Bangor council sets budget schedule, weighs $75M rec bond ahead of referendum

[1:04] Angela Walker: Good evening, welcome to the Bangor City Council workshop. It's Monday, March 23. It is 5 15. We're in council chambers. Around the table we have council Carson, council Dean, city manager Lear, we have council Walker, council Falloon, council Fish, council Beck, council Lennon, counselor miller and i'm counselor hawes so we do have an executive session tonight that may take a little bit of extra time so we're gonna try to move things along so we won't be late starting the council meeting our first item is city manager update all right so first i wanted [1:46] Carollynn Lear: wanted to chat through what I have as sort of the tentative schedule for the budget sessions to discuss the city's budget but before I finalize that I wanted to provide an opportunity for input so I tentatively have us distributing the proposed city manager's budget on april 6th and then for the following 10 tuesdays i have us meeting with one department on each tuesday to discuss their budget and so i think this is a little different than last year in that from what i can tell from the schedule it was only three sessions and all of the departments were sort of on those three nights. I'm hoping to sort of elongate the process a little bit so that sort of each night we're only tackling one department and hopefully that will make it feel a little bit more manageable for everyone. So you're not trying to consume and dig into several departments all in one night. i wanted to first and foremost get your thoughts on tuesdays as opposed to wednesdays i'm told that in the past wednesdays had been the selected night i think my thought with going with tuesdays was that it would give us the opportunity to pull in wednesdays as an option if we needed more time but I don't know that there's any strong feelings internally about Tuesdays versus Wednesdays so if folks prefer to stick with Wednesdays that's fine too [3:37] Angela Walker: well hands everywhere thank you Council Leonard then Council Miller and Council Flo no issues [3:44] Joseph Leonard: whatsoever I would just want to keep track of both planning board meetings and school board meetings because otherwise we might have a restriction in how long we can go or [3:54] Wayne Mallar: or maybe one can use that i have meetings two tuesdays a month but i can probably [4:02] Susan Faloon: dump them dump them okay i appreciate that generally wednesday is better for me because i do travel a lot well on tuesdays but i'm assuming we wouldn't start before 5 50. [4:26] Daniel Carson: Wednesdays are generally better for me than Tuesdays. I can do Tuesdays, but in the series of 10 would miss four. [4:33] Carollynn Lear: So with two folks saying that Wednesdays are significantly better for their schedules, does anyone have any issue with sticking with Wednesdays? And then we'll add the Tuesday day if we wind up needing it. We're going to leave someone still. I don't think we're still here on [4:52] Angela Walker: Wednesday. I'm just looking at his calendar. What about you? Would this still happen on Wednesday when we have like a holiday on Monday? We do those on Wednesdays. I don't know. I don't believe we have any Monday holidays. April. April. We will wrap up before Memorial. But I will go [5:28] Carollynn Lear: go back and I will look at Mondays to make sure. And maybe on those days where there, if there is a Monday, that would kick Council to Wednesday, we could do the budget on Tuesday on those. I very much like the idea of not. And I by seeing the heads not, I think you all agree, I like the idea of not trying to shove numerous departments into a single night. I think that's a [5:55] Angela Walker: a recipe for folks burning out, myself included. So was everybody okay with Wednesdays as opposed to Tuesday? All right, so I'll start with Wednesday. It was a great idea. I tried and they'll be a practice [6:14] Michael Beck: team. Just a quick question, so I don't think you're heard right. So we're doing 10 meetings for this and 10 departments department overviews, okay? And so if we're getting the budget on the sixth, that Monday, so the first one we'll do is Wednesday or the 8th of April, yes? Okay, and then that would take us through, looks like it took us through to June 10th, yes. [6:40] Carollynn Lear: On June 10, we will have also the assessor's update of values by then. And by the skin of his teeth, as I understand it. And so then we should have a good sense as well to start discussing mill rate at that point. [7:02] Wayne Mallar: I know the answer is no, we won't. But when will we have the audit? [7:06] Carollynn Lear: It, oh gosh, I can't, I can't give you a date off the top of my head. I can inquire. I don't believe it won't be by the time it's time to vote. I [7:23] Angela Walker: don't know if this is a time to ask that, but didn't we [7:27] Carollynn Lear: send out an RFP? We did, so we've issued an RFP for the next audit cycle. I'm not sure if it's, is closed or not. But last I had heard we had gotten at least two responses, which I understand to be better than last time, we'll [7:44] Speaker H (unidentified): at least have something to compare to. [7:46] Angela Walker: Okay. So we'll be a little bit still. [7:51] Speaker I (unidentified): One more quick question on the audit. [7:56] Wayne Mallar: The management letter from the auditors for the last several years, have we complied with the management report? Or have we tried, or what are we [8:06] Speaker I (unidentified): doing with, yeah, appeared to just ignore them before, I think that's somewhat a fair assessment. [8:14] Carollynn Lear: I think there are some places where, because we aren't as layered as a larger organization, things like separation of duties are always going to be challenging, but I do think we're doing better in that space, specifically now that we have a deputy finance director and a finance director and a wholly staffed finance department. They are definitely thinking through, as they're allocating duties and processes and procedures, the separation of duties, and my recollection was that from the management letter, that was one of the primary things that called out, got called out, was the [8:47] Michael Beck: separation of duties. I'm so bad, so I know the auto will be running time, but could we at least get a draft of the annual report that will go out, so at least we have that reviewed? I can ask that [9:00] Speaker H (unidentified): question. You're [9:03] Carollynn Lear: requesting a graphically annual report? Yes, and I suspect it might be, if it's feasible, it might make sense for it to be sort of an annual report light that sort of pulls the critical information. Okay, to go to the next, I think so, I don't see any hands, so the next on my list was an HIV grant that council approved public health to apply for a meeting or two ago, it was last council meeting. Ultimately public health has decided to not apply for that grant. When they dug, as they continue to finalize their application, it was very clear from the number of grants and the scope of the application that public health was unlikely to get funded as a standalone applicant, given the size of our city. However, Maine CDC is going to apply for that grant on a statewide basis, and if they were to receive that grant, much like much of what Maine CDC does, the money would flow to local governments and other entities to implement. With that being said, we were hoping to submit a letter of support for Maine CDC's application for that HIV case management grant, if you're okay with it. [10:44] Joseph Leonard: Absolutely. I would be completely fine with that. I do have a follow-up question regarding grants that we might apply to that are actually too large for us, do we have an existing pipeline of actually recommending or forwarding such grants [10:59] Carollynn Lear: to the state to apply on our behalf. Interesting, I don't know the answer to that question. I mean, certainly it came about in this situation, but I'm not sure if it's organic or systematic, but [11:10] Joseph Leonard: I can find out. My thoughts are might as well look at the big grants even if we can't apply for them. [11:23] Speaker H (unidentified): Any questions, comments, all? [11:28] Carollynn Lear: Right, so next on my list is some unexpected, I think, good news. So as you'll recall last fall, you approved the allocation of 550,000 in opioid grant money to Bangor Public Health for intensive HIV case management services. It's my understanding that we were somewhat out of the blue contacted by Maine General Medical Center, who receives some HIV client funding, and they're actually looking to direct that funding to the city to supplement the funding for the HIV case management services. So we can have a conversation at some point about, you know, do we then use the 550 to elongate the program, or does it get, you know, repurposed for other services for these clients. But I wanted to get your okay to accept that money from Maine General for the program. There is some time sensitivity to it. They need to know whether we're going to accept the money right away, such that it will wind up being a retroactive approval on your part, but since I have you here, rather than just surprise you with a retroactive approval, I thought I'd message to you that we were considering doing that. I don't see any downside. It's just to fund the services that we've already committed to provide by accepting that opioid settlement funding, and the future conversation [13:15] Wayne Mallar: will need to happen about how, excuse me, council back, what was the moment they were again? [13:21] Michael Beck: Oh gosh, I'm [13:27] Carollynn Lear: gonna quickly page through Jen Gunderman's memo. I don't see an amount here, and I don't know, I'm gonna gaze, do you know the amount? I don't know the amount, I'm sorry. [13:42] Michael Beck: Just speaking for myself, I mean, it's depending on the amount of money, I mean, I would be of the mind of using it to replace the funding and then send that whatever it replaces back into consideration [13:55] Carollynn Lear: for other recovery options. Yeah, we can make that a component of the discussion when we come to you with a retroactive item, because it will need to