Bangor council weighs public comment rules, railroad encampment response

They're live. >> Good evening. Welcome to the city council work. It is Monday, November 24th and it is 5:15. Around the table we have in attendance, council fish, council, councelor walker, councelor Carson, councelor saloon, city manager, council, councel, councel, and so we'll be standing the workshop. So we have three three items and then we will be going into an executive session for two items. Uh but we'll take care of the first three. The first one is public commentation and we had promised that we would bring more discussion back on that and I think there was more discussion that council wanted to talk about as well. answer that. >> Sure. So in your packet you had a copy of the current um >> the duration period is for 15 minutes beginning of city council meetings. allow um um out of a courtesy for those attending the meeting for a specific agenda item and then chair has the discretion to reopen general public the end of the meeting alter any of the above and So, >> so that's what currently um >> I'd be in favor of seeing the time slot be all back to you in the beginning. I mean that's the feedback I got from residents uh during private and I think just the overwhelming feedback we got I got was it was better the way we had it before just do the hour block and close >> anyone here oh >> no um how often does it go over the minutes that happen frequently Not frequently, >> we have we built in the extra time for up to an hour. >> Yeah. >> Because a few times in the past, we've had a large group that came in and wanted to discuss a topic that took longer. >> Rarely did we ever need to go into another section of it. It's usually covered because people start saying the same thing. Thank you. >> When we have a large group have a topic in common >> on that topic, I think that's better than allowing a full hour every week. Russell, >> you can go finish. >> Thank you. I I was just going to say I I kind of agree with that because sometimes there are a lot of people who show up for a specific agenda item and if the the public comment period takes a long time, then we've got a room full of people who are just there for that one item and they're going to have to stick around for that. So, I I think I would be in favor of it being at your discretion as well. Council. >> Uh my my main reason for wanting to go back to the older model just because it's much simpler to understand at the end of the day. There's a lot of people that have come to council meetings in the past where they do want to speak on a topic or an item or when we tell them that oh uh if only citizens or people who own property they have the right words. Um, and here's the thing. I'm fine with that, but we also have to honor people who come here to give us their perspective because we are a city that has over 119,000 people that come into the city every day that rely on our service. Well, and Bangor is not city that can exist without those constituents, even if they're not Bangor citizens. And by making it so they have to wait at the end of our agenda to get their uh thoughts in, it makes it seem like their opinions matter and not as much when they actually honestly do matter immensely. And even I like the idea of limiting it to an hour. I do like the idea of making sure that the chair still has discretion because you're right, sometimes the same thing can happen over and over again and sometimes council can get the message. If there's enough bodies that are in this room that are conveying the message that it very much appears the majority of people have an opinion on, that still weighs heavily on my uh decision-making process when a certain item comes to the day. Uh that said though, going like keeping this current model even if we ignore everything I just said it's just very confusing and a lot of people get so anguished by that that they'll just leave without even having said a public comment and that's in my opinion one of the worst things that can happen someone who put in the effort and energy to come to council but then they just got too bogged down by what was going on during city business and now that opinion and who knows what that opinion could have been is now walking out the door and that person I don't want them to feel defeated. I want them to feel like they just need their opinion at the end of the day. So I I I say go with AAM's razor just keep it simple. The chair still has discretion and uh what what is going to be allowed and and what not to be said. But I think it's just better for us to shove all public comment right to the front. That way we know how the night's going to go out at them and it makes everyone less. >> Council me I think it you have the discretion to make people aware of what's going on. It just seems like small. I would not [clears throat] >> occasionally we've gone over 15 minutes to see my Um however also time there are times when there may be several associations or a lot of they kind of say the same thing and um you know maybe if we can limit that I'm I'm all for the hour if we can get the variety of opinions instead of repetitive sort of the same thing. I know people on behalf other people again even if it's an hour may not still be able to um talk. Um I'm for our and we can add something or I guess it would be at your discretion if nothing and we have public comments reminded people to please not repeating the same thing but they found a way to say it. So that's a lot. about this thing or whatever. Um, even if they are on that shortening the amount of time that they speak on it, it comes in favor. >> [snorts] >> the same topic of it. Uh I give your the minutes up front if the council chair retaining the discretion to suspend that in the event that people's comments stop um then we're not sitting in silence but then we would have that opportunity. I think you know people often often that's not the right word but people sometimes don't have something that they want to speak about right away until suddenly they do. And so if we suspend it early because comments have ceased and offer time at the end that people would want to bring back. >> That's okay. >> We also have we have different people. We have citizens speaking about issues in their lives. We have people that have certain um topics that they are somewhat experts in speaking. And I think that those people might be better served to be invited into a committee meeting where we're discussing that particular topic than coming to every meeting and saying sort of same type of thing. I think sometimes we're we're limiting what the citizens are saying because the same people are getting up every time speaking. Not that those people