Bangor council advances $75M parks bond, delays immigration ordinance

[0:43] Susan Hawes: All right, we're live. Welcome to the regular meeting of the Bangor City Council. It is now 7 p.m. It's March 9th, 2026. We start all meetings with the pledge of allegiance, and Mr. Sprite [0:59] Lisa Goodwin: what should lead us to the [1:04] Michael Beck: flag of the United States of America and the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, united with liberty and justice for all. [1:20] Susan Hawes: This [1:28] Susan Hawes: is a 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. 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 three minutes per speaker, and the total time allowed for general public comment regarding city business will be limited to no more than one hour. The public comment period is for city council members to listen and not to respond or debate with persons. If you do not live in Bangor or own property in Bangor, please allow those who do to have the opportunity to speak first. First, if you'd like to offer comment on any item directly related to city business, not appearing on the regular agenda, you may approach the podium. Individuals who have appropriately pre-registered to give public comment via remote means will be given the opportunity to participate remotely. Alternatively, counselors may be reached via email at counselors at BangorMaine.gov. A link to the adopted public comment policy can be found on the city's website. So if you have anyone that would like to make public comment, please approach the podium, give your first and last name, and whether you are a resident of Bangor. Good evening, my name is [3:54] Public commenter (Michael Norton): Michael Norton I'm a resident of Bangor. I'm aware of a couple in the restaurant industry in city of banger, a couple of restaurants that are just sweatshops. Might be good for the city to look into that, but Maine needs to more often support multi-state performers and artists. When the city and state start to do this, many artists and performers utilize multiple industries and support those industries in kind, like transportation, food, hospitality, and many other systems. Say about 25 artists and performers get together at a college anywhere or anywhere and act in and produce a theatrical play for the local community, and they come from 25 different states or nations. They too need more support because often all of them, whether producing a play or a motion picture with sound and camera equipment, are multi-state performers and artists too. Often it has been overlooked that most of the support for these multi-state performers, artists, and authors is not at all lent, borrowed, or royalties to them, but instead it's siloed local, locally to industries of administrators choices and dispensaries of money. When that happens, all the multi-state industries suffer setbacks and losses. Artists and performers and authors are progressive and multi-state, not only insurance companies taking advantage of us and our customers. I listened to a man from Mississippi on Maine and PR radio this weekend telling his story from the 60s. He's probably one of my uncle-in-laws whom I still have not met. We read stories and Banger Daily News about people in Stonington making 28 000 a week on an eight-hour ship. Is that true? These are not multi-state artists and performers and authors. These are con artists. Unless that really is my in-law in Mississippi, in which case I should notify my other in-laws about my Mississippi in-law. Support multi-state performers and artists. It is fine to support Maine and New England in kind, but if we keep seeing multi-state performers flatlined, and we don't see enough support for us. [6:42] Public commenter (Scott Pardee): My name is Scott Pardee and I'm a resident of Bangor. I'm speaking to urge the council to hold the line on taxes in the upcoming budget. While municipal costs are undoubtedly rising, the current economic climate has pushed many of our neighbors to a breaking point. Increasing the tax burden now is not simply a fiscal adjustment for many, it is a direct threat to their housing security. Our community is already grappling with visible with a visible crisis. We see the increase in homelessness and open struggle on our streets every day, yet there is a growing dangerous indifference to these conditions. We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to the fact that many people are slipping through the cracks. The decisions made in these chambers regarding property taxes have a direct correlation of the population that we see struggling outdoors. Doors for a citizen living on a fixed income or a working family barely meeting their monthly obligations, a tax height is often the final straw. When you vote to increase the financial burden on residents, you must do so with the understanding that those dollars are being taken away from grocery budgets and rent payments. If this budget, if the budget leads to further displacement, that responsibility rests with this council. We look to you to represent all of us, not just the city's departments, but the people who fund them. I ask that the council focus on the following: prioritize essential city business and infrastructure over new or non-essential ordinance that do not provide immediate relief to taxpayers. Rather than leaning on local property owners who are already seeing massive increases in water and electric rates, the city should be aggressively pursuing state and federal resources to bridge the budget gap. Consider the cumulative, the cumulative, consider the cumulative effect of tax increases alongside the utility hikes we have seen over the past few years. You have the power to make a difference at the local level by protecting the financial stability of your constituents. Please choose to hold the line and prevent any of our neighbors from losing their housing, even if it's one, even if it's one, you know, oh, I'm around at a time before. I want to tell you a story of a man with, frozen toes that walked into our office the other day that really brought the humanitarian thing out. We took him to the, to the hospital. He wants to come in to fresh start. He's been there for a week. We had to ask St Joe's to keep him because we would take him, and that brought the humanitarian thing out. You know, he's going to lose his toes. I mean, come on, don't raise taxes. It's prioritized. Let's have some prioritizing. You can spend the money on other things when we solve this problem. Thank you. [9:29] Susan Hawes: Thank you. There was a question earlier if people could speak on items that are first reading, and we typically don't do public comment on first readings. It would be at the, oh, so I can't speak as The chair said we typically don't have public comment on first reading but ask the public to talk at either the committee meeting or the second reading. [10:01] Public commenter (Scott Pardee): You said typically, but that means so no. [10:08] Susan Hawes: It's been a tradition that we don't take public comment during the first reading when it's just first reading or referral. [10:16] Public commenter (Scott Pardee): Even if it's a tradition or typically, it's a no is what you're telling me. [10:20] Susan Hawes: I'm gonna suggest that the chair not allow it. His suggestion is you would speak at the committee meeting for that item you can ask at the committee meeting to speak they're usually there anybody else oh Sue yep may I ask a question [10:47] Wayne Mallar: and what you're saying is at the committee meeting yeah they if the committee chair chooses not to take public comment they can't speak is that correct so are we telling him that there will be available time for him to speak at a committee meeting even if the chair doesn't want to [11:06] Susan Hawes: It is generally at the will of the chair of the committee. [11:14] Wayne Mallar: But you know well I just don't think you can deny him a chance if we've not [11:20] Susan Hawes: the only option is to allow him to speak on a separate item typically when people speak at council meetings they speak at the second reading so there's there will be a chance to speak and also often at the committee meetings as well so there's there's well if we were to allow it in the first reading it would be three different times to speak so we're not denying that the city is not denying people from speaking well [11:47] Wayne Mallar: Yes but let's clarify they're not denied three different times they're denied too because the chair of a committee does not have to allow public comment And I just don't think it's appropriate to deny public comment, but that's fine. [12:04] Susan Hawes: I was going to say, where'd she go? She was there. [12:09] Public commenter (Hillary Simmons): Hillary Simmons, resident of Bangor. Good evening, members of the council. I want to speak tonight about the current structure of the Bangor Homeless Response System, specifically the role of the homeless coordinator and the way the program sits within public health. I believe the current structure simply is not working the way the city hoped it would. When Bangor created the position of the Homeless Coordinator, the goal was coordination. The expectation was this role would bring together service providers, city departments, law enforcement, health officials, and the community to create a clear strategy to address homelessness. Unfortunately, what we have today does not reflect the level of coordination or effectiveness. Right now, the system feels fragmented. Residents, businesses, and even service providers often struggle to understand who is responsible for what. Is the priority public health? Is the housing? Is it housing placement? Is it enforcement? Is it outreach? When the structure itself is unclear, the results are inconsistent. Placing the homeless response primarily under the public health may have been well intended, but homelessness in the city like Bangor is not just a public health issue. It is also a housing issue, a public safety issue, an economic issue, and a