go to finance or gov ops, and we're going to include that as part of the discussion. You will need to formally accept or authorize me to accept it, but because it's going to be retroactive, I figured it made sense to preview that if possible. It might be [14:22] Angela Walker: Nice to hear how that program's going. Sure, I'm not sure we've had a lot of feedback yet, so maybe that would be a good time to hear some of that. How many we have using the services? Council Mill. [14:36] Wayne Mallar: I'm, I always look at the dark side of everything, as you're well aware. What are the, are there any strings attached? I don't want to see Portland sending 50 patients down. No, it's for services. [14:51] Carollynn Lear: That we've already committed to provide to this population, new ones, not because they have a. [14:56] Speaker I (unidentified): Tendency to outsource their people if they can, and in fact they are looking back and looking to. [15:03] Carollynn Lear: Provide us compensation for services already rendered, which is, you know, strange, but they have this sort of money that otherwise isn't going to get used to, so I think that's all I. [15:20] Angela Walker: Have for city manager. Okay, next we have that Main Cancer Foundation grant. Yes, I'm going to. [15:30] Carollynn Lear: Introduce this one and I'll call in the cavalry if I need a little bit of assistance on questions. [Angela Walker: So public.] Health is looking to apply for a Main Cancer Foundation prevention grant. You have a pretty extensive memo about the program in your material, so I'll sort of repeat it, but it's really focused in on reducing instances of alcohol use and This is one that we will similarly be looking for retroactive, authorization to enter into, but wanted to preview for it, preview it for you now. It's for a two year program, $40,000 each year, to promote a sober October at various work. [16:27] Wayne Mallar: Sites. I have a question, what's the, what's the area we're covering, is it all of Penobscot County. [16:35] Speaker I (unidentified): And Piscataquist County, or is it, yeah, it's, it's, it's the Penquist district, so it is fine. [16:41] Wayne Mallar: But I'm more concerned about what we're doing for Bangor as opposed to what we're doing for the rest of the county, so my question would be what percentage of the work being done is going to be done in our area that we're responsible for. We're not responsible for all of Penobscot and Piscataquist County, I don't believe. Yeah, I think and. [17:01] Carollynn Lear: That's probably a broader sort of commentary on many of the grants that we receive are not focused on a single city, their county or regional. It's time for. [17:15] Wayne Mallar: The county to step up and take it. I'm tired of providing all these services. [17:19] Speaker I (unidentified): Is when we really don't get reimbursed for any of them, well the staff time, regardless of whether. [17:26] Carollynn Lear: It's in Bing or surrounding areas, will be fully compensated under this program. I'd like. [17:34] Wayne Mallar: To see a budget then. Okay, before, okay, anything. [17:44] Speaker H (unidentified): Else? No, that's enough, absolutely. So just in my. [17:49] Michael Beck: Reading the memo, so it looks like the staff time itself is actually is funded by previous grants, then this is just supplementing the work they're already doing. Like to make it easy to add with the website, the kits, the mugs, the gift cards, all that. So I mean, am I reading that right? That this is an enhancement of the work that's already [18:08] Carollynn Lear: being done? Yes. Do you want to join us? I told Jamie I would try, but you're asking questions I don't know the answer to so how [18:26] Susan Deane: are you doing so the grant aligns the service area aligns with our main prevention network substance use prevention service area which is Penobscot and Piscataqus County it's called the Pancras Public Health District the funder which is the state decides the geography the funder always decides the geography So, for this grant, we do already have staff time under that grant, and this project is an enhancement that we can't afford to do under the programs that we already have funding for. So, we'll be asking for incentives and compensation for organizations who participate. participate. We've found that when people have incentives to do something, they often participate at a higher level. The programs are more successful. I was going to say one more thing and then I forgot. If it comes back, I'll mention it. [19:38] Wayne Mallar: Quick question. This group that we're supposedly getting the funding for, if we didn't accept it where what would happen no one would do work so what you're saying is the state is saying if Vanguard doesn't take it we don't give it to anyone I find that strange because I think they're responsible for the whole state not just the ones that accept it I think [20:05] Susan Deane: I misunderstood you if we don't apply for this grant who will do this work that I'm proposing here and the answer to that is no one so well then that was what I asked if [20:18] Wayne Mallar: if the state says you have