don't have valid points because they do. But when we have an expert on a certain situation, perhaps they should be invited to that particular so that we can actually discuss it. Some people need to have rapport. It's not just if someone's getting up because their storm water drain has been clogged forever and nobody's doing anything and they're frustrated, that's a valid concern of the council and of the town. But someone who's speaking, let's talk about the unhoused, which we talk about a lot. We need to have a particular meeting for that and be able to have some kind of report with the person who has authority on that topic. And we have pulled comments and speakers to committee to committee meetings and they're all welcome to I don't think we're trying to spiny anyone speaking uh or cut off before the last person gets a chance to speak. That's not the point of it. Three minutes seems to have worked fairly well. Give them much less than that, they're going to feel like they're never going to be able to get their point across in less than three minutes. All of we have nothing to do with >> I know that dated in it needs to be related to I would just say maybe we need to a little bit more because cut into that you know into time Now that's hard to do. [laughter] >> Depending on the topic, it could be hard. >> Yeah, >> because they are a citizen of Bangalore and coming to speak. Yes. >> I was just going to say to add to that, I mean [clears throat] it is always to the chair's discretion at the end of the day. I mean at the end of the day you can't just decide hey you got I mean speaking privileges sorry to say with the way our charter is written it's it's a privilege not a right >> and so personally agree with that but way the charter written and the chair wants to buy those rights for any reason you already have those it really is just up to the sheriff's suspension along at a public forum. So, uh, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think we need to add any more language to get the chair. >> Yeah. >> Issue is it's difficult when you're in that position to enforce that. If you have rules in place that say done at this point, it makes it a lot easier for the chair than for you to think, okay, I really need to stop this, but if I do, I'm going to hear that we need to keep going for another hour because that's what we decided. So the rules are there for a reason. And I know that when you're you're up there, you're trying to, you know, be fair to everyone. It's not easy. You're going to say hello to someone and say, "We've already heard that going on and on and think it's time." It's not. It's not a simple solution. >> Well, generally they they speak one time. It's just a lot of people. They only speak once. If we started letting them come back for second bite and the third bite, it's going forever. But the hour in there is up to an hour. >> I agree. I don't think we want to sit there >> and finish someone else's. [clears throat] They take another three minutes. That person still can speak for themselves. >> They made that time. Yeah. >> If we allow an hour, we're going to see a lot more. I was just going to say like I mean the hour is still a privilege bestowed upon by the chair like you can just choose because this has been done recently in the past with public comment very recently. The chair has just decided to close public comment even when there were speakers already. So uh the chair has the authority to do that. So, if you wanted to do that, again, I please correct me if I'm wrong, I think that's already sort of embedded in what the powers of the chair already have. I mean, if you want to add more language to that, you can, but it's just it would just I think appear redundant. >> That's what that should mean though. Um I think I read through this two three times today more or less to apply it to whenever you read something is always pay more attention to what's going on at that time and how apply and including um you know repetitive remark >> and a lot of times um we're wrapped up half that often we would need to go beyond um an hour but in the event that we have variety of comments I'm okay with What I'm hearing is you'd like to see a draft of this revised to move all 60 minutes of meeting the chair will modify any of those time limits as the chair sees fit. Are you okay? >> We've discussed extending the time period, but what about the Zoom meetings? We haven't discussed that. We were having isn't we expect a meeting? Our first workshop in January is supposed to be for Zoom. >> Um >> what I remember I uh and please correct me if I'm wrong. I thought the goal for us was to um by that council meeting that we have in January to bring Zoom back. [clears throat] I I thought that was the goal that was set. >> I'm wrong. >> I understood the goal to be for us to determine how we could do it in an effective manner by jer not if we can do it with all the provisions in place that will allow us not to allow what had happened then it will be brought back. We never said we would definitely bring it back. We said we would attempt to bring it back if we could change on Zoom. Maybe it's a different platform. >> Yeah. So, so um uh just my my uh my own personal annotation on this is that um this is something that we can fix. You're we're using an open URL with the log in You don't need to do that. We can create a Zoom where you register beforehand right up to the like seconds prior to a meeting if then once the meeting starts what we can do at that point is anyone who tries to register after the meeting starts they it's no longer possible that link is now closed off basically. So that that's one option that we can do right now that is utilized at the state housing and a few other areas as well. And I'm not saying that that's a perfect strategy in of itself, but that prevents bad faith actors from constantly relogging in over and over again. And that really is a simple fix. That's something that we can have the council meeting in January because the only reason I voted in favor to discontinue the Zoom meetings was with the idea that we would be bringing it back to make sure bad faith actors were not going to come back. So that's the entire reason why I voted to uh take away Zoom because it would give us time to temporarily uh deprive people of that so that we can come back with a safer system. Uh so uh I don't agree at all with the idea of discussing whether to bring it back or not. Um my goal is to bring it back 100%. And I want to at the minimum try to do that option where we have a URL that is open up until uh the meet the uh meeting start time and then uh if we want to improve on it from there you can so I'm happy creating our own Bangor social