community stability issue. When one department carries the responsibility without strong structural support from others, the response becomes limited and reactive instead of coordinated and strategic. Another problem is accountability. The public and the council should be able to clearly measure whether the current structure is succeeding or failing. Are people actually being moved into stable housing? Are encampments decreasing? Are emergency services seeing fewer calls? Are neighborhoods seeing improvement? If we cannot easily answer those questions, then the structure itself needs to be re-evaluated. Right now, many residents feel the system is stuck in a cycle of management instead of solutions. We are responding to problems as they arise rather than implementing a structure that prevents those problems from continuing in the first place. This is not about blaming any one person. Many people involved in this work care deeply and are doing the best they can within the structure they have been given. But if the structure itself is flawed, even the most dedicated people cannot produce the results our community needs. Bangor deserves a homeless response system that is coordinated, accountable, and transparent. That may mean restructuring the program so it is not housed solely within public health. It may mean creating clearer leadership, clearer goals, and clearer metrics for success. What matters most is that the City acknowledges that the current approach is not producing the outcome residents were promised when these positions and programs were created. The goal should not simply be to manage homelessness. The goal should be to reduce it, stabilize people, and restore balance for both of those in need and broader community. I encourage the council to take a hard look at the current structure and ask whether it is truly serving Bangor. Thank you. Anyone [15:28] Susan Hawes: else? Oh, it's not for public comment right now, but when it's brought up on the agenda, there will be time for you to speak to that. [16:15] Public commenter (Joe Garcia): In that specific case, but now I can speak in general need. Okay. [16:23] Public commenter (Tyler Shanahan): Yes, sir. Good evening. My name is Tyler Shanahan and I'm a resident of Bangor. I'm speaking on behalf of a friend. I am speaking to express my strong opposition to the proposed $75 million bond for parks and rec. While community amenities are generally a positive investment, we are currently facing a convergence of fiscal and social crises that make a discretionary expenditure of this magnitude fiscally irresponsible. Our city and county are at a crossroads and our funding priorities must reflect the most urgent needs of our citizens. The county jail crisis. The county is currently facing a critical need for a new correctional facility with a projected bond of $70 million to $80 million. My professional work takes me into the current jail every week and I can confirm professional work, oh, sorry, I can confirm firsthand that the facility is in desperate need of replacement. This is a matter of public safety and essential infrastructure that cannot be sidelined for nonessential projects. The homelessness emergency. We are witnessing an unprecedented increase in homelessness and open struggle on our streets. Diverting $75 million toward parks while our neighbors lack basic shelter and the city face rising costs associated with this crisis is a misalignment of our community values. Cumulative taxpayer burden. Taxpayers are already struggling with significant increases in utility rates and property taxes. Adding the debt service for a 75 million months of whole bond on top of a potential 80 million dollar county bond will push many residents, especially those on fixed incomes, toward financial ruin and potentially displacement. We must address our essential infrastructure and the humanitarian crisis on our streets before we consider high cost lifestyle amenities. I urge the council to vote against this bond and instead focus on limited resources on the core city business that ensures the safety and stability of all residents. The decisions made this year regarding our debt and tax burden will directly impact who can afford to keep living in the city. Please prioritize the needs of the majority of your people over the wants of a department with no proof. It will not burden the taxpayers. [19:14] Susan Hawes: Thank you, Mr. Shanahan. Next. [19:20] Public commenter (Adam Baker): Adam Baker, Bangor resident. All words and views are my own. They do not reflect any committee. committee. I'm here to speak on AI data centers. It was brought up last Monday with the business economic meeting. Good evening. I'm here to give my opinion on data centers for AI. I believe the city of Bangor should be strongly against these data centers. These data centers have more of a negative impact than positive. For example, the most extreme is the environmental impact it has. Large data centers consume up to 5 million gallons of water per day alongside the energy and carbon footprint with Bengal residents water and electric bills rising every year. I feel it is reckless and too harmful to build these data centers. The people aren't just paying for, sorry, the people aren't just paying for it with just money. They pay with their own health and terror with terrible noise and water pollution and sometimes their own mental health of AI psychosis. As a local Bangor artist who creates alongside so many great artists here in Bangor, AI and by proxy data centers undermine all the hard work that we do as artists. I believe this would be go against the promotion and commitment to culture and local artists here in Bangor. I rather the money invest, investment go towards truly impactful actions to sit to the citizens of Bangor. AI only is inevitable if we choose to do nothing about it. I would ask the council to reject any and all future data centers for AI. [20:59] Susan Hawes: Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none. [21:12] Public commenter (Joe Garcia): All right. [21:23] Public commenter (Anthony Ashton): Good evening council members. My name is Anthony Ashton. I'm a resident of Glenburn, but born and raised in Bangor for about 24 years of my life. I've noticed so much growing up in Bangor. The main thing I'm noticing and that everybody is talking about is the homeless problem. I'm about 200 plus now in Bangor and growing and doesn't seem like it's slowing down. It is sad to see. I do a lot of scribbling in this notebook here, trying to get good ideas, not just for the city, but the metropolitan area as a whole. And I thought of a little program, different from our transitional programs that we have for the homeless population, called the Crawl, Walk, Run program. Basically it's getting every single one of them off their feet. It would involve imposing a corporate income tax on the corporations in Bangor. And I was running some numbers on my own, and if this is accurate from census.gov, just in retail sales alone, Bangor does over $2.8 billion. And with at least a net profit margin, I should say, of 2%, that gives us at least $56 million. And with a high end profit margin, that would give us about $168 million. And this is just retail sales. This doesn't include, let's say, General Electric or Northern Light, stuff that we, it's revenue that the city needs. And I believe we can set up a nice transitional program with a proper percentage corporate income tax that could fully fund transportation, clothing, food insecurity, drugs and other substance abuse counseling. counseling, proper health care treatment for all to get them to and from shelters, working with motels, maybe even the cross insurance center to get them properly housed. I don't know what the rules really are when it comes to stuff like this, but I know hope is not lost. And I hate walking out every day and seeing these guys struggling. I do what I can even though it's not much and I feel bad on my own. But I know this will bring crime down. This can create jobs also to help elderly homeless people. We can create stuff for the school zones, for like high school students about to become adults. Like we already have CNA programs. We can help the elderly by getting them in home, instant jobs from 818 20 years old on and helping every single elderly child and adult with this corporate income tax thank [24:28] Susan Hawes: you thank you is there anyone else thank [24:42] Public commenter (Joe Garcia): you for the opportunity to speak my name is joe garcia my wife and i own property here in bangor i know this is just I appreciate you getting rid of the 20 the 95 ordinance that's great but I still have a very important question to ask or you to consider is if you go with these 26 110 how would that impact the city services being given out to illegal aliens if we don't know what their status and I read the main legislature thing and it doesn't really say anything about it's mostly a legal type Document that says, you know what, you can't do this, you can do this, blah, but it doesn't go into effect, and I'm not sure how you guys are gonna tailor one moment. [25:32] Susan Hawes: Please, one of order, here's this public comment is about an agenda item, well I thought anything was. [25:42] Public commenter (Joe Garcia): Available to speak, but if this is an agenda item and I can't speak about it because it's the first reading, then that, what's, where's the logic there, where am I missing something here, it's not the. [25:53] Susan Hawes: First reading for the one I believe you're speaking on would be the very last one on the list here, the one that says it's 26-110, yes exactly, okay, that is on the agenda and it is, you would have the ability to speak there, that's what we were talking about at the door, we would have. [26:11] Public commenter (Joe Garcia): Have, okay, because what I understood is that you couldn't because it wasn't the first reading, we wasn't, I wasn't sure if it was or not, no, then I'll hold my comments till that time, then thank. [26:20] Susan Hawes: