough to be able to raise the money. Of course, we got a fabulous director that was able to do that, but it is just so important to have patience, and to just for old mills to be refurbished and renewed takes time and patience. And I do thank you, and I thank you for all of the hard work that you've been doing tonight. Matthew Agren, Ward Four. I can see renewing this, but I agree with Council Chitum, there needs to be some sort of end game that five years from now we're not back here going do we keep this going. At some point there's a saying you either or get off the can, that's where we are with Mill Five Live. It's been there the entire time I've lived in Lewiston. We've talked about tearing it down. We've talked about a casino going there. Convention Center, thank you. But all of these things have never come to fruition. We keep trying, we keep trying. At some point, maybe we have to finally admit defeat and take it down, and it's gonna cost us a lot more money now to take it down than it would have 20 years ago when they first seriously talked about it. There need, I agree with Council Children, we need to have some sort of five-year plan that says if not, we get rid of this project, because it's not gonna be housing, because he's even admitted housing's not what's going to be able to go in there easily. [4:35:50] Carl L. Sheline: So thank you for your time. Further public comment, Louise Samson, Ward 5. What I am asking is really probably low on the agenda, but Muhammad Ali who stands out there in the daylight, you can really see him really well, but I really think in the evening he needs it to have a spotlight on him. He's looking pretty low and not very visible in the night hours. Going back to Mill Number Five, the sign says hopeful. I hate to say this, but I don't feel very hopeful, because it's been such a long time ongoing problem. Maybe the word problem is not correct, but what I'm thinking is if you vote on another five years, make it definitely sure that at the end of those five years, it's either a go or it's not, and that would be the end of it if it's not a go. I don't know if I'm allowed to speak about another problem on this public comment. Maybe not, but I'll ask a question. Mr. Chittum and I have had this conversation, and I think, Mr. Mayor, you know where I'm going. Martel School is supposed to start this month, and it's not. There's going to be a second public comment period. You can speak during then. We appreciate you. Public comment's coming. You can come back. Elizabeth Eames, Ward 3. I just remember seeing a TV show that talked about 10 iconic buildings in America, and one of them was that Sawtooth roof. And I think the fact that the Sawtooth roof that we have in our city is considered one of the 10 iconic buildings in the country needs to be kept in mind. So I would not advocate tearing it down. But I've lived here long enough to know it's been decades since we've been talking about various fantasy projects. So I really beg you to come to the ground with a realistic real project. Thank you. [4:38:24] Public commenter: Sarah Goodrich. I have a business owner on Main Street in Lewiston. I don't know which board I'm calling to support the option Beats Mill 5, I honestly think we would miss it if it was gone. So I know it's testing our patience and it's a really big meatball to try to figure out what to do with it, but I think that's time well spent. And if it takes another five years or maybe ten, who knows? Let's, I mean, you know, it's a, it's an, no one will ever build that again. No one is building a building like that again, and we've already lost many buildings that are literally irreplaceable. They don't even make bricks like that anymore, so it's something to consider. Thank you. Further public comment, Ted. Ted Walworth, Ward 1, resident of Lewiston. I just want to talk about the aesthetics of this building. I grew up in New Canaan, Connecticut, where the Glass House is. And Marcel Breuer and a lot of other amazing modern houses were built. So I have a certain, I like to think, a certain artistic or architectural sense. This building, Mill 5, has just been mentioned as one of these landmarks, very distinctive. If you took it down right now, what are you going to see as you come across the bridge? You can see the backside of a whole bunch of other buildings that line Lisbon Street. Not a great picture. I have great confidence in the Platts Associates. I do think a time five-year time limit makes sense, but I would certainly hope that the city grants another five-year extension. Thank you. Further. [4:40:29] Carl L. Sheline: Public comment. Public comment is now closed. A few things here. Yeah, I don't care how much money it cost to tear it down because that's not what we're doing, not on my watch. You know, this building is really in a lot of ways the heart and soul Lewiston and yeah, I also I don't maybe some of you remember, but I was here five years ago advocating this project standing right over there as a member of the business community to here in chamber board and you know what's happened since then and understand there's been all kinds of things that have been beyond anyone's control. You know, I was very optimistic then that we would have something and I am so optimistic. We're in a really good spot, you know, with you know where we are with the economic development team and where we are with the Platts team. I think we can, yeah, I'm full supportive moving this forward