to do it for this whole area, and we say, no, we only want to do it for Bangor, they're going to say no, and no one in the area is going to take care of it, which doesn't make any sense to me. [20:32] Susan Deane: So this is a Main Cancer Foundation grant? Right. The work that we do with the state has already been approved. It's a 10 year contract. [20:42] Wayne Mallar: Okay, well, let me back up a minute. The group that's providing the grant, then they're dictating who will cover what areas is that what you're saying I'm saying [20:55] Susan Deane: That in the main prevention network in 2022, the state said we will award one grant to each public health district, and the entity that is successful must provide primary prevention services in the entire public health district. Okay, that doesn't necessarily mean it has to be us. We have a contract to provide that for ten years for [21:26] Wayne Mallar: everything they come up with new [21:29] Susan Deane: within the scope of the main prevention network. This is the main cancer foundation, so this is, these are two separate things. [21:41] Wayne Mallar: Now I'm thoroughly confused, so we're getting that, will be getting the grant [21:44] Susan Deane: grant from the Maine Cancer Foundation. We already have the funding for the staff time from this proposal through the Maine prevention Network. That money comes from the state. Yeah, much of it also is federal, it's federal pass-through money, some of it for substance use prevention. We have funding predominantly for staff time during through that Grant. This request is an addition, an enhancement through a different grant maker called the main cancer foundation, and we're asking them to fund us to do a special project around work sites for alcohol use prevention. I understand that but [22:29] Wayne Mallar: really it doesn't affect the grant we got before in our 10-year commitment. We do not have to apply for this, so my question was if we don't, who can apply in the Penobscot Piscataquist County [22:42] Susan Deane: county area? You're saying no one for this? Yes, no one. I mean, it's our project that we came up with. [22:49] Wayne Mallar: So it doesn't make sense to me, but that's all right, I hear what you're saying, and I'm not happy about it. So you're not happy about no? I'm I'm not happy. I don't mind the services, I think they're great, but Bangor can only provide services so long for the whole county. We are not a county organization, we are a city. If we provide services for our city, we do well, and we can't afford to provide them for everyone, and there have to be some costs [23:21] Speaker I (unidentified): that are not borne by the grants. I think that's a broader conversation about how [23:29] Carollynn Lear: the Department of Public Health approaches their work. Right now the Department of Public Health has made it their practice to provide services to the Penquist region, and they're probably going to continue to come to council with requests for grants to continue to do that work until council provides them direction that they don't want them [23:55] Wayne Mallar: to use that approach any longer. I just question the how prudent it is to be servicing the whole county when we have a county government that should be able to take care of it so [24:13] Carollynn Lear: It sounds like there's at least one person that is in doubt with respect to whether we apply for the grant, so perhaps it should be a formal vote. Okay, we're gonna do a roll [24:28] Angela Walker: call. Council Parsnip? Yes. Council Dean? Yes. Councillor Walker? Yes. Councillor Faloon? Yes. Councillor Fish? Yes. Councillor Beck? Yes. [24:40] Wayne Mallar: Councillor Leonard? Yes. Councillor Fowler? Yes. I'll vote first, just that I don't understand the logic in doing it, but that's, we may determine that at some point in time, which I think we [24:50] Michael Beck: need to. 9-10. So the second, Council Beck. Sorry, just a suggestion. Last year we received a great presentation about the Penquist District and how we're connected with and what it's all about. Maybe it would also be helpful to just have a refresher course on how we're connected to that, and because it does feed into a lot of what we do with this. [25:21] Carollynn Lear: So there was a brief part to do to the memo that you have seeking a letter of support for St. Joseph's Hospital. They're applying for a Maine Health Access Foundation grant which will focus on addressing the health care needs of people experiencing behavioral health and substance use disorder. There's a little more detail obviously in the memo, and they're just looking for a letter of support from us for that grant application, which is something that we generally do, but looking for, you're okay to do that. Is there a problem if I [Speaker H (unidentified): work there? You] should probably abstain. All right, that's okay. I just had a question at the [26:12] Michael Beck: end of the memo it talks about how the hospital invited us to be a collaborative partner. Is that gonna be a future conversation or what that looks like, or yeah, and that would require any [26:21] Carollynn Lear: that would require