You, okay, he's gonna rewind, all right, is there anyone else, seeing none, we'll go to the remote, Mr. Ward, are you there, yes, can you hear me, not very clearly, but I, all right, is that better. [26:48] Public commenter: It's better, yes, all right, speaking tonight I'm urging the city council to pass a resolution declaring that Vanguard does not support another war fought for Israel's behalf, it's time we prioritize American interests over foreign agendas that drain our resources and compromise our values, let's start with the financial burden, every year American taxpayers put the bill for billions in aid to Israel, over 3.8 billion dollars annually in recent years, with a cumulative total exceeding 300 billion since. World War II adjusted for inflation, this money drawn from over hard-earned, this money was drawn from hard-earned taxes funds Israel's genocide while our own community struggle with the infrastructure education and health care needs, why are we subsidizing a foreign power when Bengal residents could use those funds right here at home, what's even more insane is that there are proposals on congress right now to extend U.S. benefits to Americans serving in the Israeli Defense Forces. Legislation like H.R. 8445 seeks to treat IDF service members the same as U.S. military duty, potentially granting them protections under laws meant for our own troops, including health and employment benefits. Why should American health insurance or veteran perks go to those fighting for another country? This blurs the line of loyalty and puts foreign soldiers ahead of our own veterans. Then there's the disturbing pattern of accused pedophiles fleeing to Israel to evade justice. Report documents over 60 cases since 2014 where U.S. suspects exploit Israel's law of return for automatic citizenship, making extradition difficult. High-profile examples who allegedly abused dozens or more hiding in Israel highlight how this loophole shields criminals while victims in America are left without closure. We must also address Israel's treatment of Christians, which has been a disturbing rise. [28:28] Susan Hawes: Chair, point of order. Yes, point of order. I just, I don't believe this is directly related to city business. I just want to point that out. Okay, I was speaking on why I want the agenda item. [28:44] Public commenter: Why I would want you to go vote that way to pass a resolution. Can I continue? In 2024 alone, which resolution are you referring to? No, I'm asking for the city council to pass a resolution. We did it a few years ago for the Palestine War. [29:06] Susan Hawes: Okay, I get what you're saying. [29:09] Public commenter: All right. So we must also address Israel's treatment of Christians, which has been a disturbing rise. In 2024 alone, over 111 incidents of violence, harassment, spitting, and vandalism targeted Christians in Jerusalem and beyond, fueled by religious nationalist extremists in the government. Clergy are spat on, churches are vandalized, and cemeteries are desecrated, acts that erode religious freedom in a land sacred to many faiths. critics point to the passages of the talmud that allegedly view non-jews harshly such as babamatizia 11 4b claim to call non-jews beast in ritual context or references to jesus and glitton 57a council members bangor should lead by example pass a resolution rejecting u.s [29:50] Susan Hawes: Involvement in wars for Israel. Your time is up, Mr. Ward. Thank you. Okay, there being no others online, that will be the end of the remote comments this evening. Okay, now we'll get on to Madam. [30:23] Wayne Mallar: Clerk, Madam Chair, I'd like to have item 26-106 removed from the consent agenda. I have a question about it. [30:37] Susan Hawes: Okay, so we'll remove 26-106 from the consent agenda and it will go to new business. Thank you. Minutes. [30:51] Lisa Goodwin: of Bangor City Council regular meeting of February 25th 2026 26-097 order authorizing the execution of a municipal quick claim deed for real estate located at 72 State Street 26-098 order authorizing the execution of a municipal quick claim deed for real estate located at 180 yale street 26-099 order authorizing the sale of property at 240 grove street in the amount of fifty seven thousand dollars to melissa when and bid now 26-100 order authorizing the execution of a municipal quick claim deed for real estate located at 500 Essex Street. 26-101 order authorizing the execution of a municipal quitclaim deed for real estate located at 631 Essex Street. 26-102 order authorizing the execution of a municipal quitclaim deed for real estate located at Larkin Street. 26-103 order authorizing the city manager to accept $2,875 in funds as a result of a state criminal forfeiture gall 26-104 order authorizing the city manager to accept one firearm as a result of a state criminal forfeiture tippet oh 26-105 order appointing nominees to ethics board and water district board of trustees no [32:23] Joseph Leonard: motion make a motion that the consensus item has passage [32:28] Susan Hawes: second it's been moved and seconded that the consent agenda will have passage is there any discussion seeing [32:42] Lisa Goodwin: none it will have passage madam clerk 26-107 order amending the city of bangor to create a standing committee on homelessness first reading 26-108 order authorizing issuance of $75 million of the city's general obligation bonds for a consolidated parks and recreation facility and a tax levy, therefore, subject to approval of the voters of the City of Bangor. First reading and referral to Finance Committee on March 16, 2026. [33:17] Joseph Leonard: Is there a motion? I move these items be referred. [33:22] Susan Hawes: Second. It's been moved and seconded that these items be referred to Committee in first reading. Is there any discussion? session. Seeing none, they will be referred. [33:35] Lisa Goodwin: Madam Clerk. 26-090 Resolve, making an appropriation from undesignated fund balance in the amount of up to $50,000 to fund a director of human [33:46] Joseph Leonard: resources. Councilor Leonard. Thank you, Madam Clerk. This resolve would make an appropriation from undesignated fund balance in the amount of $50,000 to fund a director of human resources. Currently, the City of Bangor's Assistant City Manager concurrently holds the title of Chief Human Resources Officer and Chief Labor Relations Officer, with the Human Resources and Labor Relations functions occupying at least half of the Assistant City Manager's working hours. Given the size of the city's workforce and the critical importance of the city's employees, it is beneficial for there to be a stand-alone department head-level position that leads the city's human resources and labor relations functions. By creating a new director of human resources position, the city acknowledges the critical importance of its employees. A survey of the five largest cities in Maine shows that Bangor is the only city without a standalone director-level human resources role. The city's greatest asset is our employees, and focused leadership on hiring, training, and labor relations will ensure that the city is utilizing this asset to the greatest public benefit. It additionally removing human resources and labor relations from the assistant city manager role will allow the assistant city manager to refocus on important technology projects, public outreach and communications, and process improvement, which will result in increased efficiency, cost savings, and better customer service. This item was reviewed and recommended at the government operations committee meeting on March 2nd, 2026. Madam Chair, I make a motion on Resolve 26-090. Second. [35:33] Susan Hawes: Resolve 26-090 has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Any objections? Seeing none, the resolve has passage. [35:53] Lisa Goodwin: 26-095 ordinance amending the code of the City of Bangor to establish Chapter 46, Employee Authority and Immigration Matters. [36:02] Michael Beck: Council of that, thank you, Madam Clerk. Madam Chair, I move to postpone this item until the regular city council meeting of March 23rd. Second. 26 [36:14] Susan Hawes: -095 ordinance has been moved and seconded to postpone to the council meeting of March 23rd. Is there any discussion? Madam [36:29] Wayne Mallar: Chair, I have just one question. Has this been reviewed by the legal department and is it found appropriate? This is the language that they recommend. It [36:42] Susan Hawes: is still a subject. Has this been reviewed? It has, but I don't, I don't [36:47] Wayne Mallar: Understand the question of the language. I just asked if it'd been approved by the legal department, so when I review it, I have reliance on what is there. That's all it has. [37:01] Susan Hawes: It has been reviewed by the legal department, and there has been discussion about a later order that is on the agenda, and so there was, yeah, it's been reviewed by the legal department. The legal department didn't anticipate a motion to postpone until a date certain, but that's the motion that's been made. Madam Chair, I have a question. [37:36] Carolyn Fish: Good, how does this affect Council Order 26-110 if we postpone? Does [37:52] Susan Hawes: it affect it? Did you hear her question? Is that question, Director of the City Solicitor? I suppose so, suppose, well, I understood that the Council was going to, intended to take certain action on this ordinance, and that there was an order on the agenda, and there was going to be action taken on both, but I didn't anticipate that it would be a motion to postpone to a date certain, so if the Council wants to discuss that, I would encourage that. [38:30] Carolyn Fish: Council Fish, may I ask why it's postponed? I thought we were going to be voting [38:35] Michael Beck: voting on this evening. Yep, the reason why I made the motion is I want to ensure that the order does pass, and I want to see that it's implemented before we, a lot of work was put into this, and it could be amended. I want to make sure that, you know, what we agreed upon that was going to