Bangor Council Approves Sewer Bonds, Postpones Vote on Opioid-Funded Housing Program

[1:49] Susan Hawes: Good evening. Welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Bangor City Council. It is August 24th, 7 PM. We are in council chambers. We start all meetings with the Pledge of Allegiance, and I would ask Dawson Nevilles to lead us in that, please. [2:06] Speaker C (unidentified): America, to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [2:22] Susan Hawes: Thank you, Dawson. Okay, trying to read. This is the portion of the meeting set aside for general public comment directly related to city business for matters that do not appear on this evening's agenda. If you are here for a specific agenda item that is under unfinished business or new business, please wait until we reach that item. Items under first reading and referral will be discussed when they return under unfinished business, and we will hear public comment at that time. Public comment requires a person to state your name and whether you are a resident of Bangor. The City Council has adopted a public comment policy that we will adhere to. Statements during public comment should respect the dignity and seriousness of the proceeding, and individuals will be restricted to speaking once. Obscene, truly threatening, or overly repetitive comments will be deemed out of order. And will be interrupted and, removed. Topics that are considered out of order also include matters that are in litigation, individual employees or employee groups discussing matters for which complaint or grievance procedures are in place, personal disputes between the speaker and another resident not germane to city business, support for or opposition to any candidate for political office, And personnel complaints pertaining to individual city employees. There is a time limit of 3 minutes per speaker, and the total time allowed for general public comment regarding city business will be limited to no more than 1 hour. The public comment period is for city council members to listen and not to respond or debate with persons. If you do not live in Bangor or own property in Bangor, Please allow those who do to have the opportunity to speak first. If you'd like to offer comment on any item directly related to city business not appearing on the regular agenda, you may approach the podium. Individuals who have appropriately preregistered to give public comment via remote means will be given the opportunity to participate remotely. Alternatively, Councilors may be reached via email at councilors@bangormaine.gov. A link to the adopted public comment policy can be found on the city's website. Does anyone wish to speak? [5:17] Richard Chaucer -- Public commenter: Good evening. My name is Richard Chaucer, and what I'm gonna be giving to you is a proposal where I don't know how to propose it, but she would like it read on the— brought to the city council. She's an A+ graduate student. This is what it's called. It's called a courtyard model for an action plan, team-based outline. What they're asking for— this is for the homelessness committee we have here— planning documents and blueprints, funding sources and partnership strategies, implementation challenges and solutions, community feedback and impact data, advice on adopting the model to Bangor's climate and layout. How other cities have implemented similar ideas. We conducted local research to identify gaps in daytime shelter sanitation, outreach, and safety. Our observation and survey work already provided strong foundations. We met with city officials, shelter directors, and public health systems and police. We include voices of unhoused individuals and service providers. Number 3, we identify a location near existing services. Chaos Park is a strong candidate. We consider zoning, rezoning, accessibility, and environmental environment impact. Number 4, partnership building. We collaborate with nonprofits, hospitals, mental health providers, and housing agencies. We seek support from city council, planning boards, and community leaders. Funding strategy. We explore city funds, federal grants, HUD, HHS, and private donations. We look into ARPA funds for continuum of care grants. Pilot phase. We begin the basic services, rest area, rest area bathrooms outreach. we expand to include storage, medical care, pet support, and housing navigation. What partnerships and directions we need to take in Bangor: local partnerships to build Bangor Area Homeless Shelter, Bangor Public Library, City of Bangor Advisory Committee on Homelessness, Penobscot Community Health Center, Hope House Health and Living Center, food pantries and warming centers, and mental health organizations. Strategic directions: we draft a student-led proposal outlining the courtyard model and its benefits. We host community listening sessions to gather feedback. We create a visual layout and proposed space for— my brain injury— COES Pond Park. We, present findings to the advisory committee and city council. We use our PTK chapter to support awareness, research, and advocacy. conditions to our Honors in Action project. We propose directly supports— I have that I'd like to submit, and also like to submit more for the council to read. I don't know how to do this. You guys just get it. [Susan Hawes: Start down there.] Thank you. Thank you. [8:24] Susan Hawes: Thank you, Mr. Trotzer. [8:36] Philip Henry -- Public commenter: Geez, no one else is speaking tonight. Just public comment. Hi, Philip Henry, and thanks for your service. Resident of Bangor. I just wanted to talk a little bit about the Yellen Pines project that is continuing to move forward. I know you had a meeting today, which is great. Hopefully that was beneficial. One of the things that's concerning, I want to talk a little bit about the process, not necessarily the people that are— that building's meant to house, but When we have such an experienced set of people from Bangor that have built businesses, invested in real estate, and we have a bunch of questions, there's a bunch of open questions that in essence were not answered. And even council members were curious about what stipulations would be in place. And we had a one-time $20 million ARPA fund based on COVID funds that happens to come to a city like this one time. It's a once in a lifetime opportunity to make big changes, infrastructure changes to last for generations. And unfortunately, that $20 million is gone. And the result of the city, if you look around, it's certainly not better than what it was 10 years ago before that, right? [Speaker B (unidentified): Right.] Everyone can see that. And then we have all these comments. And then one suggestion previously was let's spend a quarter million dollars to put bathrooms and intentions are good. Let's put some bathrooms, let's make it for the public. But we have an addiction problem, a homelessness problem. So people come up here and