media page where you create your own profile log into our own uh based web page where you have your own file, you have your own profile. I I I'm okay if we if that's a route that we want to go. We don't need to go that route. That's a bit too complicated, I think. But um I I'm not in favor of discussing whether or not we bring back Zoom or not, we need to bring Zoom back. I mean, that's just my thoughts on it. >> I don't think it was rather we were going to bring it back. there was going to be really more of a discussion of how could we bring it back because we had also mentioned they would have to be on camera >> at the time. We had talked about that that they would register be on camera and then that's kind of hard for my understanding was you know because with different levels of technical difficulty to some of these things and so by pushing the conversation to January to give staff time to look at what what what's within our wheelhouse what can be done research what other communities are really doing with it. Um because there's also legal ramifications to you know for example putting people on camera I mean there's certain you know by forcing people to be on camera what about people who don't own a camera you know there kind of a unfair balance there kind of making an extra hoop for people to jump through >> you [clears throat] know could there be some legal implications about pre you know requiring some of those things so in my mind by giving staff time to kind of research options and then have a whole package to bring forward in January say well if you really want to bring Zoom comments back which many of us do and I would love to see it come back as well but it's a chance here here's where we are here's our degree of confidence in each of these options and here's what it would take for us to do it um so we can have that that conversation say yeah this is the the winning combination of requirements to to bring it back safely because for me the goal is no distractions for the meeting that's it I just we have business to do and we'd like people to come in and talk about city business and not distract the meeting with had to be extra quickly. >> When we were getting hammered at the time with it was really a matter of how can we cut it off? We wanted to make sure that we were within the le the modality of cutting it off. Um how much interaction did we really want to have with somebody that was continually doing that? And then we got really smart at picking up on voices and those kinds of things. So we learned a lot in that period of time that I think we would spot it very quickly if someone were trying to do it again. Hopefully we won't have that because there was no basis with those particularly we'd like to have some really constructive comments come through there. But yes, >> just while the topic has come up, I'm now thinking about it might be important to look at our accessibility policy can make requests for that option for meeting needs. Um and right now the timing of that is one if one wanted to speak about an agenda item they would almost have to um based on the timing of the policy have to see that agenda when it was posted um and may not meet the time that's currently in the policy to allow them to join by that option when when they might need it. So >> and whether or not we we bring that back that does still exist and we might need to just check in on that. I think that's a valid observation. I think if you picked up the agenda on a Friday, it theoretically obtain the accommodation by Monday. Do you think that's fair? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> City attorney Dave Steek's office does the reasonable accommodation processing. I mean there are instances where it might be feasible but I could imagine situations >> question and minutes. She realistic for us that I speak to myself. I would like to bring it back. We're able to see that business, but that's not happening. I I'm in favor of coming up with a date. I'm in favor of having this one come back in January, our first meeting in January and having those safety measures. Maybe we're going to move forward with it. >> Yeah. So what I am currently working towards was my understanding which was that in the first DevOps meeting in January, staff would present what we thought if feasible weigh and then presumably on the next council meeting. um council would vote that align that discussion. That is what my understanding had been. >> I was the one that made the recommendation that we bring it back as soon as possible. And I think Mike suggested January. I'm not sure we need to wait until January. I'm not sure how difficult it is to come up with the parameters that you need. I think we should be more timesensitive with it. I'd like to see it being enacted in the first meeting in January, not the end of January, not the 1 of February. This is my fear. We keep putting it off and putting it off and putting it off. We'll never do it. I think it would be helpful to have a clearer understanding of what level of tolerance council has for problems during the course of Zoom Zoom comments because I think that is really the struggle exactly what councelor Fish identified is that people a smaller number than what we currently encountered but some number of people could lie about who they are through the registration process. And so that the amount of risk would not be zero in that situation. And we would be looking to council to define for us what level of risk for problems that you're willing to assume to [clears throat] go back to Zoom. If your risk tolerance is zero, then I think Zoom or Zoom or any platform is a challenge. But if we have some level of tolerance above zero, we just need to know what that is so that we can gear our barriers to achieving that. >> I guess my question would be, and I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but have we checked with anyone any other cities yet? >> Yes. So I did a survey when we talked last time um of Hispania group of the service center cities water and um most of them had discontinued doing on city zoom comments, but they have never had an issue. So, um I don't know that there's a right or a wrong answer. I think it's really your judgment call over what level of apology or the risk of someone saying we all agree we don't want to go back to where it was previously. We have it spelled out pretty much in what we read to the public at the beginning of every meeting what won't be tolerated. If that happens, then there has to be a disconnect button that we're done and take them off. But that doesn't mean we make everybody not be able to call in. So I think we already have a level of tolerance built into our instructions. >> Go