go, put it, be put in, gets put in before we dispose of this one. That was my motivation. Any [39:02] Susan Hawes: Any other questions, comments? Okay, it has been moved and seconded to postpone to March 23rd. This is an ordinance. Believe there was a public comment. Was he wanting this one or the 110? I believe there's a member of the public who wishes to speak on this one. Podium. Sir, Mr. Garcia, right, can you go to the podium please where they can hear you? [39:43] Public commenter (Joe Garcia): Now to pass this committee three to two, so I'm kind of a little confused why all of a sudden you're pushing it out or what's going on here. That's my only question. I know you, I guess you can't answer, but the [40:04] Susan Hawes: Council can discuss the issues. Yeah, okay, I guess my question is [40:11] Public commenter (Joe Garcia): That you know I read a, I read the actual ordinance and I saw a lot of hypocrisy in there. You're saying that number one, you don't want to, you know, give out information to the federal government or help them because of the budget. I respect that, I understand that. But by the same token, here you are saying that you're probably looking at LD 110. So it seems to me like you're willing to spend money on this one but not on that one, and I don't understand that process. The other thing too is that, you know, You use the term, you know, the public safety has been overused so hard to get a lot of things done that shouldn't have been done. I grew up in a neighborhood that quite honestly makes Bangor look like Sesame Street. And I have a real concern about tying the hands of the police officer with illegal aliens who've done a crime. And then rather than telling the customs people, hey, look, this guy's guilty of a crime, he's also an illegal, get him out of here. You know, you'll release this person and he may go on to commit another crime or he may just disappear, but in either way, you know, the police did their job, they found who the criminal was, and we don't have the option to tell the government get rid of this guy, and that's my biggest concern. So if you're going to say that, you know, you want to save money by not helping immigration, that's fine, but with this state thing again, I don't want to get into it because it's a different thing, but here you're Saying it's okay to do this but it's not okay to do that doesn't seem like equal protection under the law, to be quite honest with you, it just seems very arbitrary that we're going to do this but not that. [41:58] Susan Hawes: That's all I have to say, so thank you. Thank you, chair. Yes, can I have a floor moment? So I think I would suggest that the, that the executive summary be read to the public on this in light of the motion that was not anticipated, and I just wanted to clarify that the, legal department's review of this ordinance, it was recommended that the ordinance not be passed as is, and but I think the public will have a better understanding of the history of this if the executive summary is read. Council back. [42:42] Michael Beck: This ordinance establishes clear limits on the city of Bangor's involvement in federal immigration enforcement, consistent with federal and state law, in order to prioritize public safety, community trust, and the responsible use of municipal resources. This ordinance makes explicit that Bangor does not operate its departments, programs, or public safety services for the purpose of enforcing federal civil immigration laws. It affirms that city employees will continue to comply with all valid federal and state laws, judicial warrants, subpoenas, and court orders, and will continue to cooperate fully in the investigation and prosecution of criminal activity. What this ordinance does is draw a firm line between local public safety responsibilities and federal civil immigration enforcement. This 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 diverted to unfunded federal enforcement mandates. This ordinance affirms that Bangor's role is to keep its residents safe, uphold the law, and ensure transparency and accountability in the use of public resources, not to serve as an extension of federal civil immigration enforcement. This item was reviewed and recommended for passage at the government operations committee meeting on March 2nd, which I believe it was not recommended for passage. Anyway, the government operation committee discussed this draft ordinance at its March 2nd meeting. After the discussion, the committee voted not to recommend passage of this draft ordinance due to the legal concerns and administrative challenges with the city implementing a distinct local framework governing employee engagement with immigration enforcement officials, when a new similar state law is expected to take effect in July 2026. Instead, the committee recommended Council pass an order directing the city to begin complying with the state law immediately and to formalize a written procedure to assist staff. That recommended order appeared later on the agenda, Council order 26 110. [45:38] Susan Hawes: The ordinance was moved and seconded to be moved to the March 23rd [Public commenter (Hillary Simmons): meeting. Comments] questions. Council Miller. Well, [46:00] Wayne Mallar: with the budget coming up and money being tight, we spend an awful lot of time on illegal immigrants, and I think it's time we got back to the job of doing things for the city, for the tax paying members of the city. Therefore I will not vote in favor of this. I would rather vote to kill it. [46:25] Public commenter: Absolutely. [46:29] Susan Faloon: i was originally in favor of this and i and i still am but i understand that the legal concerns and so i am in favor of postponing it because a lot of work did go into it and i and i do support it and it 's not in my opinion benefiting illegal aliens it's pretty clear that you know we would still cooperate with you know if there's a you know an arrest warrant or you know some kind of criminal investigation but regardless of which one we were to pass like there are people living legally in this city who are paying taxes who are afraid to go to the grocery store or to take their kids to school and I just think that this is important and it's going to be implemented recommended at a state level in a few months anyway the state version so I mean I 'm definitely in favor of it and it's we're not in any way giving anything to illegal immigrants thank you [47:43] Michael Beck: Yeah, I don't see the harm in postponing this, you know, let's see if we follow up on what the rest of the recommendation was and then when we come back to this on the 23rd just examine what the where we are and go from there. But I don't see any harm in postponing it today. [48:04] Susan Hawes: And he is also [48:07] Carolyn Fish: fish. I'm I'm in favor of postponing it. But in general, I'm I'm very disappointed in the amount of time that we have spent when we're here to take care of city business in the state. This is a state and federal issue. And when I trust our police department, when they've come and said we've not had an issue, are there things going on with ICE that have people concerned? And this isn't a for or against ICE for me. It's about our time being demanded and to me being more important focused on our residents here in Bangor. And at the same time, I don't want to send a message that could attract attention from DC. See, that could potentially risk us getting funds for certain infrastructure we need, like the airport. I just don't want to risk any type of retaliation or things we don't know could perhaps come from this. And I certainly don't want to give criminals the idea that they're welcome here because, you know, we're not going to cooperate with ICE. And this has already been taken care of with the state. We're already going to have to comply with what the state law is going to be, so because that takes effect and that's already been an issue taken care of. I wish we could just roll up our sleeves and take care of the issues of Bangor, bring in enterprise, figure out how to raise money so that we can lessen the burden for our taxpayers, take care of our roads or infrastructure. The amount of time we have spent on this, I wish that we could be brainstorming for things that affect the Bengal residents. Anyone [49:55] Susan Hawes: else? This is an ordinance that will require a roll call vote. What, it's a motion to postpone, right, to the, yeah, and there has been an objection, so there should be a roll call vote. But I just wanted to, I just want to make sure that everybody knew the vote is on the motion to postpone to March 23rd. Yeah, it is. Council of Beck? Yes. Council [50:26] Lisa Goodwin: of Carson? Yes. Council of Dean? Yes. Council of Falloon? Yes. Council of Fish? Yes. Council of Leonard? [50:35] Wayne Mallar: Yes. Council of Mallor? I'll vote yes, but I'd prefer to kill it. Thank you. Council of Walker? [50:43] Lisa Goodwin: Yes. Councillor Hawes? Yes. Nine yes, zero no. Okay. [50:52] Susan Hawes: Ordinance 26-095, we'll move to the 23rd. That was nine yes, zero no. 26 [51:03] Lisa Goodwin: -096, resolve authorizing the city manager to accept and appropriate 320,603 dollars from the State of Maine Department of Transportation for the purpose of funding new mobile fare technology and electric ADA van and bike wrecks. Counselor Maller? [51:19] Susan Hawes: Usually [51:22] Wayne Mallar: I'm loud enough about it. This resolve will accept and appropriate 320 603 000 in state of Maine Department of Transportation's MDOT funds for the purpose of acquiring new mobile fare and technology, a new electric ADA van, and 24 three-position bike racks. MDOT allocated $2 million in state funding from the last legislative session to support transit projects. Community Connector applied and received $320,603 in funding with no local match requirement. This fund will help us in our efforts to continue enhancing accessibility, rendering fare technology, a modernizing fare technology, and expanding multimodal connectivity, all of which aligns