they say, we're concerned about this spending of $250,000. We're concerned about it. Please answer these questions, be concerned about it. And then all of a sudden the path moves forward and then we've basically burned a quarter million dollars and we're talking about helping people get a leg up. And that's what we want. We want people that are working in steps Stepping forward to pass through addiction, to heal from addiction, and we want to help those people. But we don't want to help those that we can't help those that don't take a step forward. And we continue to spend more money and more money thinking it's going to get better. And our woods are absolutely filled and devastated with dirty needles and blankets and feces. And we are allowing that to continue. This is policy-based stuff. We change, we have 2 sets of laws. We hand out harm reduction kits as if they are actually reducing harm and helping these addicts when they're not. And the proof is there. And I just hope that you guys would consider making some real serious changes so that we're not continuing to devastate a beautiful community like Bangor so our kids and our grandkids can continue to enjoy the parks and the woods without having to worry about dealing with that. So, thank you. [11:39] Susan Hawes: Thank you, Mr. Henry. [11:41] Katie Coe -- Public commenter: Hi, I'm Katie Coe. I'm a resident of Bangor, a homeowner, and a landlord, and I just want to say that I hope that you continue to use Evidence-based, evidence-based plans in order to move forward to help people who are unhoused and who are struggling with addiction. I think that there are folks that take their time and use their voice in order to serve themselves, and I'd really. Like our city council to consider all of our residents, including our unhoused, our folks that are struggling with addiction, our folks that are on the edge of having drastically worse lives, and help make their lives better with our time, our effort, and our resources. All right, I hope you have a great day. [12:47] Speaker B (unidentified): Thank you. [12:53] Jody McDonald -- Public commenter: Hello, Jody McDonald. I am a Bangor resident. I am hoping that the City Council start to take a stand about the flock cameras that are coming up and popping up regularly. We have at least 6 in Bangor right now, and these are not used for reducing crime. This is making us a surveillance state, and this is absolutely getting in the way of our Fourth Amendment rights to privacy. These are not being used to stop crimes. These are not being used to investigate crimes. These are being used in the, in the United States right now to track women across state lines who are in search of healthcare as opposed to convicted felons. I'm also asking, in, addition to federal things, that we look at ICE. As we know, ICE was going to have major operations upped this past weekend, and I am again asking the council that we take a stand that federal agents follow federal rules and they, do not need to comply with our police services. Our Bangor Police Department has many things on their plate. They serve us, they protect us, they have a budget that we hopefully are doing a good job to support them. We should not be cross-pollinating. That is a very separate service, and I'm asking that they continue to follow the rules. As schools go back into session in the coming weeks, I'm asking that the City Council reflect upon how schools are funded and the that a growing majority of students do not have enough to eat at home, perhaps don't even have running water at home, and how we are spending and delegating our money, making sure that we are caring for the smallest of our victims. I'm also asking that we look at how taxes are spent. We know that a vast majority of taxes are on the homeowner, of which I am. I proudly support the state— or the city and state taxes for the many things that for the many benefits that we have. But there are, there are, there are many companies and many who could afford to be paying more who are not. And I'm asking in particular of corporations whose money is filtered up, does not stay in our community, does not pay wages that allow folks in our community to have a home, to have secure food. I'm asking that our city council find ways that perhaps they can give back to the communities as opposed to continue to taking from the communities. [15:28] Jackie Smallwood -- Public commenter: Thank you. [15:29] City Clerk Lisa Goodwin: Thank you. [15:39] Scott Purdy -- Public commenter: Good evening, my name is Scott Purdy and I am a citizen of Bangor, and I want to talk tonight briefly about accountability. when we built Fresh Start Sober Living, our core mission was simple: to provide a safe, stable, and completely judgmental-free place for men and women to rebuild their lives from the ground up. Recovery isn't just about putting down substance It's about establishing dignity, routine, self-reliance, and a stern— and I'm just here to talk about a stern warning about the creeping costs of municipal overspending. Fresh Start is entirely self-supporting. We don't rely upon revolving door of government handouts or complex state funding streams to keep our doors open. Our model works because it is rooted in accountability. Because we operate this way, our members aren't rushed through a temporary program on a strict arbitrary timeline. At Fresh Start, members can live here indefinitely, and we have many that have lived for years at Fresh Start for years, for as long as they need to solidify their recovery, repair relationships, save money, and transition back into society on their own terms. That long-term stability is a lifeline. Recovery is a marathon, not a sprint, and having a secure home where a place where you can plant roots makes all the difference. But we have to be held accountable. However, that stability is under threat by forces completely outside our control, specifically Rising taxes and unchecked government spending. Let's be clear about how municipal tax hikes actually ripple through the economy. When property taxes go up year after year, landlords and property owners don't just absorb these costs, they have no choice but to increase rent. And who bears the brunt of those increases? It isn't corporations, it's the working poor. It's the men and women trying to pay off their restitution, maintaining child support, and learning how to budget for the very first time. Every extra dollar spent— every extra dollar, excuse me, squeezed out of housing by rising local taxes is a dollar stolen from a recovery person's savings account, their grocery budget, or their future. This is, this is why fiscal responsibility isn't just an abstract political talking point. It is a matter of survival for our community. We need to demand that our local leaders keep spending under control. Please keep spending under control. Do what you have to do. [18:02] City Clerk