ahead. I I >> think what you were encountering previously was the same small group of people getting cut off and coming back on. >> And so I think if you if we are able to prevent people from entering >> I would reduce the number of instances. It wouldn't take the risk down to zero. >> That's okay if that's what [clears throat] >> I I would agree. Um I don't think that zero is a realistic um risk tolerant that we have to have some tolerance and I agree that there are which there are specific rules for we're enforcing those and we're clear about them effect I think the piece of it are so flu and I felt so sorry I missed your I agree we probably zero incident not realistic but I think if we continue to see the level of um disruptiveness that we've seen in the last few that we revisit this which I think we have the option of doing at any point anyway. I don't know if we need to build something in, but you know, if that's just going to continue to happen over and over and we can't move forward getting business accomplished because there are so many disruptions, I think we may maybe need to revisit it and consider just getting rid of it. >> Two things really quickly. one being um uh when we do bring it back um the chair needs to have a button to basically just end the Zoom call. That way there's no communication to just a staff member turn off like basically it's at your discretion. You got to have your finger on the uh that that's the quickest way to uh stop potentially harmful language coming out. Secondly speaking, um to further get closer to that zero number though, which obviously is not realistic, but uh um we could try to and I don't know if this is realistic or Scott, but we could try to implement a two factor confirmation um process where if we can confirm with someone like their phone number that hey, I am this person and they create a profile that can register with our Zoom or or however they want to uh uh relay a comment to us that can immensely reduce the amount of bad faith actors as well. There's a a two-factor confirmation. I don't know if that's possible though. >> Okay. There's a there's an app called that managers use and you can put the name on the phone number and the phone number or that the phone number is that um as far as Zoom goes um as far as having the Zoom option problem it's already. So, you know, I'm going to try it again. is the directive to have something. >> We may have to do a special goss in the back and I told her a special gobox meeting. >> [laughter] >> Everybody remember [clears throat] that? Railroad encampment. All right. So um walk you through of an encampment that is in place in where Gunnet's furniture and Hero Sports Bar are located in case you aren't familiar. Um, [clears throat] this is an instance of where I'm coming to you looking for policy guidance, but the city does in response. Um, I think it's important that you all are on board before the city takes next steps in response to that encampment. So I just have some basic information about what we're observing and I have a recommendation as well as a list of potential challenges that I think we're going to so by our sort of rough count there are about 40 to 50 people that camping along the railroad behind that number is a bit of a moving target because people come and go. And what we're also observing is that many people may visit the area for the day, but they're not, you know, a very inconsistent number. Um, understandably so. A couple of communications, your emails over the course of the last month or so on the topic. and we are certainly engaging with the business owners there as well and hearing things from a public safety perspective. Since October 1st, there have been 24 calls for police to the area for issues like illegal burning. fire has response uh responded to an additional approximately half dozen fire calls and an unknown number of EMS calls. The reason why that is unknown is because typically folks if they call EMS will come out to the road they EMS will they will but they're not responding. So it's not always clear whether they're actually a part of the encampment or not. They had been visiting somewhat regularly to get a sense of the numbers. There's also service providers serving clients in that space. We're also visiting periodically to clean up old sites, clear brush, pick up trash. Although admittedly, I drove through a couple days ago and there is quite a lot of trash back there. So, it is certainly not in great shape. In addition to the general health and safety concerns who are residing in this space currently, there's the added risk. Certainly the risk of injury to folks camping here is frankly the risk to our public safety. >> [clears throat] >> The encampment extends quite far along the railroad track, which means that as soon as it snows, accessibility to that space is going to become a problem. Um, it's going to be challenging for public safety, first responders to get back there. Um, and it's going to be challenging for the people who are camping back there to get in and out. We communicated with the railroad to date. They have not been particularly willing to engage on a resolution. We have hosted the area. Um, so we are at a bit of an inflection point with this space because of the number of people having the impending winter season as well as just the experience of the business owners in that plaza. So the city's recommendation is to begin somewhat immediately messaging that folks cannot continue to keep that space giving several week to um if they choose to make alternative plans with a target date of folks exiting that space. um my December 19th. That date is sort of strategically selected because that is when daytime or a when a daytime warming shelter the well will be available. So, um, in talking to folks at the library, they have a lot of fear that if we start asking people to no longer be camping in that space, that it's going to put a lot of pressure on the library during the daytime to be a space where people go to keep warm during the day. Um, which they're just simply not equipped to manage. The 19th date seeks to balance um all of the really challenging competing needs of people, you know, the business owners, the people who are unhoused living in that space, our public safety first responders to really strike a balance between all those competing interests. We are really looking for council's okay to proceed with that plan and to march towards a December 9th target date. And I'd like to just talk through what I think some of the challenges are going to be. The first is people's belongings are us to move into a warming shelter space. They don't have a safe place for their belongings. Public health