with the priorities of the Maine State Transit Plan. The Finance Committee recommended approval of this grant in a vote of 5-0 at the February 18th meeting. I move passage of Resolve 26-096. [52:41] Susan Hawes: Second. Okay so I moved and seconded that resolve has passage. Oh counsel yeah. There is a member of the public raising hand to raising their hand on zoom. I want to mr. Lewis has raised his hand. He did register to Pete's to speak at public comment and on agenda items. Okay mr. Lance you're unmuted. Yeah I wanted to [53:19] Public commenter: comment last week I also was registered to speak on the items and that was overlooked item after item after item. So I just want to give you a heads up I do sign up for that and I was not given opportunity to speak on those items last week. I don't interrupt besides to remind you that yes I do have the right to speak on these items and I'm gonna put my hand back down but I may just decide to speak on another item later but I will reserve my comment for them. Thank [53:49] Angela Walker: you. Okay thank you so [53:59] Susan Hawes: the resolve does have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on this resolve? Seeing none okay the resolve will have passage 26 [54:22] Lisa Goodwin: 26-106 order authorizing the city manager to apply for a $500,000 grant from nested to support a two year program to increase support and connections to care for people living with HIV. Council Walker back [54:45] Susan Hawes: in the 26106. Yes. [54:57] Angela Walker: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Authorizing, okay. This order would authorize the city manager to apply for a $500,000 grant from the NASTAD to support a two-year program to increase support and connections to care for people living with HIV. The National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors, commonly called NASTAD, has The grant has a great opportunity available with the purpose of supporting the re-engagement of people living with HIV that have been out of care and without routine HIV treatment. Adhering to HIV treatment plans is essential to achieve viral suppression. This grant opportunity is aimed at breaking down barriers to care and treatment. If awarded, Bangor Public Health and Community Services would use the funds to expand its case management services and implement solutions for engagement and adherence, covering costs for staff, incentives, transportation, and other expenses that align with the work plan. The department would partner with community organizations to offer a robust and comprehensive program. This item was received and recommended for approval by the Government Operation Committee meeting on March 2, 2026. Make a motion. [56:29] Susan Hawes: Second. Okay, order 26106 has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? [56:37] Wayne Mallar: Yes, the reason I asked for it to be removed from the consent agenda because I wanted the public to understand even though we apply for a grant it does not necessarily mean that if we receive the grant we will accept the grant. I have some issues with the covering costs. It looks like we're hiring staff. We've not been given enough information to make me happy about it, so that's why I asked it removed be removed. So just remember we may receive the grant but we don't have to accept it, I think. Sometimes we figure grants are free money. Well, there's no free money out there anyway. Thank you. Any [57:21] Susan Hawes: other discussion? Questions? Hillary? [57:30] Public commenter (Hillary Simmons): Simmons, resident of Bangor. I'm questioning in regards to the grants again. There is no free money out there. Somewhere someone is paying for these grants. If it's a federal level, state level, local level, somebody is paying somewhere for these grants, so I question the grants that the city is pay is applying for and then we're accepting them. I would like to see as a taxpayer, the breakdown of where the funds for this grant are going. What's the percentage going for administrative costs? What's the percentage that's actually helping the patients with HIV? What are we actually doing with these funds? Where's the transparency to the taxpayers? Because after we get a grant, it ends up the next year, the next year the city funds those prior grants. So I would like to know, as a taxpayer of the City of Bangor, the breakdown of the grants and where they're actually being used, what's the percentage of administrative cost, any [58:43] Susan Hawes: other discussion, questions, comments. Seeing none, no objections. Councillor Miller? You want a roll call? Madam Clerk, we're going to do a roll call. Councillor Beck? Yes. Councillor Carson? Yes. Councillor Deane? Yes. Councillor Faloon? Yes. Councillor Fish? [59:11] Lisa Goodwin: Yes. Councillor Leonard? Yes. Councillor Mallar? No. Councillor Walker? Yes. Councillor Haas? Yes. Eight yes, one no. Order 26-106 has passage, eight yes, one no. Next item, 26-109, order authorizing the award of 641,297 dollars of opioid settlement funds based on the recommendation of the opioid settlement fund advisory committee with modifications. Council Walker. Thank you, Madam Clerk. [59:53] Angela Walker: This order would authorize the award of 641,297 of Opioid Settlement Funds based on the recommendation of the Opioid Settlement Fund Advisory Committee with modifications. The Bangor City Council established the Opiate Settlement Fund Advisory Committee to advise the City Council on the best use of the City of Bangor's Opioid Settlement Funds in a manner that was transparent, fair, and equitable. The committee met a total of 15 times to complete its work, which included extensive information gathering and ultimately a grant application process to inform the allocation of up to $650,000. The committee received a total of 32 grant applications and voted a final recommended slate of 16 awards to City Council. This final recommendation passed the Advisory Committee by a vote of 3-2. To at a special council workshop on March 2nd, 2026, Council voted to accept the Advisory Committee's recommendations with modifications. One grant applicant, the City's Department of Public Health and Community Service, and scored well enough in the grant scoring process to receive a grant award of fifty thousand dollars for their proposal. However, when the final recommendation was ultimately moved by the Advisory Committee, the motion was made to not fund the DPH and CS proposal and to instead fund a lower scoring proposal because DPH and CS had already been allocated opioid settlement funds for a different program. The two members voting against the committee's final recommendation, due to the removal of the DPH and CS proposal, felt that it was inequitable and not in alignment with the committee's established procedure to specifically remove an applicant based on a criterion that was not set forth in the grant application documentation, and because no other application was reviewed to determine whether they had already received opioid settlement funds. At the special council workshop, council desired to accept the advisory committee's recommendation with the addition of the request from DPH and CS, which necessitated the removal of the lowest scoring applicant from the advisory committee's recommended slate. This removed applicant will be considered for future funding with opioid settlement funds if they choose to apply. The full list of awards is contained in the attachment and was recommended for approval at the special council workshop by a vote of seven to one. I move passage of 26-109. Second it's [1:02:45] Susan Hawes: been moved and seconded. Order 26-109. It does appear that Mr. George Lance was, thank you Mr. Yes, Mr. Lance, excuse [1:03:06] Public commenter: me, but I had my hand up for speaking at the last group, too. You guys are not watching my hand being raised. So I've registered to speak for these. And that last group of in-person speakers spoke. I had my hand up waiting for my turn. I even flashed my hand down and then up to get your attention. You guys need to run a legal meeting here. And you are not including my registered, pre-registered speaking events. You may not feel like that's so compelling to, you know, you don't want to listen to me speak, but that's now almost every single issue I've had my hand raised for, you guys don't allow me to speak. So I didn't want to speak for this issue, I wanted to speak about the homosexual AIDS issue, and I did not want to speak about the dope fiend issue or squawkers, you know, health center. I think she should probably recuse herself from this. Be hello please [1:04:06] Susan Hawes: do not mute me. Mr. Lance, I find your comments are disruptive to the order of this meeting. [1:04:14] Public commenter: What's disruptive about me pointing out, hold on, what's disruptive is you muting me. [1:04:33] Susan Hawes: So you had your hand up. [1:04:42] Public commenter (Sonia Mallor): Sonia Mallor, president of the city of Bangla, where is the full list of awards for those Bangalore citizens to look at? Is that listed on our website, or where can we obtain a full list? The [1:05:06] Susan Hawes: the full list is in the agenda packet behind the full [1:05:11] Public commenter (Sonia Mallor): council work. How do the citizens of Bangor know who was awarded these awards? [1:05:20] Susan Hawes: In the council packet we [1:05:23] Public commenter (Sonia Mallor): Don't, I don't get a council packet, it's posted in the council [1:05:28] Susan Hawes: packet that's posted online is [1:05:34] Public commenter (Sonia Mallor): there a full list? Oh, okay, thank you. [1:05:44] Wayne Mallar: i have a concern in i don't have a concern in awarding the monies i have a concern in And the fact that we have no coordination on who's getting the monies and what they're being used for. This is the same problem we ran into with opera money. It was given to several different groups, and we never know which one was doing what. It seems like we're running into it again. I don't see anyone at the health department monitoring who's