your approval before we participated, so [26:33] Susan Deane: is everyone okay with the letter? [26:36] Speaker H (unidentified): Yes. Stephanie, you're gonna give away next. [26:42] Carollynn Lear: Right, next on the list is the a continued discussion of the parks and rec facility. Although so we discussed at your last finance meeting the parks and rec facility, and sort of my takeaway was that council had a general understanding of the need for the facility, but also some concerns regarding the cost. Staff didn't really leave that meeting with any to-do items. I think that was the real crux of the conversation was need versus cost. Tonight there's two items on the agenda for that vote. The first Is the second reading to authorize the bond, and then the second item is approving the actual language for the ballot. So if you wish to proceed with those two items, you would vote yes on both. If you do not, it would be a no on both. The question was raised earlier about sort of the process and procedure for both authorizing the bond and the ballot initiative language at the same time. That's not just how we've traditionally done it per our bond council, but I think it's important to understand that by ordinance, your approval to issue the $75 million bonds, that first vote is not sufficient for us to do it by ordinance because this exceeds two million dollars. Based on a calculation of our overall property valuation in the city, anything over two million currently must also have a positive vote from the voters before the city could issue it. So just to be very clear, voting yes on the $75 million issuance would not be enough for city staff to go out and get the $75 million bonds because of that ordinance that also requires the vote of voters. Certainly since that time, you've received a good amount of public input, and I expect you'll receive some additional public input tonight, which will be very important. But Tracy and I are here if there are any last minute questions that you have for us and pencil fish a lot of the research there is out there [29:19] Carolyn Fish: concerns me on municipalities that have simultaneously or within a certain period of time, whichever went first, whether a YMCA or a major rec new build or major renovation, then at the same time that a municipality was trying to expand a major rec center, one of the other tends to fail. In the limited research, I think I currently find four or five cities, so I don't know if that's enough to really say that's going to happen, but with the population that we have in the major donors that come out of such a small city, that the population we have, it is a major concern. In an ideal world, I would love to have the rec center, but I really have had some sleepless nights about the potential cost and the potential if it fails, it'll be a major of major failure and a major cost. So I just, I know I voted on to have it go to referendum because I thought we'll let the people decide, but I think that intellectually, fiscally, I feel, when I myself, I don't feel comfortable that I have enough information. That's [30:47] Susan Deane: okay this may be a question for Tracy, but in my limited knowledge of the two centers, my understanding is that the Y serves a greater bank population, and the REC serves more of the bank or population. So is that true, Tracy? We're really catering to those that are residents of Bangor with a REC. [31:14] Mark (Recreation Director): Tracy, we'll let Mark from Recreation Director your dancing question are generally we're 90 resident most of our programs yes we do take non-residents often for an additional fee for that program but generally our participation is [31:28] Susan Deane: 90 percent impressive did you happen to know what that percentage is for the y i have no idea i have no idea why and of course sawyer arena is going to be pulling from the greater bangladesh yes for [31:41] Mark (Recreation Director): sure for sure the nature yeah okay so we're in currently there are three high schools that utilize the arena bagger high school john bapst high school and academy and then the mainstream black bears are indeed a regional youth hockey program one [32:02] Susan Deane: more question in the past when we had the ym the yw and the y at ym by w and the rep rather correct were your numbers lower as far as participation than they are now that we only have the yw the greatest change we've seen [32:21] Mark (Recreation Director): in enrollment by certainly we've established the child care program that was since the ym closed i believe part of the biggest change we've seen our youth basketball program we have neighborhood of 350 to 400 youth participating youth basketball program that why discontinued doing was part of the biggest changes overall that I can speak to [32:46] Speaker H (unidentified): right here quickly thank [32:54] Susan Faloon: you I obviously wasn't on the council when the vote happened last time and it seems like there are like differing understandings of what the expectation was as far as coming back with a new plan and seems like some folks were expecting there to be a new plan presented and others