already has a procedure in place for the storage of folks belongings and we would intend to offer to store a lot folks again this um this window space to do so like a context box or something like that as well as bins that is a very relatively lowcost investment for us to do that a much larger barrier is the availability of space. So although we created a volume of overnight warming shelter space that we think is or we think slash hope is somewhat sufficient to meet the needs. Um there is not adequate similar case And so folks who don't have a war day may be uninterested in vacating their homes. council's direction, we could certainly explore deporting day center space, but unlike with respect to the overnight warming shelter funding that we made available, we aren't today aware of a funding stream available to us. So unlike in that situation where we could come with you come to you with confidence and say we can we can fund to make this work the AI can't come to you and say yeah I think there's a stream >> well we're certainly willing to >> transportation could also be a barrier because if we ask people to vacate this space they will be looking for a place to be during the day and a place to be in the evenings and they will need to get back and forth to those spaces. And so, for example, bus service won't likely be available in the evenings when folks need to transfer from a day warming space to their to an evening warming space. So, we would anticipate that transportation may be a barrier to folks. And lastly, pets. For a small number of folks who have pets with them, warming centers generally are not going to allow non service animals because in the past, the city has actually paid to board pets at the humane society for folks who are willing to do so. But that option is very rarely present by folks as you can imagine. >> Yeah, that's um so those are what I see as the real challenges. But in a situation where folks you feel are pretty unsafe living currently along an active railroad bed, our recommendation is still to set an end date of that space. the today's what is going on with the heart center is the facility still available and is it needed part of >> Hi Jennifer the heart center closed on that space public wellness last time I was in that that space still available for rent but I don't have the part of >> Oh, it is. Sorry. It is um in the Hancock Street office complex. It's one of the larger offic Yes. There's a heated space and and I know right now that this kind of talk that we opioids and created. It seems that part of the problem is related and um you know the items and I know you're vulnerable. I so apologize. Audio is so awful. Whoever speaking is gonna have to use the microphone just to make sure people at home can hear. I apologize. And so I'm wondering with this um you know millions of dollars come through is there any way that we can somehow better collaborate uh organize and help with this issue of uh the unhoused people especially when when it's full and I know that that's you know far reaching for the immediate issue we had you It just gets frustrating when again we're going to be ours tonight. It's not that I'm not compassionate. You know, I've lost a relative and how many of these services counties by city county that we provide service for and um I have a business in the in Washington Street area. >> My office is there. We've had um situation with some of the unhouse carrying weapons and guns and our clients refuse to meet us there anymore. I'm meeting some of my clients off site. Had some get into our office. We've had females in there alone and some of the agents are actually considering going elsewhere. So, the owner of my company may in fact lose agents. Um and and I know that it's a tough situation, but at some point I think we have to create some a strategic plan with limitations and maybe some tough love of what we can and can't do and um you know so u you know the railroad won't cooperate what what legal options do we have? I've engaged with some of the unhoused and I've asked them what are you doing here? How did you come? They said that they have friends there. they have their own little community there. Uh they can do as they wish without being bothered. I asked them if they had an opportunity for housing if anyone had reached out. Um two different individuals told me yes, but they didn't want housing because there are rules and restrictions. So um I guess you know I know I'm going going a little offsite, but it's not only a danger to the unhoused to be near the railroad, it's a danger to those businesses that are just trying to stay in business. And um you know so I support what the city manager has suggested. Um and and I hope that somehow we can able to money and all of these other resources we have um have a strategic plan communication about what we can do and what we can't do. I'm sorry to go on but Just a question. I'll start with this one. Have we heard any feedback or anything from the main continuum of care? What what have they said about this situation? So I'm on the board of the main continuum of care and the main continuum of care doesn't typically engage in this type of conversations and activity. Predominantly the main continuum of care right now is focused on the no and that there's subcommittees of the main continuum of care like coordinated entry. And so coordinated entry is the system in which housing vouchers are distributed. that system is always, you know, more people than there are resources. And now there's even our vouchers. We're looking at how we're going to give those out strategically and making sure that we're not setting people up for failure. So the main continuum of care doesn't get involved in sort of the the nitty-gritty at municipal levels. The hub coordinators um do get involved. Um and that's part of the conversation um that we'll be engaging in and following some of the best practices by name list um saturation of resources some of the challenges that were mentioned around storage and other or other factors. >> I'm pretty loud. I mean I don't know if I need the microphone or not but >> the other thing was too is about the the fact the railroads not cooperating. you know, this is a safety issue. You think they would because this is liability on them if someone gets hit. Um, but the other uh piece of it too with the, you know, just trying to problem solve because I mean everyone understands that, you know, we sweep this then where's everyone going to go? There's nowhere to go. I mean, a few years back, you know, we had a group pallet shelter come through and offer, you know, their services, which I still to this day think it's a great opportunity to create some some transitional