and making a go of it and I think as some of the members here the council have said like a partnership makes sense just to you know kind of collaborate and get this thing like off the ground. Councillor Neji. So again, you know [4:41:49] Joshua L. Nagine: we would probably have to go to referendum to get the building removed at this point just because of the amount of money that it costs to actually pull the building down and the focus on a performance agreement like I would I would like to hear a little bit more about that. I do think that ultimately we need to work together in order to push this forward if this is and when I say we it's the city that's the developer it is the delegation on both the state and federal levels 150 million to 250 million dollars is not going to just miraculously appear. That's a lot of money and we need to have a good plan to put forward. We need to have people making arguments for us and so we all need to be rowing the boat in the same direction if we want anything to happen to this building. Otherwise five years from now it most probably will be a referendum to remove the building because at that point it would have been 22 years of absolutely nothing happening in that space and so I just want to put that forward again for people at home who are upset that we're looking at an extension here. You know, do you want to carry 10 million dollars in debt this year to have the building removed so [4:43:08] Carl L. Sheline: You know, you bring up an extra interesting point. One of the reasons, besides everything I just said and what you just said, there is no competing offer for this space. We have other lots that can be developed in the city. We have other buildings to be that can be developed. And so without, you know, a competing offer for either the building or the space, like, yeah, it makes zero sense to tear it down. [4:43:31] David B. Chittim: Councillor Chittim. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to make an amendment to the motion and I believe the city clerk has this language, but I'll read it into the record. Strike everything after, now therefore be it ordered by the city council of the city of Lewiston and replace it with, to approve the extension of the option agreement for Batesville No. 5 for six months and to authorize the city administrator to work on a performance agreement resulting in one workshop and another public hearing for a vote for the five-year performance agreement within the six-month extension with plants and associates and slash Bates Mill LLC. End of motion. [4:44:14] Carl L. Sheline: Madam clerk, did you have all that? Yes. Excellent. Do we have a second for this amendment? I would second that. Comes from a June 2nd. Thoughts before we vote on this amendment? [4:44:31] David B. Chittim: Comes here, yes. The purpose of this is to give our city administrator, are capable and able city administrators, some guidance from the council as to what we're looking for, to give him some parameters with which to negotiate a five-year extension. It provides a six-month window that based on what I've learned so far doesn't really affect the long-term goals and outcome of this project. I would hope that this five-year agreement would have with it a provisions for, as was mentioned by Councilor Nazeen, a cooperative effort, a partnership if you will, between Batesmill LLC, Plants Associates, among Batesmill LLC, Plants Associates and the Lewiston city government. I would like to have regular updates as to progress from this collaboration, consortium, partnership, so that the public is kept fully informed of the efforts. I'm told that this is a unique building and it has unique and extremely difficult challenges in its development. I think it's important that the public realize that this is not something That's going to happen overnight, as they should realize by now, but that we need to be much more collaborative, much more communicative in our efforts to ensure that the public is aware of what we are doing with this building. So with that sort of general guideline, I would hope that Platt's Bates Mill LLC and city administrator can work out an agreement that will extend this option for five years beyond the six month window that we're giving to negotiate these terms. [4:46:19] Carl L. Sheline: I think we're ready to vote on this amendment. Thoughts from you three? No. Very good. Madam Clerk, please call the vote on the amendment. Council from word four? Yes. Word five? Yes. Word six? Yes. [4:46:35] Bryan Kaenrath: Word seven? Yes. Word one? Yes. Word two? Yes. Word three? No. Motion passed by vote of six to one. [4:46:43] Carl L. Sheline: I believe we're now ready to vote on the main motion. Please call the vote. Yes. [4:46:51] Bryan Kaenrath: Yes,, thank you all very much. Item number 14. Item number 14, order authorizing the city administrator to execute a collective bargaining agreement with the International Association of Firefighters Local 785. Requested action to approve the order authorizing the city administrator to execute a collective bargaining agreement with the International Association of Firefighters Local 785. I have a motion. [4:47:33] Carl L. Sheline: Please so moved. Second outside shit I'm saying by Councilor Nagine and Ministry. [4:47:42] Bryan Kaenrath: Deputy Administrator O'Malley. Yes, Mr. MAYOR EXCUSE ME THIS WILL BE A THREE YEAR CONTRACT THE FIREFIGHTERS CONTRACT UNION EXPIRED LAST JUNE OF 2025 WE 'VE BEEN IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH THEM SINCE BEGINNING OF SPRING OF LAST YEAR SOME OF the major topics that we've come agreement with the union is putting in language for the paid family medical leave act where the Union will pay 50% of the premium some of you may be aware who are on the City Council last time that new law that came in effect we had to negotiate that with some of our other unions, so this is language that was provided by our city attorney provides the city of maximum coverage in terms of what we're going to be liable for in terms of payments. Also there is a personal leave will be allowed to convert to two sick days so it doesn't really cost the city any money, but it allows some more freedom for the firefighters to take some time off. There is a contract re-opener language that the fire department wanted in terms of if we open up a contract with any of our other unions prior to their expiration dates and we discuss wages, that the fire department will also have that opportunity as well during our course of our negotiations. The fire department pointed out how their starting wage is as much lower. The starting pay for our first responders on the fire department was $22, so we're giving a $3 across the board increase to all firefighters and $4.50 to the three fire investigators for the first year the contract. Additionally they've requested and 18 lowest paid firefighters on the department where they're making 24, 25 dollars an hour will be, on the day that we sign this contract, will be to move up one step. There are color adjustments going forward for the fire department of four and one and a four and one for each year, so that basically means for the first six months they get a four percent raise and then in January the following YEAR WE INCREASE THAT. IT HELPS LESSEN THE EFFECT OF THE BUDGET BY GIVING THEM THAT INCREASE. THERE ARE FOR YOU ALL THE LANGUAGES. THE FIRE CHIEF IS HERE AS WELL. I THINK IF HE'S STILL AWAKE IN THE BACK THERE SOMEWHERE. BUT THE MAJORITY OF IT WAS JUST SOME CLEANING UP OF THE OF THE CONTRACT FOR THE FIREFIGHTERS. I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT INTRODUCTION. THANK YOU. [4:50:10] Carl L. Sheline: comments from the council. Councillor Chittim. Thank You mr. Mayor. [4:50:17] David B. Chittim: Thank You deputy administrator O'Malley. I know that you've been working hard on this and negotiators from the fire department. A quick question for you if you have the answer. What is the net cost of this increase in the firefighters contract on an annual basis, specifically for this year? [4:50:34] Bryan Kaenrath: Well this year Majority of the money is gonna be retro. It's six hundred fifty seven thousand dollars. And then the next year would be four hundred seventy one and then it goes down to four hundred and ten thousand dollars. And that's averaging it. That's that's taking into account their salary their wages they are the overtime and For each year the contract. So for a total it's a one point five million dollar increase in contract over three years. [4:51:01] David B. Chittim: So an average of a half a million dollars a year. No one is arguing that the fire department is not worth an additional half million dollars a year, but I do want the public out there who is still awake and listening to this to realize that these are some of the constraints that are facing this council as we prepare our budget for next year. If we want to have a quality fire department, fire prevention and fire suppression service, we're gonna have to pay for it. And that excess cost this year is going to be roughly half a million dollars. So please be aware that those are some of the issues that we're facing here as we grapple with trying to distribute meager resources among many needs. Thank you again, Deputy Administrator O'Malley, for your diligent efforts in this regard. [4:51:51] Carl L. Sheline: Public comment for this agenda item. Anything you want to say, Chief? You don't have to, but if you want to. No, [4:52:07] Public commenter: we have been working on this since last July. It is a fair agreement. [4:52:13] David B. Chittim: Some of the points the firefighters made, you know, we've addressed. We've kept the council up to date in executive sessions of how the negotiations have been going. And I would recommend approval. [4:52:28] Carl L. Sheline: Thank you very much, and thank you for your service. Back to the council. [4:52:35] Joshua L. Nagine: I would just like to thank the administration, the chief, and Rick, who is not here today, but drives a hard bargain. So thank you all for your hard work. [4:52:50] Carl L. Sheline: ALL RIGHT. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. COUNCIL FROM WORD FOUR? YES. WORD FIVE? YES. WORD SIX? YES. WORD SEVEN? [4:52:58] Bryan Kaenrath: YES. WORD ONE? YES. WORD TWO? YES. WORD THREE? YES. i should pass by vote of seven zero i'm number 15. item number 15 appointing runyon kirsten willett rko as the city's independent auditor requested action to appoint runyon kirsten willett as the city's independent auditor for the fiscal years ending june 30 2026 through june 30 2030 for a total cost of six hundred ninety one thousand eight hundred fifty five dollars [4:53:26] Carl L. Sheline: I HAVE A MOTION, PLEASE. SO MOVED. COUNSELOR CHITTAM. SECOND. SECOND BY COUNSELOR NAJEAN. DISCUSSION. [4:53:36] David B. Chittim: COUNSELOR CHITTAM. $600,000 OVER THREE YEARS. [4:53:40] Bryan Kaenrath: Over five years. Five years. Okay. [4:53:44] David