Lisa Goodwin: Thank you. [18:02] Susan Hawes: Thank you. Do you want to take the first remote? [18:25] Speaker M (unidentified): Mr. Lance? [18:26] Speaker N (unidentified): Oh yes, can you hear me? Okay, great. thanks for having me here. Always nice speaking in Bangor, Maine. I am from Bangor, of course. I would like to, have a little bit of time to speak about something that may be uncomfortable for some of you guys, but it is First Amendment and it is within your purview because I'm asking you guys to set up, a day or maybe a month of remembrance and sort of an idea to think about. We do these for different groups like the gay groups and the Black groups, and we have a month for them. And I do not want this for European heritage. I want this for white people in general. And I know that may be abrasive to some of you who think that double standards against whites are acceptable, but they are not. One of the things I like to bring up is whites need protection, and so do National Socialists, from illegal viewpoint discrimination. In our country and in your world, we've allowed all things. We've allowed discussions about communism, the Muslim Sharia law, socialism,, nationalism, nationalists, and so on. But we never could talk about National Socialist ideas. And people aren't allowed to speak about that. Immediately they say Nazi and they, you know, throw racist words at you and try to basically diminish your speech and your ideas by calling you a name. And these same people say that you are not allowed to do that about others, and you cannot say words that other people like. But when it comes to dismissing National Socialist ideas and people that are speaking things that are important to National Socialists, they say Nazi, white supremacist, things like that. That is obvious viewpoint discrimination against Nazis and National Socialists and white supremacy and whites in general. Because every time anyone brings up the idea of Jewish supremacy, It's immediately looked at differently where you, clam up quickly, start looking around the room, look at your lawyers, find out if you're allowed to say Jew more than once in, in a speech. And when you talk about Jewish supremacy, that is— [20:29] Speaker C (unidentified): Point of order, Madam Chair. I don't believe this is about city business. [20:44] Speaker M (unidentified): The second person is not online. [20:46] Susan Hawes: Okay, anybody else? Seeing no one approach, guess that's the end of the public comment period for tonight. We'll move on to the consent agenda. [21:11] City Clerk Lisa Goodwin: Minutes of Bangor City Council regular meetings of August 10th, 2026, and August 17th, 2026. Government Operations Committee meeting of March 2nd, 2026, and Business and Economic Development Committee meeting of June 15th, 2026. 26-256, order authorizing the execution of a municipal quitclaim deed for real estate located at 16 Chase Road. 26-257, order authorizing the execution of a municipal quitclaim deed for real estate located at 164 Thorn 26-258, order authorizing the execution of a municipal quitclaim deed for real estate located at 248 Randolph Drive. 26-259, order authorizing the execution of a municipal quitclaim deed for real estate located at 849 Stillwater Avenue. 26-260, order authorizing the city manager to accept $6,090 in funds as a result of a state criminal forfeiture. 26-261, order authorizing the execution of an amended lease agreement between the City of Bangor and Hannaford Brothers Company, LLC, for city-owned property at 39 Florida Avenue. 26-262, order authorizing the city manager to enter into a construction contract with Daigle Electrical Construction Corp. for traffic signal intersection improvements at the intersection of Broadway and Stillwater Avenue. [22:38] Daniel Carson: Madam Chair, I move passage of our consent agenda. [22:41] Speaker M (unidentified): Second. [22:42] Susan Hawes: It has been moved and seconded that the consent agenda have passage. Is there any doubt? Seeing none, the consent agenda does have passage. Referrals? None. Unfinished business. [23:04] Lisa Goodwin: Public hearing 26-251, order authorizing issuance of $4,455,000 of the city's general obligation bonds to finance upgrades and improvements to the Kmart pump station and other sewer, separation, CSO infrastructure improvements, and a tax levy therefore. Councilor Deane. [23:22] Susan Hawes: Thank you, Madam Clerk. [23:24] City Clerk Lisa Goodwin: This order authorizes the issuance of $4,455,000 of the city's general obligation bonds to finance sewer infrastructure improvements Infrastructure projects such as sewer separation, pump stations, aeration, and other upgrades and improvements. This item was reviewed and recommended for passage at the Finance Committee meeting on August 17th, 2026. I move to open the public hearing for Council Order 26-251. [23:50] Speaker O (unidentified): Second. [23:51] Susan Hawes: It has been moved and seconded to open the public hearing. [24:07] City Clerk Lisa Goodwin: Seeing no one approach, I move to close the public hearing for Council Order 26-251. [24:13] Speaker B (unidentified): Second. [24:14] Susan Hawes: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for 26-251. [24:19] City Clerk Lisa Goodwin: I move passage of Council Order 26-251 authorizing issuance of $4 million $455,000 of the city's general obligation bonds to finance upgrades and improvements to the KM Pump Station and other sewer, separation, CSO infrastructure improvements, and the tax levied thereof. [24:43] Speaker O (unidentified): Second. [24:44] Susan Hawes: It has been moved and seconded for 26251. [24:49] Speaker P (unidentified): Madam Chair, I have a question. [Susan Hawes: Councilor Mauer.] In looking this over, I was under the impression when we did the meeting of the committees that there would be no increase in property taxes because of this. But as I read this, it says tax levy. Therefore, does that mean if they don't get approval of an increase from public utilities or wherever they have to go for water or sewage, that the taxes of the city will increase because of the bonding? [25:24] Susan Hawes: Councilor Carson, I have— [25:28] Daniel Carson: can I answer? So the answer that I have is that this is not funded— neither this nor the next one are funded through property taxes. This is done through the wastewater service fees and has already been budgeted. So not only will it not hit property taxes, but wastewater customers will not experience a rate increase due to this bond. [25:57] Speaker P (unidentified): I guess I understand what you're saying, but I'm still a little confused. So you're saying that the increase in the wastewater— there will be no increase in wastewater? [26:07] Daniel Carson: None. It's already been budgeted. [26:11] Speaker P (unidentified): And where is it coming from? [26:14] Daniel Carson: It's the— it's in the wastewater. It's the enterprise