housing. Um, but that's going to take time and it takes money and it, you know, takes some research. Um, but just short-term options. I heard, you know, we talked about belongings. Um, I know that, uh, Together Place, you know, when I was doing a tour of their facility on the open, which by the way, they're doing great. So, you know, thank you to the staff for making sure the the funding got to them and all that, but they're showing me that there was a a portion of that area where they had available for belongings. They just need funding to set that area up. So, that's something to to think about, especially if we put people's belongings at that that shelter, then maybe they'll be more willing to go to it because that's where their stuff is there. So, at least that's something for some of the folks. Um, but also, >> you know, for the, you know, I hate to get into, you know, sanctioning encampments, but, you know, we're not the only community dealing with this. You know, especially with the railroad property. You know, there's other, you know, all across the United States, there's groups from, you know, San Jose to here in New England. And, you know, they come up with some different ways to kind of get some buyin from the people there. You know, I think it is San Jose that's got the program where they actually do purple trash bags and they give them to the residents there and they actually pay the residents to turn the the trash bags back in uh full of trash and it keeps the place relatively clean. Um so I mean because I'm just so worried about when we displace this many people because I have questions about the HIV outbreak and how many of the folks there are infected and then we scatter them again, you know, are we going to be spreading more more of that? um you know and it it just goes back to the question of where can we put folks if we displace them and you know the the best idea I've got right now is pallet shelters and you know talking to whoever we can talk to to squeeze any funding out of anywhere you know at least get some you know neighboring communities to to contribute or anything to make that happen because that would would be helpful if if we are moving people. >> Um I mean I'm I'm very concerned about where the logistics of where people will go. I think that's sort of top of my mind. I'm also concerned about the transportation logistics and so if it's possible um if somebody have an idea of of what options might exist, I'd be interested to hear about those. I think that we are understating the safety concerns of the railroad. I have I have a railroad worker at home. Everything about the railroad is dangerous. Absolutely everything. There is not a day that goes by across in you know all across this country where railroad workers are not being injured or sometimes um you know uh die. So I I'm extremely concerned about um the safety of where this encampment is. I'm a even more concerned and alarmed that uh is this CSX who okay so I'm pretty alarmed that they do not seem to be responding. Have we heard from uh whether you know whether or not CSX has their own railroad law enforcement which is pretty typical for um rail companies and have they responded? the nearest um railroad officer is in Massachusetts and he's responsible for Massachusetts North. Um and so realistically his presence is not regular and ongoing here. >> Uh [clears throat] just in terms of jurisdiction, do they own you know how much of of that do they actually own? and the the footage on either side is actually railroad property versus well the city property. Does that add does that create complexities in jurisdiction? Uh their legal authority would be help do anything. Well, it's a healthy mix of our proper city property know sort of the ins and outs of how we treat do is that something you can do or >> need a bigger table. >> Thank you. So roughly generally 50 feet from the center of the track, but they do authorize us to enforce state law. So if somebody is trespassing on railroad property, they will authorize us to address that in their absence. We do have some communication with them and we are continuing to have communication with them. We have a letter that is dated that uh prohibited people from being within the boundaries of the the railroad. Generally speaking, we will continue to how to communicate with the law enforcement officers in Massachusetts who are responsible for Maine and I'm fairly confident that the conversation will be such that we do not want people within the boundaries of the of the railroad tracks for safety reasons. Council G, >> you mentioned the date of December 19th and then I think you said December 9th. Which which date is it? It is the 19th, which is, you know, not that far away. Are we 100% sure the well will be open by the 19th? >> I mean, I think we're down this road before. So, we want to make sure that our dates are accurate. Um, I haven't been able to connect with the Well today. Um, the Well has a longstanding history of being open when they say that they're going to be open and offering a really high quality location. Um, I need to follow up with them to confirm that date, but that's what we have heard. My other concern is where they are camped out. There are no trash recepticles, no restrooms. So, of course, it's going to be very messy area. If they move on and they find another area, I mean, and they will. I think we need to provide trash recepticles. And I know the restrooms are controversial, but you're not going to keep these people clean and safe and without all kinds of trash around if they don't have things provided for them. So, I think that's another discussion we need to have. But wherever they go, it will be the exact same thing with the exact same problems. And we will never be done with it until we actually do something to change it. Council letter. So, I I I I appreciate councelor Carson, you bringing up the safety issues because um that they railroads are dangerous and I'm it's not just those who are living there that it's a danger to, it's also police officers that respond there, paramedics, firefighters that respond there. And um like there's just no way that we can continue to allow that to happen. uh it's just too large of a liability. Otherwise, we're going to run into something that's far worse than the uh the house fire that happened all those years ago. I mean, that was something that we could have prevented and uh you know, hindsight's 2020, obviously. So, we need to use that information right now, but the answer is not sweeping them away. We we we've been kicking this can down the road for very very long. Homelessness is an extremely expensive maintenance for the city to maintain and it would actually