B. Chittim: $120,000 a year. We cannot do it without it. We must spend it. 120,000 for financial auditing services. These guys are qualified, right? Yes. Okay. [4:54:01] Carl L. Sheline: thank you all right thank you for that yes counselor harriman just because i'm curious [4:54:09] Scott A. Harriman: can, you elaborate on how much we've been paying and how much of an increase this is over what we've, what we're currently paying? Just, I mean, rough numbers are fine. [4:54:21] Carl L. Sheline: So at a general fund, I believe this past year was thirty eight thousand five hundred just for general fund, so it is a considerable increase. Our first year will be fifty seven thousand five hundred for general fund piece of the audit. However, we will be receiving 925 hours of at least five individuals that work for this company during our audit, so they will be here for a full week during interim. They'll be at the school for a full week during interim, and then they will come back and be with us for three weeks on site. We have not had that with the prior auditors. Okay, thank you. Sounds like a fun time. Public comment for this agenda item back to the council. Madam Clerk, please call vote. Councilor, from word four? Yes. Word five? Yes. Word six? [4:55:25] Bryan Kaenrath: Yes. Word seven? Yes. Word one? Yes. Word two? Yes. Word three? Yes. Motion passed by vote of seven to zero. Item number 16. Item number 16, appointment to the Public Health Committee. Requested action. To receive the nomination from the Public Health Committee and to appoint Amron Osmond to a three-year term as a full member serving in the position of area resident business representative said term to expire December 31st 2028. I have a motion [4:55:51] Carl L. Sheline: please so move Councilor Chiddom second signed by Councilor Najing Ahmaran. Thank you for being willing. Thank you for being willing to serve. Appreciate your service to our community. Further public comment. Councilor Harmon. Yeah, I [4:56:10] Scott A. Harriman: just wanted to say I think this is a great choice. I'm Ron does a lot of good work in the substance use and mental health fields, so I'm excited to see that the Public Health Committee nominated her. Public comment [4:56:29] Carl L. Sheline: Mr. Mayor, I remember correctly from a previous meeting this year Councillor Chittim asked for all applications for board appointments to be included in the packet. Second. Per the ordinance for the Public Health Committee, the City Court gets copyed on all applications that are forwarded to the Public Health Committee for their recommended appointment by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council. This has not been done, apparently, because I only see one application. Are you finished with public comment? I can wait two and a half minutes for Counselor Negine to speak. We're not recognizing counselors at this time. We're at public comment. Well, I might want to respond. You're not going to be able to. You can respond over email. Is there anything else? You guys don't answer. Okay, further public comment. Please be careful with our podium, good sir. Public comment is now closed. Back to [4:57:35] Joshua L. Nagine: the council councillor Neijing I just like to remind the council and the public that the public health committee does not have mayoral appointments the appointments are actually guided by the public health committee and come to the council for approval and so it's a different process and i can pass the information to the public health committee that you would like to see all the applicants for any time there's a position [4:58:06] Carl L. Sheline: If you complete, if the audience could please refrain from speaking, that'd be wonderful. [4:58:10] Joshua L. Nagine: The Public Health Committee functions slightly differently than the other council committees and boards. [4:58:19] Carl L. Sheline: For the public comment before we vote, or I'm sorry, for her comments and questions from counselors, Madam Clerk, please call the vote. Yes,, yes. We are now up to the second public comment period. Louise, if you would like to say something, now is your chance, quick, while it's still Tuesday, if you recall back in December, Chris Gilmour II from the Lewis and Housing Authority was here, and he said that he would have shovels in the ground for the Martel school project this month, February. It is February 17th. There are 12 days left in the month. It's not going to happen. I spoke to Mr. Chittum last week. He contacted Chris, got a an email back saying it's going to be in April. So he lied, period. No ifs, ands, or buts. I guess what I would like to know, is there something that can be done about this? I mean, this has been pushed off so much, and you heard tonight how much housing for the elderly is needed. We have nothing here. What we do have is old. They're all occupied. We need this Martel area to be developed, phase one, two, and three, all at the same time, as far as I'm concerned. But really, something has to be done, and I'd appreciate it if someone would look at it, look into it, please. Further public comment for those who did not speak at the first public comment. Public comment is now closed. We're now up to reports and updates and I will be happy to call Chris and see what it is. I'm fairly certain. We're almost there. I know we've been saying that for a while. Where I understand I am equally frustrated. Reports and updates from councillors. Should there be