fund. [26:18] Wayne Mallar: So it's, it's someone's got to be paying it. That's the point I was trying to make. [26:22] Daniel Carson: So it was generated through the wastewater service fees. [Wayne Mallar: So that—] But it's already been budgeted. So there's not— [26:29] Speaker P (unidentified): I'm not concerned about any budget. I'm just concerned about where it comes from. So essentially, it's not a property tax fee, but it's a fee for services provided to the public. So essentially, it's coming out of the public's pocket. [26:42] Speaker O (unidentified): Yes. Yes. Through waste, the wastewater. [26:45] Speaker P (unidentified): Yes, sorry, because it looked like, if we had an increase in the fees and PUC didn't approve them in the future, that the taxpayer, property taxpayer, would be picking up the difference. [26:58] Speaker M (unidentified): And if I might, the PUC doesn't approve sewer rates. [27:03] Speaker P (unidentified): Just checking. [27:07] Susan Hawes: Any other discussion? It has been moved and seconded. Yes. [27:19] Lisa Goodwin: Councilor Carson? [Speaker O (unidentified): Yes.] Councilor Deane? [Susan Hawes: Yes.] Councilor Falun? [Susan Hawes: Yes.] Councilor Fish? [Speaker M (unidentified): Yes.] Councilor Leonard? [Speaker Q (unidentified): Yes.] Councilor Mahler? [Speaker P (unidentified): Yes.] Councilor Walker? [Councilor Beck: Yes.] Councilor Haas? [Susan Hawes: Yes.] 9 yes, 0 no. [27:38] Susan Hawes: Order 26-251 has passed. 9 yes, 0 no. [27:45] Lisa Goodwin: Next item, public hearing 26-252, order authorizing a loan in the amount of $6,575,000 from the Maine Municipal Bond Bank State Revolving Fund to finance replacement of the Perry Road pump station and other sewer, separation, CSO infrastructure improvements, and a tax levy. Therefore, Councilor Deane. [28:06] City Clerk Lisa Goodwin: Thank you, Madam Clerk. This order would authorize a loan in the amount of $6,575,000 from the Maine Municipal Bond Bank State Revolving Fund to finance replacement of the Perry Road Pump Station, $3,735,000, and other sewer, separation, combined sewer overflow infrastructure improvements, $2,840,000, with approximately $1 million expected to be forgiven. This item was reviewed and recommended for passage at the Finance Committee meeting on August 17th, 2026. I move to open the public hearing on Resolve 26-253— I'm sorry, on Order Number 26-252. [28:53] Speaker C (unidentified): Second. [28:53] Susan Hawes: It has been moved and seconded to open the public hearing. Public hearing is Open with no objections. [29:00] City Clerk Lisa Goodwin: Seeing no one approach, I move to close the public hearing on Council Order 26-252. [29:12] Speaker O (unidentified): Second. [29:13] Susan Hawes: Moved and seconded to close the public hearing. If there are no, further discussion, it will be closed. [29:25] City Clerk Lisa Goodwin: I move passage of Council Order 26-252 authorizing a loan in the amount of $6,575,000 from the Maine Municipal Bond Bank State Revolving Fund to finance replacement of the Perry Road Pump Station, other sewer, separation, CSO infrastructure improvements, and tax levy therefore. [29:43] Speaker O (unidentified): Second. [29:44] Susan Hawes: It has been moved and seconded for the passage of 26-252. The order. any comments? [29:54] Richard Chaucer -- Public commenter: Yes. [30:00] City Clerk Lisa Goodwin: Councilor Carson? [30:02] Speaker O (unidentified): Yes. [30:02] Lisa Goodwin: Councilor Deane? [City Clerk Lisa Goodwin: Yes.] Councilor Fallone? [Susan Hawes: Yes.] Councilor Fish? [Speaker M (unidentified): Yes.] Councilor Leonard? [Speaker Q (unidentified): Yes.] Councilor Mahler? [Speaker P (unidentified): Yes.] Councilor Walker? [Susan Hawes: Yes.] Councilor Hawes? [Susan Hawes: Yes.] 9 yes, 0 no. [30:17] Susan Hawes: Order 26252 does have passage. 9 yes, 0 no. Next item, please. [30:29] Lisa Goodwin: 26-253, resolve accepting, appropriating up to $300,000 from Main Housing with $126,000 match from Bangor Opioid Settlement unspent funds to support Project Hope. Councilor Beck. [30:43] Speaker C (unidentified): Thank you, Madam Clerk. This order would accept and appropriate up to $300,000 from Maine Housing and authorize a $126,000 match from Bangor Opioid Settlement unspent funds to support Project HOPE. Project HOPE is a collaborative initiative between Maine Housing and the city of Bangor designed to assist individuals living in places not meant for human habitation in obtaining and maintaining stable housing. The program provides comprehensive housing navigation services, including locating housing, completing the rental process, and supporting participants for a minimum of 6 months after they move into housing. Participants will also be referred and connected to additional supportive services based on their individual needs. Funding will support up to 3 housing navigators employed by the City of Bangor and the Bangor Area Emergency Shelter and Housing Assistance Program. as well as a program coordinator, operational expenses, and flexible housing assistance. Eligible housing assistance includes but is not limited to security deposits, landlord incentives, move-in expenses, transportation, and other client-related costs necessary to secure and maintain housing. During, the pilot year, Project HOPE aims to serve 90 individuals and households in the Bangor area and successfully place at least 45 into stable housing. The program builds on a proven model that has demonstrated success in Portland and is now entering its 3rd year. Maine Housing will provide 70% of the project's funding, with the City of Bangor contributing the required 30% local match. The city's $126,000 match will be provided through unspent Bangor opioid settlement funds previously allocated to the intensive case management program. Homelessness is both a contributing factor to and a consequence of opioid use disorder, other substance use disorders, and mental health conditions. Project HOPE's activities are consistent with Maine's Memorandum of Agreement governing the use of opioid settlement funds. By providing comprehensive wraparound services that include housing stabilization, the program advances one of the approved core strategies for addressing the impacts of the opioid epidemic and supporting long-term recovery. The item was first reviewed at the August 17th Special Government Operations Committee meeting. 