doing what with this money. So I'm really not excited about, I'm excited about giving the money out, but I'm not excited about doing it until we know who's going to manage it, and it looks like we have no management other [1:06:33] Susan Hawes: comments hustle [1:06:37] Michael Beck: back, I would like to say I appreciate the effort that the opioid settlement committee put into this, you know, we gave them wide latitude to coming up with the process that they would follow, and this is what they decided to do, and this is the slate they put forward, with the exception of the last one, the change with public health, you know, so I will be voting in support of this. I definitely understand the sentiment about wanting more coordination, and that's why I would renew my call for an actual standing committee for opioid settlement or the opioid crisis, an opportunity to explore that further, you know, that's a, it's a monumental task, and you're talking about a lot of nonprofits who all have their own individual missions, and it's, it's going to be a challenge to try to get them to all coordinate, and I would say that having a standing committee, you know, chaired by one of their own, as well as appointed from members across all these organizations who are on the front lines of this crisis may be our best shot at trying to get some of that coordination nation that we're, we're longing for, but again, I'll be voting in support of this. [1:07:57] Susan Hawes: Council fish [1:08:03] Carolyn Fish: I'm, I'm in support of this, we've had the opiate money for quite a while, and this seemed like the best way, and I know we had volunteers that came together that are more expert in this category than we as council are, however, I do see Councillor Mallar's point. When we receive and dish out grants equaling, I think the last couple of years that I've added up about 5 million a year for various things. It doesn't seem like there's much of accountability and reporting transparency back to us. And I think that 's our responsibility. So maybe moving forward, we could discuss what we expect for those types of measures when we give these grants out so that the public knows what's going on with the monies and we have a better handle ourselves so i am in support of this it's going to be for a good cause but i do think mr maller has a good point that we should also have better reporting back so we know where it is going and if it's effective or not thank you my [1:09:20] Public commenter (Scott Pardee): name is Scott Party and I'm resident of Bangor and I just want to address Counselor Fish's statement here. When Fresh Start received ARPA money, we are very scrutinized for that money. We had to, I mean, every single cent was presented to the city along with everything that we had to do, and that was mandated by, I'm not, and I doubt that anybody else was scrutinized as much as we were, and I don't think that anybody else was even audited, but we were extensively. And I just want to make that clear, that I think that I agree with Counselor Mala that they all should be treated the same. I think so. Thank you. The [1:10:07] Susan Hawes: committee did have discussions about when the money, when the monies were finally going to be sent out, that there would be requirements, experiments as part of the contract for accountability, what was it going to be used for, what was the percent of each thing of their award. So we have had the discussions and I believe it will be incorporated in the contracts that will be sent to each of the recipients. Yes [1:10:48] Public commenter (Hillary Simmons): is it green hit it again there. My question is what was the coordination between this opioid committee and the county's opioid committee, and was there across some of the same organizations given money from both pots in [1:11:07] Susan Hawes: the early onset. We did have a joint meeting with the county committee and there was discussion around the table of areas that we were looking at. When it came time to actually start choosing the recipients, they had already started their process, they were ahead of us, and so we did not have a second meeting with them jointly. We did however, City Manager Carollynn Lear did was able to look at the ones that they were going to give and we did not have any duplicates, I don't believe. So thank you. Anything else, it has been moved and seconded. If there's no further questions or discussion, is there any doubts? Yes, we are going to have a roll call, please. [1:12:21] Lisa Goodwin: Council of Beck. Yes. Council of Carson. Yes. Council of Dean. Yes. Council of Falloon. Yes. Council of Bish. Yes. Council of Leonard. Yes. Council of Malheur. No. Council of Walker. Yes. Council of Hawes. Yes. 8 yes, 1 no. [1:12:42] Susan Hawes: Order 26-109 has passage. 8 yes, 1 no. [1:12:51] Lisa Goodwin: 26-110 order directing compliance with new state law 5 MRS chapter 337-E immigration effective immediately and to formalize written procedure regarding providing access to confidential information and non-public spaces at the request of law enforcement councillor Beck [1:13:11] Michael Beck: Thank you madam clerk. This order directs the city manager to instruct city staff to comply immediately with new state statute 5 MRS chapter 337-E entitled immigration, also known as LD 1971, which clarifies a relationship of state and local law enforcement agencies with federal immigration authorities. Notwithstanding that this new state law does not take effect until 90 days after the Maine legislature adjourns the current legislative session, it is anticipated that this state law will take effect statewide in July 2026, but this order would direct that the city begin complying with the requirements outlined in the state law immediately. Additionally, this order directs the city manager to formalize a written procedure to assist staff in understanding the proper course of action when law enforcement requests that the city provide confidential information or access to non-public spaces on city property. The government, the Government Operations Committee also discussed draft Ordinance 26095 at its March 2, 2026 meeting that would have established an ordinance addressing employee engagement with immigration enforcement officials. After committee discussion regarding the legal concerns and administrative challenges with the City implementing what would result in two distinct regulatory frameworks, the committee voted to not recommend passage of Council Order 26095 and to instead recommend this order. This order was recommended for approval at the March 2nd, 2026 Government Operations Committee meeting by a vote of 3 to 2. Madam Chair, I move passage of Order 26-110. Second. [1:14:59] Susan Hawes: It has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Mr. Garcia, you're gonna speak, you need to go to the. [1:15:16] Public commenter (Joe Garcia): I have the ordinance here right in front of me, or the, I'm sorry, the state law that they passed. And I have a serious question. It's all obviously written for the state employee, but I don't know if you guys have the copy of it, but line 34 regarding state employees, it says determining a person's immigration status is necessary for determination of programs, services, or benefits eligibility or the provision of state services. You know, and right above it says the state employee, other than law enforcement officers, judges, and counsel for defendants in criminal charges, may not inquire about the person's immigration status. Unless the line I read you before, my question is that I do not want my tax dollars going to helping and abetting illegal aliens. It's a simple, really thought. And this doesn't really clarify. It says any state employee can't ask about it unless it's part of a criminal, you know, a criminal checkup or something like that. What protections do you have for the taxpayers of this town that our money is not going to be spent on helping and abetting illegal aliens? That's a simple question. And you can't fault me for asking it because quite frankly, I'm an immigrant. And the first thing we were told when I came into this country, it says, you're on your own buddy, okay? You need to be here. If you wanna come into this country, you need to make sure that you are self-sufficient. And another thing that I draw with is again, I've come from a very rough neighborhood and they say that they're going to use public safety as something to get this thing passed through. Let me tell you something about immigrants. If you do something wrong to them one way or the other, they're going to drop a dime on whoever did it did wrong to them. And if you ask any policeman, you'll see that you get a lot of confidential people saying, hey, you know what, this guy's the guy, he's the guilty one. And my concern is that if we're not going to pass that information on to the customs people, we're going to get stuck with having to take this person who's a criminal, who was arrested for whatever, and go through the whole motions of putting him in jail or putting a trial or doing all that stuff when the simple solution would say, hey customs, this guy's here legally, take him, get him out of our hair. That's really all I would like to know is, are we going to spend hard-earned taxpayer dollars? And as these people have said, electricity rates are here, water rates are here, taxes are here. There are much more important things to spend. And you say that, you know what, you don't want to spend money on helping get rid of a problem, I'm Helping the federal government unfunded money. My question to you is again, did they, the state, give the city of Bangor money to imply this, to put this into order? Because I don't think they did. So if one hand, like I said earlier, is not giving money to the feds because it's unfunded, why should we give money to the state because that's unfunded? Thank [1:18:23] Susan Hawes: you. Thank you. I [1:18:39] Speaker U (unidentified): got this online. It is a statement from the Maine Association of Police. It was issued at the time that