any? Guns ironman. [5:00:45] Scott A. Harriman: Yes, Ramadan starts I believe tomorrow. I just wanted to wish Ramadan Mubarak to everyone who celebrates and also wanted to remind people there is a special election for House District 94 next Tuesday. [5:00:59] Carl L. Sheline: Further reports and updates from Councillors? Councillor Chittim, yes. [5:01:04] David B. Chittim: Yes, first of all, my apologies. I did forward Chris Kilmory's response to my questions to Ms. Sampson. I had intended to forward them to all of the Council. I do not believe I did that because the phone rang and I got distracted. I will do that as soon as I remember which I hope will be tomorrow. Or later on today. It's a long extended explanation from or rationale or excuse that depending on your. [5:01:34] Carl L. Sheline: Council if the chamber could please refrain from speaking and be deeply appreciate it. Apology except the councilor shouldn't please continue. I will forward that to. [5:01:44] David B. Chittim: My fellow counselors. I also want to remind everyone that the Lewiston Housing Authority is an independent organization. The only connection that it has with the Lewiston City Council is I believe we appoint all of the directors the directors elect or hire an executive director. So the only connection that the Lewiston City has Council has with the Lewiston Housing Authority is our ability to appoint members to its board of directors that needs to be examined somehow because we are all getting frustrated with the lack. Of progress on some of these projects if not the lack of progress at least the lack of forthright answers to legitimate questions. I look. [5:02:29] Carl L. Sheline: Forward to your forwarded reply and then we'll we'll take it from there or now out to new business should there be any? Councilor Nagy. [5:02:38] Joshua L. Nagine: It's reports and updates actually. So the public health committee met on the 11th I wanna say and went over the proposals that were put forward for the opioid recovery funds. We haven't made any decisions at this point in time due to the fact that there's not a lot of money that was allocated, and there are a few programs that are asking for the full amount, and they're and they're pretty interesting. Also we got at kind of a high level overview from the from Healthy Anderskagen who manages some of the data around our lead poisoning numbers, and while there's still plenty of work to be done and plenty of properties to be mitigated in the city, the good news is blood poisoning is down in the city for infants and youth for the past five years. It's a five-year trend, it's pretty positive. If anybody wants that information I can forward that report out to any citizen or members of council, and that's it. Council Roy [5:03:52] Michael R. Roy: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO PUBLIC WORKS AND THE ADMINISTRATION FOR APPROVING A FOUR-WAY STOP ON RIDEOUT AVENUE. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE BEEN LOOKING TO DO FOR A LONG TIME. WHAT I WOULD TRY TO FIGHT FOR EVEN MORE IS MAYBE A RAISED TABLETOP OR TWO IN THAT AREA BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, DEPENDING upon The day or whatever people will see that nobody's there and we'll probably just blow through those stop signs. So I think if we could consider more action down there, that would be really good. So that's what I'm fighting for. Thank you [5:04:34] Carl L. Sheline: Anything else counselors before we head to executive session [5:04:36] David B. Chittim: Councilor Chittim. Yes. I'd just like to make a formal request that we put on the next agenda the adoption of a permanent first reading of an option of a permanent. What was the emergency ordinance we passed earlier this evening [5:04:54] Carl L. Sheline: Yes, have you notated that administrator King wrath [5:04:58] David B. Chittim: Yes, yeah, thank you ice which is Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Thank you. I have a brain that's not quite as young as it used to be, So pardon me if I have occasional hiccups. I do know that it stands for Immigration Custom Enforcement. So if we could put that on the next agenda for first reading, I'd appreciate it [5:05:18] Joshua L. Nagine: all right councillor Najee did you have something else I was just gonna say federal immigration import enforcement there CBCP and ice and other [5:05:28] Carl L. Sheline: organizations under DHS so madam clerk seeing no further new business or reports and updates I think we're ready for an executive session okay let's see [5:05:40] Bryan Kaenrath: Item number 20, executive session regarding consultation with the city attorney on the legal rights and duties of the City Council. Requested action to enter into an executive session pursuant to Maine Revised Statutes Annotated Title One, excuse me, section 4056e, to consult with the city attorney regarding the legal rights and duties of the city [5:05:59] Carl L. Sheline: Council. I have a motion. Please so move from Councillor Chittim, second signed by Councillor Nagey. Madam Clerk, please call the vote. Council from word four, yes. Word five, yes. Word six, yes. [5:06:10] Bryan Kaenrath: Word seven, yes. Word one, yes. Word two, yes. Word three, yes. Motion passed by vote of seven to zero. [5:06:16] Carl L. Sheline: I appreciate our audience members and member of the press here for sticking with us, and I appreciate our audience at home as well. Everyone, have a wonderful evening. What's left of it?