4 of 5 committee members supported the project. However, those 4 committee members disagreed on the appropriate source of funding, with 2 members supporting use of unassigned fund balance and 2 supporting the use of unspent opioid settlement funds. As a result, a vote to recommend passage with funding from unassigned fund balance failed 2 to 3, and a vote to recommend passage with funding from unspent opioid funds failed 2 to 3. Therefore, this item is coming back to full council without a committee recommendation. Madam Chair, I move passage of Resolve 26253. [33:39] Susan Hawes: Resolve 26. Is there a second? [33:44] City Clerk Lisa Goodwin: Second. [33:47] Speaker Q (unidentified): So, Madam Chair, I'd actually like to make a motion to amend Council Order 26253. I'd like to amend the title, which would be, crossing out,, after match from Bangor, cross out opioid settlement, unspent funds to support Project HOPE and replace it with Bangor unassigned fund balance. And under paragraph 3, where, it says through unspent Bangor opioid settlement funds previously allocated to the intensive case Waste Management Program, I want to, cross that out and replace it with, quote, the Bangor unassigned fund balance. [34:31] Speaker C (unidentified): Second. [34:33] Susan Hawes: Okay, there has been an amendment presented, and seconded. Is there discussion? [34:44] Speaker Q (unidentified): I, guess— [Speaker B (unidentified): oh, sure.] If you want to open up to public comment, we can. [34:53] Susan Hawes: Is there public comment? Mr. Norton, do you want to speak? Well, you need to go to the microphone. You're welcome. [35:02] Speaker O (unidentified): I can lean. [35:03] Speaker B (unidentified): $300,000, did you say? Mike, did you say $300,000 from Maine Housing? [Speaker C (unidentified): Correct.] Okay, so there's $600 million annually spent in New York City. It's a little city in the United States of America. [City Clerk Lisa Goodwin: Michael J.] Fox Parkinson's Research Foundation for a Cure. [35:34] Susan Hawes: Okay, thank you. [35:41] Councilor Beck: I'm Linda DeBay, Bangor resident, and I just want to know when we invest this money if there's going to be monitoring. Like, are we going to be inspecting these apartments? Are we going to make sure they don't get destroyed like the Ramada did or other places we've provided? $300,000 is a lot of money if nobody's monitoring the measurable things to make sure that this doesn't just become another dilapidated building in the city of Bangor. [Speaker O (unidentified): Thank you.] Or 40 more apartments that are ruined. So I just want to know if we're doing specific monitoring. I know that the services are provided but not mandated, but I want to know if there's going to be some type of inspecting ongoing to make sure that these buildings are not destroyed if we invest this money in them. [36:32] Michael Beck: I just want to correct something I said earlier. I got asked a question, but I said $300,000, which I did. That was just the main housing portion. There's also an additional $126,000 match from Bangor opioid settlement unspent funds if this motion to amend doesn't pass. [36:52] Scott Purdy -- Public commenter: Good evening. My name is Scott Purdy, and I'm here tonight to speak on the proposal to allocate our city's opioid settlement funds to public health to support Project Hope. I want to be entirely clear right from the start. I fully support Project Hope. That work is necessary and its value is not in question. My concern isn't if Project Hope should be funded; it is how it is funded. Opioid settlement funds are a finite, one-time resource. When we when we use non-recurring settlement dollars to cover ongoing operational costs for public health initiatives, we are creating a predictable financial cliff. History tells us exactly what happens when those dollars dry up. We saw it with the temporary ARPA funding. The temporary programs became permanent expectations, and when federal funded funds ended, the price tag was quietly shifted onto local taxpayers. If we use settlement funds here today, we are setting up our residents to pick up the tab tomorrow. Furthermore, we need to take an honest look at how our opioid settlement funds are being managed. Over half a million dollars of these settlement dollars have already been commandeered. or absorbed directly into city operations. These funds were intended to be dedicated— these funds were intended to be a dedicated separate resource to support community partners, frontline recovery programs, and external organizations doing boots-on-the-ground work. The more the city uses this pool of money as an internal budget buffer, the less remains for the broader community. Project HOPE is a worthy initiative, but its backing needs to come completely from alternative funding streams, Whether that means securing long-term state grants, partnering with a regional healthcare system, or placing a transparency within the general municipal budget from day one so taxpayers know what to expect. Let's protect our taxpayers from future budget shocks, and let's reserve our remaining opioid settlement funds for their intended purpose, direct community distribution to the organizations that need them most. [38:57] Susan Hawes: Thank you. [38:59] Tyler -- Public commenter: Good evening. My name is Tyler, and I'm a resident of Bangor. I'm here to oppose giving Jen Gunderman and the Public Health Department any more opioid settlement funds. In 2025, this council already allocated approximately $550,000 in opioid settlement money. To public health for an intensive HIV case management program. That was a substantial sum of restitution dollars paid by the companies that fueled the opioid crisis. Those funds have been spent, yes, yet the HIV outbreak has not decreased. Confirmed cases linked to this outbreak now stand at 45, and officials acknowledge the real number is likely higher. The outbreak that began in 2023 continues, with most cases tied to injection drug use and homelessness, the very issues these dollars were supposed to help address. Now the same department is asking for the remaining $126,000 in leftover opioid funds for Project HOPE. I urge you to say no. Opioid settlement money is limited and carries a clear purpose. To bait the harms of the opioid epidemic. When a large prior investment under the same leadership has not produced a measurable reduction in the connected HIV outbreak, it is reasonable for taxpayers to demand accountability before releasing more of these funds. Do not give public health any additional opioid settlement money. Direct these dollars towards programs with clear results in treatment, recovery, Or hold them until we see transparent outcomes from the half a million already spent. Thank you. [40:53] City Clerk Lisa Goodwin: Thank you. [40:55] Jackie Smallwood -- Public commenter: Jackie Smallwood. I'm a Bangor resident. I listened to the August 17th government operations meeting the other day as Jen Gunderman brought Project HOPE back to the committee for a second discussion. This project aims to serve 90 individuals and households in Bangor area and place 45 into stable housing with wraparound services. Of course, the entirety of the discussion was focused on how we could come up with a match needed to fund our portion of the program. Use, use unassigned fund balance money or allocate $126,000 of opioid settlement funds that were originally approved for the case