the Maine legislature was deciding whether or not to pass LD 1971. So I'm reading directly from the statement here. I'm just going to, you know, get the highlights because the whole thing will take one or three minutes. Order to the speaker name. Yes. Oh, I'm sorry, Deborah Garcia, married to Joe Garcia, we're residents, taxpayers here. Okay, so the statement, the Main Law Enforcement Coalition, by the way represents Main Association of Police, the Main Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police, the Main State Law Enforcement Association, and the Main State Troopers Association. So they know what they're talking about here. It says they strongly oppose LD 1971, warning that it would undermine long-standing operational relationships essential to safeguarding Maine's communities, waterways, and natural resources. They say, and this is directly a quote from one of the officials, LD 1971 is a bad idea for Maine. Plain and simple, every day our officers work alongside federal partners to perform search and rescue operations, prevent illegal trafficking, respond to emergencies, and protect Maine residents. This bill would weaken the very cooperation that keeps our communities safe. And here's some pointers. This would hinder emergency response coordination, limit information sharing vital to stopping cross-border drug trafficking, human smuggling, and other serious criminal activity, create legal uncertainty for officers who must frequently interact with federal authorities while carrying out conservation, marine, highway, or criminal enforcement duties, and compromise safety for both the public and officers by reducing the ability to respond swiftly and collaboratively to evolving threats. This is from people who know what's going on out there, that they have to enforce our laws, keep our communities safe. You saw what happened in Minneapolis. Do you want that happening here? [1:21:03] Public commenter (Scott Pardee): I'll be brief. My name is Scott Pardee. I'm a resident of Bangor. And I just want to say that I honestly can't believe how much time that the council has spent on this thing. And I only ask that you spend an equal amount of time on the current crises that we're having, the humanitarian crisis that we're having in Bangor, and to keep our taxes down, keep our taxes where they belong. I would love if you could spend just equally more time on that than on things that we definitely don't have any control over. [1:21:39] Public commenter (Hillary Simmons): Hillary Simmons, resident of Bangor. I wanna be clear from the start. This is not about opposing civil rights or treating anyone unfairly. The principles behind the main human rights laws are important and protecting people from discrimination is something we should all support. However, directing immediate compliance with the new provisions in the five MRS, chapter 337 e raises serious questions that deserve careful consideration before this council moves forward. The first is the issue of implementation and clarity. When the state passes a new law, it often takes time for guidance, rule making, and legal interpretation to fully develop. Municipalities are frequently left trying to interpret complex state statutes without clear direction. If the city rushes to adopt policies before these guidelines are finalized, we risk creating rules that may later need to be changed, corrected, or even reversed. The second is the financial impact on taxpayers. Compliance with new legal mandates can require staff training, administrative oversight, policy rewrites, and sometimes legal consultation. All of the car, all of that costs money. Before directing compliance, the council should ask, what will implementation cost the city? Do we have the resources to administer it properly? And will the state provide funding to help municipalities meet these requirements? Too often cities are expected to implement new law, new state mandates without the financial support needing to do so responsibly. Third, this is a matter of local authority and decision making. Municipal governments exist to address the needs and priorities of their communities. When the state creates new requirements that directly shape how local government operates, it can limit the flexibility cities need to manage their own policies and services. Fourth, there is the potential for legal liability and unintended consequences. Again, if the city adopts policies that go beyond what the state law requires or interprets the law incorrectly, it could expose the municipality to legal disputes. Acting too quickly without legal clarity may create risk rather than reduce it. Finally, this council should remember that good government requires thoughtful review, not rushed decisions. When new state laws are passed, the responsible approach is to evaluate them carefully, consult legal counsel, review fiscal impacts, and gather public input before directing municipal action. In closing, I urge the council not to rush into directing the compliance with this, But take the time to study the law, understand its financial and legal implications, and determine what actions, if any, are truly necessary at the municipal level. Thank you. [1:24:32] Susan Hawes: Councilman, you had your hand up before we went out there, before we went to the audience. [1:24:42] Wayne Mallar: I'll say the same thing I said before. And Miro, what they've said, we spend so much time on this, which accomplishes nothing, really. And if the state wants to force the issue on the new law, then they are going to do it. It'll be coming to we'll be under it in July unless the attorney general or someone legal department or some judge determines it's not legal. I don't think we should be involved. I think we let the state take care of the issue and I'll be voting to not comply with this. [1:25:21] Joseph Leonard: also wondered mr party i completely commit agree with you that i would rather this body focus on municipal issues focus on infrastructure issues because those are the things that this body is supposed to do and the other thing that i have to also consider as well is the constitution of this country i swore an oath to the constitution of this country and when i see an internal memorandum from immigration customs enforcement saying you don't need to abide by the fourth amendment that's just straight up illegal and someone has to stand up to that and you're right the states should get involved with that But when tyranny is actually at our doorstep, I don't think we can actually choose whether or not to bow down to that if we disagree with it. If we disagree with it, if we disagree with someone violating the Fourth Amendment or any amendment, I mean, I would like to believe it's all of our obligations to stand up to that. But as a veteran, it is my personal obligation to stand up to that. But more so, I think it's also important to recognize that they are a threat, ICE, to communities. They are already being accused of raping people in their prisons, detaining people who are American citizens, detaining people who are Canadians and English people, detained in these ICE facilities for two to six weeks in horrible conditions. And their only issue is basically just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, abiding by the law. I don't think it is at all something that we should avoid having an opinion on at this level because all government is local, and it's really difficult to not talk about the person who is enforcing all this right now because that person's also a criminal already, like literally a criminal. He's literally actually a criminal, tried and convicted. And it's very difficult for me to look at an entity that a criminal is the chief of the executive officer for the entire United States and then to say, you know what, continue to violate the Constitution, continue to ignore people's Fourth Amendment rights. That's not OK. Not OK at all. So, I don't see how I could not support this, but more so, and again, Mr. Parry, I do agree. I wish we didn't have to talk about this. I don't like talking about these culture wars, but if I have to pick a side, I'm going to pick the side of law and order, not the side of demagoguery and totalitarianism. [1:28:45] Carolyn Fish: That's a fish. Well, Councilor Carson hasn't had a chance to speak yet, and I've spoken to her. [1:28:50] Daniel Carson: Thank you, Councilor Fish. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question for the City Manager, City Solicitor. The 26110, if we were to pass this now, directs City staff to comply immediately? Immediately is the city at the time of right now this reading. Is the city prepared if this were to pass to be able to comply immediately? Yes, every indication is that [1:29:25] Susan Hawes: our law enforcement within the city, which is what the bill applies to, currently has no interactions with assisting immigration enforcement. Council Falun and then Council Fish. [1:29:46] Susan Faloon: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to point out that someone mentioned listening to the public, and we've received a lot of feedback from the public on this issue, mostly Councilor Beck's ordinance,, not necessarily implementing this new state law immediately, but when I last counted and there may have been a few more, but we received approximately 55 emails from people supporting the ordinance and about seven from people not supporting it. And that's just obviously, you know, we're not hearing from everybody, but overwhelmingly the people that who emailed us were in support of it. And again, like I said earlier, we do have people living legally in this community who are afraid to go out and do things, who are having to alter their lives because they're afraid of being approached and detained by ice. So I do think that this is something that is a local issue, because when people don't feel safe in our community for whatever reason, you know, if anyone contacts us because of an unsafe intersection, we're not going to tell them that we're not going to do anything about it because