are like well that wasn't a specific ask so I'm curious like was there like a clear expectation and if not maybe we if we don't pass it as is and we want to come back like I feel like maybe it kind of got just you know Not a lot happened since the last time, so if we don't pass it again, I think that we should, because I don't think any of us has said we don't think it's needed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but like, just, you know, maybe not this particular plan. So I think we would need to set some clear expectations. Like, we want to see a new plan, we want to see some, you know, grants and sponsorships identified, and those sorts of things, and sort of put like a checklist in place that we want to see these things happen and then we bring it back and vote on it again if it, if it doesn't pass. [34:11] Michael Beck: Yeah, I don't recall we ever gave any direction. I think it was just the no vote and that was kind of it. So I echo those sentiments that, you know, if this doesn't pass, said right away, if we can have a workshop to come up with a clear direction going forward, how do we make this happen then, because I think we're all in agreement that this is needed. It's just the questions in our heads is 100 funded or did we come up with a better funding stack? That's the one. Those are my comments. [34:47] Wayne Mallar: Well, if we bond it and the citizens vote it down, you can't bring it up again for three years is [34:54] Mark (Recreation Director): Is that correct? I can't say with certainty one way or the other on bond [34:59] Wayne Mallar: ordinance. I believe that's what it says in the charter. So it would not make much sense to approve it at the council level, have it voted down by the people, and have to wait three more years. It would be more prudent to make some adjustments to try to reduce the cost and get sponsorships and then come back with, in my opinion. [35:26] Speaker H (unidentified): I'm surprised about [35:32] Daniel Carson: this a lot, this project. You know, a few months ago, I was in a much different place than I am now. In the price tag, I'm very worried, you know, we're in the middle of a international situation that continues to deteriorate and impact supply side energy chains around the globe. And we are already seeing above $5 a gallon heating oil. There's not a quick solution to that. If the international situation were to change immediately, but right as I'm speaking, there would still not be a quick solution to that. And I worry about that unpredictability, right? And what we know are rising costs and are going to continue to be rising costs, along with bonding a project of this size. And I would feel a lot differently if what we were bonding was housing, for example, something that in the long run would bring in property tax revenue, as well as bring down costs for people because we're addressing supply side concerns. But at this point, I think this really, it's quite expensive, and it would be difficult. I would like to see a different plan. This is needed. We know that we need the ice arenas. We know that the armory is not built to house the Parks and Rec Department. We know that it's not going to keep up. But I also think about the windows of funding that we've missed out on now that we could have in the future. Friday was the closure of the applications for congressionally directed spending. And of course, with those projects, we still have to bond and finance our project. But in March of 27, we would be able to apply for CDS funding for year 2028. And so if we are able to sort of put off [37:29] Joseph Leonard: a little bit longer and re-plan, [37:31] Daniel Carson: we could target that time to try CDS funding. And this is the type of project that is usually pretty popular with people who are deploying cds funds that's [37:47] Michael Beck: okay and i was just gonna throw out too is that we've got people in the hockey community right now who are excited about the idea of new lights who are willing to look into doing booster clubs doing you know the 501 33 and here for the building and for the procurement of the building new capital campaign fund you know we can we start having those conversations sooner rather than later as well and you might find that we end up with ice before we end up with the other piece of it if something can be worked out so and I think that if the community wants to come together and do this and you know present it to us and we become part of a part of a funding stack I think that's something we can do and I think it's something [38:26] Joseph Leonard: that we as a community can be proud of that's all I'm assuming this gets voted down tonight What's the soonest that we can return to actually give guidance to staff with a brainstorming or a vision workshop so that we can just get right to work on this immediately? I'd love to give you guys as much time as possible on this while we still have all the information fresh in our heads. [38:51] Carollynn Lear: The next opportunity would be the next GovOps meeting. Okay. [38:55] Joseph Leonard: Would everyone be okay with just pushing this forward so that we can just