management program Responding to Penobscot County's HIV outbreak. Councilor Beck was concerned about the optics to the public of this money being shuffled from HIV crisis money into Project Hope. Our city manager was concerned that the optics would look bad because the parameters of the original opioid settlement awards stated that the original awards could not exceed $50,000 to any one organization. Had this program gone through that application process like other applicants, it would have been not. When the idea of sending this project to the homeless committee was further discussed, was suggest— was suggested, Councilor Falun said that she'd rather push it through as is rather than have it tied up for another month. After all, winter is coming. Does this sound familiar? It's the same pattern. What are we doing, Bangor? I ask this question every other week. This is another classic example of how these projects are thrown to the council to be voted on without a solid plan behind them. The actual apartments, the most critical component of the entire program— the apartments were never even discussed. Where are they? Last month in committee, we learned that Bangor would have to pay the first 6 months of general assistance for each of these people. If they're housed in an outlying town, we pay the first 6 months, and then the receiving town pick— towns pick up the general assistance from that point forward. Where's the list of vacant apartments and corresponding list of each tenant that will be placed? How many of them are in And who are the participating landlords? Where's the list of surrounding towns and landlords willing to partake in this program? Do we have signed agreements with these towns regarding the GA obligation? Who covers the GA if the surrounding towns fail to pay? How will we pay for the incidentals that are required for this program, such as security deposits, transportation, household items, furniture, staffing, and landlord incentives? What happens to these people next year if funding goes away or changes? What legitimate business could pitch the launch of a pilot program such as this without a report, without data, without a cost analysis, without a 3 to 5 year strategy ensuring success? There isn't one. Bangor needs a long-term strategic plan to address our crisis before $1 is wasted. We need to study models that treatment programs and housing solutions have proven results and measured— [44:11] Susan Hawes: A small Your time is up. [44:12] Richard Chaucer -- Public commenter: My name is Richard Chaucer. I'm a resident here, and I agree with what this young lady said, and I agree with that young man said. I live next door at the project you formed 3 years ago, the— what's the place called— Schoolhouse Apartments. I'm in a process. I'll go public with it, and being asked where I could move out, or being asked to move out because these supportive services aren't there. [Catherine Devine: I'm an advocate.] Cleaned up that darn building like heck because we didn't have the manpower. The problems we're having with that building, that building is crumbling. It's going to pot because the services were not implemented, are not implemented. We keep going through casemates. We keep going through landlords like underwear. Okay? We have people coming in. We've thrown many people out that go in there to use. I'm not blaming them for using, because when I was using in my day, I did the same darn thing. I'm not going to lie. When I used to use 20 years ago, I did the same thing. But there's no implementation. We have cameras in that building that aren't worth a darn. We have doors on the front that aren't locked. We had an incident where I am being asked to leave. In apartment 319, an individual came in there, brought these 2 other individuals that were using in our building, using in that thing across the street. I threw them out of the darn building and they came back in. Then I went upstairs and I said, What are you doing here? He goes, oh, again, you don't know sex offenders on that crap here. And I threw them out. And guess what? I'm being asked to leave. Thank you, Bangor. [45:53] Katie Coe -- Public commenter: Hi, my name is Katie Coe. I'm a resident of Bangor. I just wanted to say that Project HOPE is the missing middle between our homeownership assistance programs and our high costs spent on people living on the street. We need something like this, and we need it now. There is an urgency. Winter is coming. I greatly appreciate that you guys brought this to the council, and I really hope it passes. [46:24] Jackie Smallwood -- Public commenter: Thank you. [Susan Hawes: Thank you.] Hi, everyone. [46:30] Speaker M (unidentified): My name is Andrea Laflamme. I'm a resident and homeowner here in Bangor. I'm also a public health professor and teach a lot about the social determinants of health, which is Probably something that you've heard about if you've spent so much time talking about issues in homelessness. I wasn't planning on speaking today, but after hearing a lot of the other public comments, I thought that it was important that I say to you all, thank you so much for the work that you're doing, for your consultation with experts in the field, and for your use of evidence-based research. If we are going to be spending this kind of money, it's really important that we're using evidence-based methods and things that we know already work. We have all that information out there. It's just a matter of using it to make our decisions. So thank you so much. [47:22] Susan Hawes: Thank you. [47:24] Philip Henry -- Public commenter: Good evening, Philip Henry. I just wanted to reiterate some of the questions that came up with Jackie, some of the concerns. I think we don't want to repeat the past, right? If we continue to neglect the data, And the measurements that we're asking, we're not opposed to helping people. But the challenge is when we do it because of urgency, we do it without the data that's required to ensure success, then you have mistake after mistake, the trust is lost. So why not just go through the process, get everything answered, get all the data that you need? It's labeled a pilot project for a reason. It is still in the pilot stage, and yet we are adopting it as if it has been proven. How many days have they been housed? Have they been housed for 6 months? What's that look like? What's the support? It's a 1-year commitment funding-wise, but the program, similar to what the gentleman said, it's an operational, an ongoing operation. Where's the 5-year plan? What happens next year when the funding doesn't come back? Does that fall on us? Do we close shop and fire the people that we hired to support that? Those are all the inefficiencies that we're just asking for answers on. And I think we deserve answers, especially based on the fact that we're paying for it. [City Clerk Lisa Goodwin: Thank you.] on $20 million of ARPA