we haven't heard from 32 000 people. So i think when we hear from people about this issue, then we have an obligation to try to do something about it as well, because people are feeling unsafe. Thank you. Point [1:31:49] Susan Hawes: of order, chair. The participant already spoke on this issue one time each. I'll ask the question [1:32:00] Wayne Mallar: how many people on the there were a lot that weren't from bangor. I could tell by the way they were written. So i mean, i think that's it's great that we got 55. Someone's well organized and getting out the no vote. We're not well organized in getting out the s photo the yes and the no, whatever, get them reversed. But i don't care what happens in other areas. I'm concerned with bangor. We're elected to a board that doesn't oversee penobsco county, doesn't oversee the greater bangor area, it oversees the city of bangor. I don't see an issue in bangor. I don't think we need this. I think it's been a major waste of time. [1:32:42] Carolyn Fish: We did, we did get a lot of emails, and they're organized. If i call my realtor friends on a real estate issue, we could get probably 2 000 emails. So i think that there is fear from certain residents in the bangor community. It would be ridiculous to say every no one lives in any fear, but i don't believe our position as city council people that we should be getting involved in social, you know, controversial debates about ice. No buy ice. This administration, past administrations, our aggression in war And conflicts about abortion, gun rights, or anything else, we're here to take care of city business, and we've spent a lot of time on this debate, and we should be talking about Bangor, how to raise money, how to take care of our problems, and this issue has taken up a lot of time, and it's debatable among people a lot smarter than me and a lot more involved on both sides of this argument. We can debate this and argue until the cows come home. We need to talk about Bangor, and that there was a poll done by WABI and also the Bangor Daily News, 70-75% of the people wanted Bangor to work with ICE. So that wasn't anything to do with the council. That was the Bangor Daily News, so there are a lot of people out there in support of it, but again, we as council, we do need to listen to our constituents, we need to listen to them all, but at the end of the day we got to take care of city business, and in, you know, the state's already taking care of this problem, I'm all for our staff addressing guidelines for our police and our staff and how they're going to deal with this, but I'm not, I'm not in favor of doing it before the state because I know there's going to be a lot of glitches. I don't think Bangor needs to be the guinea pig to first find out what those glitches are going to be. So I'm voting no for this. Absolutely. [1:34:41] Michael Beck: So regardless of every single email we receive being from Bangor or not, it wouldn't change anybody's mind. You know, the decisions were made long before us. And I only look at the residents who reached in and said to me that they're afraid. When they look at ICE, who shows up and takes parents and kids from school pickup, tells you that it was never about getting the worst of the worst or keeping communities safe. When they talked to the IRS and said, give me all your tax documents based on immigrants, it was never based on whether or not they pay taxes or whether they're freeloaders or whether or not they show up to their places of employment. It was never about whether or not they would come here and work. So we know what it was all about, but that's not what this is about. This is about protecting our city. Because what is a Bangor issue are the number of lawsuits that have been filed across the country from communities who did not have any kind of protection, and they did cooperate, and they got sued for six figures and lost or had to settle. And now they either went and got something like we're trying to do, or they wish they at least had something like that. I'm talking Rios versus Pierce County in Washington, 125,000, Ramos Gomez versus Kent County in Grand Rapids, Michigan, $190,000, Ernesto Galarraza versus Stolchak, $120,000, as well as Angelica Davila versus the Northern Regional Police Department, $175,000, and the list goes on and on and on. And you better believe we see one of those lawsuits, suddenly the same people be pounding that podium saying, how did you let this happen? We just watched all of our tax dollars go out the door. Because I was having this debate, is a small investment versus what the risk is if we do nothing and just say, well, it'll never happen here. Well, it has happened here, and it's gonna come and gonna keep happening here. And so we need to have some kind of protection. So we know that, you know what, ICE is gonna do what ICE is gonna do. Don't anybody lose an ounce of sleep. They will still kick in doors. They will still drag American citizens through the system. Because it's not about, you know, I keep hearing about, well, these illegals, these illegals. Let me tell you something, it's not about the illegals. It's about American citizens who are doing the right thing. And when ICE is showing up to the courthouse and yanking people out of their hearings, it was never about, it was never about doing the right thing. It was never about, you know, it was about getting people who don't look like me. That's what it's about. Yeah, and there's carve out after carve out I hear that says it human traffic, and that's the part that's so disingenuous. Can I, can I speak in there, interrupted? Yep, if you can just lower your. Yes, I'll be happy to lower my tone. I'll be happy to lower my tone. Here's the thing about this argument about, well, what about the trafficking? That's such a scare tactic. Here's the truth. There's the, if it show me that you didn't read the ordinance without telling me you didn't read the ordinance, because there's carve-out after carve-out, after carve-out, saying we will absolutely cooperate if it's involved with trafficking, if it's involved with whether it's firearms or rape or you name it, 's there's carve-outs for that, you know, so it's again all about scare tactics. I am in support of this because, again, the residents we have who have spoken up and said they feel unsafe, this protects them. They are American citizens who committed no crime other than they weren't born here, and that's not a crime. So I am in favor of this, little bit of a protection. It's the least we could do. So I am in favor of this. And you look like me. [1:38:37] Susan Hawes: Chair call the order. I would, I would, yeah, ask the chair to keep the public from yeah, interrupting. Okay, is there any other council discussion on this? It's been moved and seconded. It's an order thing. Okay, we're going to do a roll call vote. Madam Clerk, Councillor Beck. [1:39:02] Lisa Goodwin: Yes. Counselor Carson. Yes. Counselor Dean. Yes. Counselor Falloon. Yes. Counselor Fish. No. Counselor Leonard. Yes. Counselor Maller. No. Counselor Walker. Yes. Counselor Haas. No. Six yes, three no. [1:39:25] Susan Hawes: Order 26-110 has passage, six yes, three no, and that brings us to the end of the business for this evening. Are there any staff comments? I think it's only one back there. Anybody out there? Are none. Okay, yeah, she said no. All right, Council Carson, it [1:39:58] Daniel Carson: was really great coming in here at five o'clock for the workshop and the sun was still shining through the window, which I just thought was, you know, it's after, you know, when you sort of spring forward and lose that hour of sleep, it's nice to have that to make up for it, and so I thought that was great. It's getting warmer, the days are getting longer, because we have that to look forward to. Good night, Bangor, that's [1:40:26] Michael Beck: a bet. Thank you, Council Carter, for that ray of sunshine, pun very much intended. Good night, [1:40:33] Susan Hawes: Bangor. Council Dean. Good night, Bangor. Council Leonard. I [1:40:41] Joseph Leonard: Do have something that I need to get off my chest. In 2019 I left the military and that was a very transformative year in my life. In 2020 there was a assassination on a Iranian general that was conducted by the president United States at the time, Donald Trump. And myself, who was just left the service, resigned my commission, there were many people that were already actively serving that were deeply afraid that we were going to go to war with Iran. This is back in 2020. Now it's 2026 and my fears of being called back to service are not there anymore. I it can't happen to me I'm too far gone at that point and for my military service, and so is Sue. But this war that we have illegally entered into with Iran is not only illegal, it's going to be a complete and utter disaster, a complete and utter fiasco. Never in human history has an air war ever achieved regime change. It's never happened in the history of humanity, and there is going to be untold chaos from this. Just so everyone knows, 20% of all the world's oil goes through the Strait of Hormuz. And so if that's locked down, all of our prices for everything are going to skyrocket, and it's because of a delusional present that we have. This present is only good at two things, bombing little girls and raping little girls. [1:42:42] Susan Hawes: Wait yeah you're not here chair I would direct that statement be stopped [1:42:54] Carolyn Fish: Oh yeah he's finished council Fitch my family are veterans too I'm very offended by that. I'm not saying everything he said was wrong but this isn't the place for it. We're council people we're here for Bangor good night Bangor councilman well I think we've heard [1:43:13] Wayne Mallar: Enough idle twaddle so good night Bangor that's a Walker good night Bangor that's a flu [1:43:25] Susan Faloon: I'd like to thank counselor Leonard for his service and good night Bangor okay thank you for attending [1:43:33] Susan Hawes: And participating it's been rather a long evening of discussions but with that