behoove us to invest in making sure we can get to um well the federal government had this word for for this functional zero I believe it was um giving people an ability to actually go to a place where they can feel safe and rehabilitate. is a worthy investment if it means we don't continue seeing people who are unhoused going to the emergency room multiple times a year racking up bills that sometimes go into the seven figures. I mean, this is getting so out of hand, we might as well put a down payment on a home for the unhoused at this point. It's getting that expensive to maintain homelessness. So, as expensive as it seems to be the pallet housing uh proposal that councelor Beck brought up earlier, this is something that myself and councelor Yakabaga brought up many years ago. And I get that it's not a perfect solution, but these people need a home. They need a place to transition because not only is it the moral thing to do, it's it's just the cheaper thing to do at the end of the day. And I get that we might not have an an idea of where this funding is going to come from, but this literally pays for itself. We have to give people a place that they can feel safe to go to, to form community, to form home that is not near decrepit buildings or railroads. This is way too large of a liability. Are like where's the next encampment going to Is it going to be at the wastewater treatment plant where they can just uh uh have different uh unfortunate diseases that they catch from the wastewater treatment plant and spread it into the city? Is it next to a power line whereas they can get electrocuted? We need to have an actual long-term strategic goal because I'm I'm honestly sick and tired of having to deal with this option over and over and over again. And this this has been kicked down the road for so long. It's time for this council right now to actually have a plan that we execute, not just talk about. We need to come up with a community action plan that creates a permanent place for people to go where they feel safe, they feel secure, and they can transition out of homelessness and actually get back into the economy. And ju just for the people listening at home, there's actually a decent amount of people who are homeless that still work jobs. Just keep that in mind there. We are now in a position right now in our economy where we have working homeless people. So, at this point, it would behoove us to make ourselves safer by investing in a community that's more permanent and can respond to these issues uh for for the rest of the duration that this problem exists. Hopefully, not in perpetuity, but right now, we should plan for this to be a long-term strategy. I agree. I think it's way overdue for us to not have a specific very detailed strategic plan and with that plan limitations. If someone says I don't want to be housed, how much time and resources should we spend on that? If the people are being bust here from other communities, how much responsibility should we have when we have families barely hanging on to the apartments and houses they already live in? So I think along with having a compassionate and generous heart for trying to um get those unhoused housed, I think we also have to be tough about saying here's the limitations. We need to work with our resources and our other outreach programs to have a better coordination all the funding we've had. I feel like we've been spinning our wheels at least for two years in this these encampments. You know, maybe we do have a designated area for an encampment where the city has rules and regulations and an outreach and we need to better find out who these people are. How are they coming here to hang out because they can, you know, behave how they want to behave without, you know, without any consequences. At some point, people have to be accountable and there's responsibility. I'm sorry. It's just life. You have to be accountable and responsible. we can help those that want to be helped. And I think the city does have to have a strategic place and better coordination. I hope in our workshop our primary goal is going to be to come up with a strategic plan. >> Anybody else? I I'm curious. I I thought we uh gave a large sum of money to United Way to coordinate the nonprofits so there was not overlap. Have we ever heard back from them on anything or am I mistaken about that? Yes. Yes. >> Find out if there's something owed from them. My understanding was that their role was to just help us sort of allocate the money. >> No, we specifically they were here at one point in time and I don't remember exactly when, but they were going to coordinate the nonprofit so we didn't have six groups doing the same thing. We still don't know how many groups we have doing what. >> I think we have to get a handle on that before we can solve a problem. You got 10 people trying to take care of one person. That doesn't make a lot of sense. >> And I believe the amount involved was like 400,000 we gave them to do it. And it seems to me now they should be reporting back to us because by the end of 26, they have to account for how the money has been spent. I believe they've already received the money. I hope they didn't use it to buy their new facility, but that would be unfortunate. Hi, I just wanted to clarify something about the resources on the ground. Um, I think everything that you say makes total sense from a strategic plan and you know understanding what the parameters are that all makes sense and there's a lot of models out there that we can look to. I just want to clarify about the resources that are on the ground. There's not a lot and they are as coordinated as they can be right now under the circumstances. We have one path team that is main DHS main DHS funding to help move people from homelessness into some type of housing. They are shortterm with a person. Typically once somebody gets housed that's when their role kind of ends. that is the predominant resource that we look to when we are trying to move people along the continuum of of um housing. There's a few other resources out there community health cent's home team, our one city outreach worker. That's close to it for what is out in the ground doing outreach with people and trying to move them from being unhoused into shelter or transitional housing or housing. There is not a lot of resources doing that. The only other entity are those organizations that do case management like targeted case management that's billable my by mainare. Those organizations, Crossroads and others are at capacity and the population that we are trying to support have very complex needs and not all the services are billable to be able to reach them. So I just want to clarify that what