spent without any results. Bathroom money spent. How many kids could you have fed with $250,000? Hungry kids at schools. And it's gone. It's gone because no one listened to the people that are trying to guide with experience. That's all we're asking. [48:54] Speaker Q (unidentified): Thank you. [48:54] Susan Hawes: Thank you. [48:56] Jody McDonald -- Public commenter: Jody McDonald, Bangor resident. I would like to reiterate that as our entire national population continues to struggle and struggles more, this problem continues to get larger and larger, as opportunities and as jobs fade away, as jobs that can pay a livable wage for individuals to be able to have an income, to be able to afford housing, to be able to afford healthy food, and to be able to afford healthcare. Once again, I'm going to say that we need to tax major corporations much higher so that jobs on much smaller businesses are going to be able to have more chance of success in the Bangor area. [49:40] Catherine Devine -- Public commenter: Good evening. My name is Catherine Devine, and I am a Bangor resident, and I also oppose putting any more opioid settlement into the— fund this project. And I implore this council to listen to its citizens who are clearly opposed to the measurements that they've been putting in place for this. And I also share the worry that when the funding runs out, and it will, that the burden to support these programs will fall onto the Bangor taxpayer. And I do ask, although it might be unpopular, in order to increase the effectiveness of these programs, what are the requirements to receive these assistance? Will there be required sobriety or an obvious effort to put in order to achieve sobriety, an expectation to secure and maintain employment, or an understanding of any kind for some kind of individual accountability. Because I have a heart for people, but I also understand that it is important that we give these people a leg up and not a handout. We need to focus more on putting these people on their feet rather than hanging on us for their every need because the taxpayer money will run out and the funding will run out. So these people need to be able to stand on their own because it is not doing them a kindness by handing them all of this assistance just to leave them dependent on the system and not being able to support themselves. And another thing, the safety of our people depend on how this city council handles the homelessness and drug population. A Brewer boy was stabbed in the foot on the Riverwalk, a public property. And I ask you now, not as a political person, but as a mother, what are you doing to protect my boy and the taxpayers of the city— of this city? Good night. [51:44] Susan Hawes: Thank you. I'll let someone else. [51:57] Speaker O (unidentified): Okay, Madam Chair, I think that the council needs to answer some more questions about this, and I would like to postpone consideration of Council Resolution 26-253 to the council meeting on Wednesday, September 9th, and refer continued discussion of this resolve to the council workshop on September 9th that precedes the council meeting. [52:25] Carolyn Fish: I second that. I also agree that there's a lot of questions outstanding from my perspective as well. I think I recommended that maybe since we have the Housing Committee and there's a lot of experts there, we seem to be— it's nice that we can get some matching funds and grants But then I think we have a history of making a lot of fragmented attempts with good intent, but the results are obvious when we look out on our street. And I also want to know what's going to happen at the end of the year, you know, the resources that we're going to use to provide these outreach wraparound services. How much is that going to taxi our own, you know, health and counseling employees? You know, they, have a lot on their plate now, and the other residents need some of those services. So there's a lot of questions and concerns that I have as well, and that doesn't eliminate the fact that we're not very concerned about our homeless. And, but I do think that we need more information and do better. So I'm— I second that workshop for further conversation. [53:39] Susan Hawes: Okay, hold that just for a minute because we already have on the table the amendment that was requested. [53:52] Daniel Carson: Madam Chair, the motion to postpone takes precedence in Robert's Rules. [53:56] Susan Hawes: That's true, but we need to get this other one off the table for the, the resolve. [54:10] Philip Henry -- Public commenter: You, can't have 2 motions on the table at the same time. [54:13] Susan Hawes: His point was that the motion to postpone takes precedence. [54:19] Philip Henry -- Public commenter: I agree with that. It takes— yeah, that, 's true. so I believe that, the motion to postpone can be Okay. [54:39] Joseph Leonard: I can rescind mine. How about that? If you want, I'll rescind my amendment for now. [54:44] Speaker M (unidentified): I'm sorry to interject. I just want to make sure we have the dates of the postponement right though. The next council meeting is September 14th. [Speaker O (unidentified): Not the 9th.] The 9th are committee meetings. [54:56] Speaker B (unidentified): Oh, all right. [54:58] Speaker O (unidentified): I'm gonna blame Councilor Deane for that. So the 14th. So I'm going to amend my motion, which is to postpone Council Resolve 26-253 to the council meeting on September 14th and refer continued discussion of this resolve to the council workshop immediately preceding it on the same day. [55:21] City Clerk Lisa Goodwin: Thank you. [55:28] Speaker M (unidentified): The 9th is committee meetings. We'll discuss it at committee meetings on the 9th, but the council meeting that you're postponing it to is the 14th. [55:35] Daniel Carson: So I'm actually specifically requesting the council workshop because the committee that this came from couldn't decide. And I think if I refer it back to Government Ops, they might continue to not decide. [55:47] Speaker M (unidentified): Okay, got it. [55:53] Susan Hawes: That's— what's that? Second? Second. Okay, so Resolve 26253, it's been seconded to postpone to Wednesday, September 14th, for, and then to the workshop prior to the next council meeting. Is that correct? Okay, are you okay with that? [56:21] Katie Coe -- Public commenter: Workshop the 14th, council meeting the 14th. [56:25] Susan Hawes: Okay, so they're both on the 14th. All right, is there any further discussion? [56:41] Jackie Smallwood -- Public commenter: Roll call, please. [56:43] Lisa Goodwin: Councilor Beck. [Speaker M (unidentified): Yes.] Councilor Carson? [Speaker O (unidentified): Yes.] Councilor Deane? [56:48] Susan Hawes: Yes. [56:49] City Clerk Lisa Goodwin: Councilor Falun? Yes. Councilor Fish? [56:51] Susan Hawes: Yes. [56:52] Lisa Goodwin: Councilor Leonard? [Speaker Q (unidentified): Yes.] Councilor Mahler? [Speaker P (unidentified): Yes.] Councilor Walker? [Susan Hawes: Yes.] Councilor Hawes? [Susan Hawes: Yes.] 9 yes, 0 no. [57:00] Susan Hawes: Resolve 26253 does have passage. 9 yes, 0 no. Next item. Happens to be new business. [57:15] Lisa Goodwin: Public hearing, application for special amusement license renewal of Timka Inc., doing business as Gagans Pub, 570 Main Street. Councilor Beck. [57:22] Michael Beck: Thank you, Madam Clerk. oh, thank you. Madam Chair, I'd like to open the public hearing for the application for special amusement license renewal of Timka Incorporated, doing business as Gagans Pub. [57:40] Speaker B (unidentified): Second. [57:41] Susan Hawes: It has been moved and seconded to open the public hearing for Gagan's Pub special amusement license. Is there any doubt? [57:50] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah, I've been a friend of Gagan since 1990. We went to high school together in Ohio. And I would really appreciate some acknowledgement and recognition for Gagan and Norton's work in this city and the world, the state, nation, and the New Yorker Party going to form itself to compete with the Republicans and Democrats and Independents in our world. [58:25] Speaker Q (unidentified): New Yorker Party is Amsterdam. and pro-New Amsterdam. [58:31] Susan Hawes: Okay, Michael, thank you. We are, in the public hearing for Gagan's Pub. Is there any other— [58:39] Speaker C (unidentified): Seeing no one else approach, I move we close the public hearing. [58:47] Speaker Q (unidentified): Second. [58:47] Susan Hawes: Public hearing for Gagan's Pub is closed. [58:52] Michael Beck: Madam Chair, I move passage or approval of the application for special amusement license renewal of, Timka Incorporated doing business as Gagans Pub, 570 Main Street. [59:03] Speaker M (unidentified): Second. [59:04] Susan Hawes: Has been moved and seconded to pass the special amusement license for Gagans Pub. Is there any further comment from council? Seeing none, roll call. Why not? [59:21] Lisa Goodwin: Councilor Beck? [Speaker P (unidentified): Yes.] Councilor Carson? [Speaker O (unidentified): Yes.] Councilor Deane? [City Clerk Lisa Goodwin: Yes.] Councilor Falun? [Susan Hawes: Yes.] Councilor Fish? [Susan Hawes: Yes.] Councilor Leonard? [Speaker P (unidentified): Yes.] Councilor Mahler? [Speaker P (unidentified): Yes.] Councilor Walker? [Susan Hawes: Yes.] Councilor Hawes? Yes. 9 yes, 0 no. [59:38] Susan Hawes: The application for special amusement license renewal of Timka Inc., doing business as Gagans Pub, 570 Main Street, has passage. 9 yes, 0 no. [59:48] Lisa Goodwin: Next item, public hearing, application for special amusement license renewal of Global Spectrum LP, doing business as Cross Insurance Center, 515 Main Thank you, Madam Chair. [1:00:00] Michael Beck: ma'am, I'm sorry, Madam Clerk. Madam Chair, I move that we open the public hearing for the application for a special amusement license renewal of Global Spectrum LP, doing business as Cross Insurance Center, 515 Main Street. [1:00:13] Speaker Q (unidentified): Second. [1:00:14] Susan Hawes: It has been moved and seconded that the public hearing be open for the Cross Insurance Center. It is open. [1:00:27] Michael Beck: Seeing no one approach, I move we close the public hearing. [1:00:29] Speaker Q (unidentified): Second. [1:00:30] Susan Hawes: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. It is closed. [1:00:36] Michael Beck: I move approval for the application for special amusement license renewal of Global Spectrum LP, doing business as Cross Insurance Center, 515 Main Street. [1:00:46] City Clerk Lisa Goodwin: Second. [1:00:50] Susan Hawes: Okay, it has been moved for passage of the special amusement license for Cross Insurance Center. [1:00:57] City Clerk Lisa Goodwin: Councilor Beck? [1:01:00] Speaker C (unidentified): Yes. [1:01:01] Lisa Goodwin: Councilor Carson? [Speaker O (unidentified): Yes.] Councilor Deane? [1:01:04] City Clerk Lisa Goodwin: Yes. Councilor Falun? Yes. Councilor Fish? Yes. Councilor Leonard? [1:01:08] Speaker Q (unidentified): Yes. [1:01:08] Lisa Goodwin: Councilor Mahler? [1:01:10] Speaker P (unidentified): Yes. [1:01:10] City Clerk Lisa Goodwin: Councilor Walker? Yes. Councilor Hawes? [1:01:13] Susan Hawes: Yes. 9 yes, 0 The application for special amusement license renewal of Global Spectrum LP, doing business as Cross Insurance Center, has passage. 9 yes, 0 no. That brings us to the end of the agenda. Seeing no further business, is there any staff member that would like to make a comment? They're waving out there, but nobody's willing to come. I have a comment. Anybody back here? No comments. Okay, Councilor Carson. [1:01:46] Speaker O (unidentified): I want to thank everybody who comes out for public comment. I appreciate hearing from everybody. and because we won't see you until September, have a happy Labor Day, enjoying time with your family and friends. [1:02:07] Michael Beck: The next time we come together, school will have started. So I want to— or hopefully I'll start with this. Hopefully all the kids out there had a wonderful, summer. I know our family did. I know that, the new school year is an exciting time. I hope that all the children in Bangor are excited about the new school year. I will tell you, as the father of 3 very energetic young men, I am very excited about the school year starting. So, here's to a good school year for everyone in Bangor. Thank you and good night. [1:02:36] City Clerk Lisa Goodwin: Good night, Bangor. [1:02:39] Speaker Q (unidentified): Have a good night, everybody. [1:02:42] Carolyn Fish: Good night, everyone, and thanks for that reminder because I'm always running late after school starts because I run into the school buses. And, so I'm always, for about a month, running late. So I'll have to leave a little earlier, but thank you. Good night, Bangor. [1:02:57] Speaker P (unidentified): The only comment I'd like to make is that I find it interesting when we have all these public comments on liquor licenses or special amusement. I would like to in the future hear from our police department if there have been any issues. We, you know, I don't go to all these places on a continuing basis. I don't know if they're having problems. I think it would be nice to know. And on that, good night. [1:03:27] Susan Hawes: Good night, Bangor. [1:03:30] Susan Faloon: Thank you everyone for coming out. And for those of you who attend all of our meetings regularly, next Monday, just a reminder, is what we call a— it's a— what do we say, a leap month or something? So there are no meetings, no council meetings or committee meetings next Monday. It's the 5th Monday, so just a reminder that will maybe save you a trip. And good night, Bangor. [1:03:56] Susan Hawes: Thank you all for attending. just to tag on to what she just said, that second week our meeting will be on Wednesday because of Labor Day. So have a good night.