I see on the ground is not about resources bumping into each other or being duplicative. It's very very small resources for a complex huge problem. So I just wanted to from the ground clarify the resource um because it can seem like what's everybody doing? Um that's what we basically have for tools in our toolbox. think what I'm hearing that I would like that I'm hearing what you're trying to say is that Thank you. Um, I'm hearing I think acknowledgment at a and agreement that the railroad is not a safe place for folks to remain and that council is comfortable with us going about our plan in a way that is as you know considerate, compassionate, and caring for that population as is possible while we're maintaining safety. But at the same time, you would like us to start engaging in a really meaningful way in working towards a longer term plan or strategy. Is that an accurate recitation of the conversation that we've just had? Does anyone disagree or would like to express wanted to follow up. I think that a lot that was said tonight that was really good um to mention and I appreciate you bringing up about the resources that we do have here in the community. Um when it comes to the um our friends that are homeless in our community, I think that um it is it's good to point out that we do have path team and maybe we can look at I know that funding is we were looking into funding and what we may or may not have for that maybe offering more positions for path building on the resources that we already have to help that process go along. I think that um to empower the the resources, the small resources that we have is going to be really beneficial for what we do. Bringing something on new or like bringing isn't going to do that. I also think that the the safety of being down at that railroad, I've been there. I've seen them down there. Um it's heartbreaking to see that happening. I do understand that like some people choose to be homeless. Um, and I'm not saying that that we should take that away from them or we shouldn't, but I feel like really building on the resources that we have, giving a date, I think, is appropriate to have people leave an unsafe situation and in the long run, it's going to be for the better that we have that date and that we did what we could as a community to make sure that the people that are down there are safe. council back. >> Yeah. So, I guess for me the the last thing I would say in addition to the long-term strategy is I know there's no more rabbits to pull the hat like with the warming centers. I mean that I'm still just so thankful for what staff did to to pull off the funding for that, make sure that it went to the right places and what's done. Um, so I I'm also guessing that part of this will be to bring back to us the best mitigation plan we have and what you know I would like to have some options of if we've got to put some funding into something. I mean at least give us the choice say hey here's some things we can do to help out this is going to cost you at least give us the choice to to mitigate the hardship as much as possible for for moving folks. And I think that would make it easier to to swallow knowing that you know there is a few things we could do to help those that you know that we can. I think part of that plan, we need to think about the transportation. And I know that I I don't know what time of day the day centers wrap up and the evening centers open, but if we can somehow maybe arrange for a city bus to transport these folks at a specific time, that might be a good option. It may be arranged for, you know, that specific route that's not already in in the bus schedule, but we somehow arrange for a specific bus to do just that at a a certain time and that we have someone to staff that. >> Back to you with what that would look like as far as costs. Well, being the third largest city in the state, it would be interesting to know what Lewon does for their problem. Portland, we have some idea, but we never hear anything about Lewon. They may have a secret uh remedy for the situation. I'm not saying they do, but you remember a suggestion of mine a year ago was the Na'vi Dao building which has been in disrepair for 20 years. We should have assumed that we should have taken it and converted it into a homeless shelter. We had three floors, one for the female, one for the male, and one for staff. And it's still sitting there in disrepair. I've asked why we haven't proceeded to have them repair it, but no one seems to understand that the code requires it be done, but we don't do anything. So, sometimes we're our own worst enemy as far as solving problems. Anyone else? Um, I agree that we should look at our funding and and what the um key issues seem to be where we're deficient in what resources we have. But I think before we start thinking about adding money money to this issue and I've seen the millions of dollars come for grant money and uh opioid money, we should maybe look at the grants and and the resources available to see where perhaps they could be better applied and have other, you know, people that are outreach experts give their their expertise on advising us on that. Because when I look at our job as as city leaders and I look at our own departments where we have employees that you know maybe aren't getting competitive wages and we have processes that are antiquated where we can't flow better and manage better and just process um our departments better. I think we have to be open-minded again that we are a city with a lot of departments and a lot of residents. So uh again I just want to be fair and balanced with the attention and the resources we have and this is this is very important that at the same time I think we have to be you know think about everything that we have as a city before we start putting more money and thinking about funding for this. Great discussion. >> Objection. We'll proceed down a dual path where we will start messaging that the railroad is not a safe place to remain giving the December 19th date. We will concurrently explore ways to start tackling those four challenges that I outlined. and we will also concurrently start putting together along with her. >> Next on your list was your manager update. >> You have a lot because we are 25 minutes from starting >> manager updates. Nothing I'm going to talk about is time >> and go to executive session. >> All right. We have uh 11 a motion to go into uh introduction discussion. We can take two of those. Is that it? >> I move we go to testing 1 MSR SA 40560D EFS CME local 926 PIA airfield and executive session one MRSA 40563 labor. >> Okay. motioned. We will have a roll. >> Yes. >> Yes. Walker. >> Yes. >> Mor and I am also Yes. Well,