make sure we have give staff enough time to move forward with what our ideas are or do we want to wait a bit [39:08] Angela Walker: Personally, I would be okay pushing it forward. I just want to make sure that they're given enough time on the agenda. Our gov ops agenda sometimes tends to be long. I think they should have at least the bulk of that gov ops meeting, or have a special workshop. One of the other workshop probably would be better, because we tend to lose some things during the long agenda meetings, council. [39:39] Carolyn Fish: Fish, I'd be interested too to see what creative ideas we might be able to come up with. Even if we don't know, just kind of outlined along with maybe a smaller model of the urgent things, like the child care and the ice, maybe a couple of other components we really need immediately, as well as what in our community, what type of partnerships we might be able to come with. I know hindsight's 2020. It's too bad one of the models I read with a municipality and why I was thinking simultaneous that they actually joined as partners. We did the same site and partnered up, and it ended up becoming great. That ship kind of sails, but there might be another partner out there somehow, or some other creative funding or enterprising ideas of how we can make money. I know we talked about the booster club, but I think there's other ideas we have too, so that we could see some ideas of how it could make some money, you know, to contribute to the income once it's built in a reduced model, so we could start with something, because I believe, you know, 75 million is kind of like, what am I doing all [40:46] Susan Deane: I just want some clarification. Are we talking, if there's not clear, revisit this sooner than later? We're not talking about putting off tonight's agenda. We're talking about going through with tonight. Yeah, that was not what I, so in order to know how to vote tonight, I think we need to know if it is voted down, exactly when it can be revisited, because otherwise I think it might [41:14] Carollynn Lear: change votes. Okay, meaning when it goes to the voter referendum, sure, we can double check that. All right, so I think the last item on the agenda, which we're doing really well with preserving 14 times to talk about her executive session item, is I believe that the counselors that went to the national league of cities conference in DC wanted to give a little bit of a group debrief. I actually might let you do that, and I'll go research the question while you [42:01] Carolyn Fish: debrief. What do you need for this? I [42:06] Speaker H (unidentified): was going to go first. Well, I've been talking about it. Yeah, I [42:11] Daniel Carson: I actually wrote a lovely report to deliver to you, left it on my table on the way out the door. So I scratched together what I think were my bullet points in that report. All together, I really thought it was a valuable experience. I was really proud to be there with Chancellor Walker and Assistant Manager O'Donnell and represent the city of Bangor. I think some of the greatest pieces of that event are the networking and the friends that you develop, the resources that you come away with. So of course we were able to, you know, where we grow our friendships with the main municipal association and even better speaking as one voice with our federal and delegation and of course connected with counselors from all over the country who are answering a lot of similar questions than we are right now and that was another sort of takeaway, you know, we wonder on things like AI, we just got into the conversation about data centers and artificial intelligence. And you know that at all levels of government, right, we're behind on that conversation because the technology is developing and deploying so rapidly. But just how behind, you don't know until you really sit down with your sister cities to find out where they are. And the good news is that all levels of government and are behind but we are in lockstep with our sister cities as we engage in these discussions in a very timely way and so that was sort of a great like political piece to come away with to know that yes we're all behind but we're all behind together and we're actually talking about the same things across the country right now of course we came out of there with resources the economic development administration is putting together packages of Funding grant funding for workforce development enhancements around artificial intelligence and this specifically upskilling workers, ensuring that workers have the education and the tools that they need as AI is being deployed into their workplaces. That package of funding is not yet complete or available. That program is not yet published, but we're looking at about six months, so something to keep in the back of our minds as a clearinghouse, something that we could apply for and help our especially small businesses, because they are deploying that technology to be able to also deploy education for their workforce. Housing is a conversation all across the country. We're not the only people experiencing housing crisis. And so it was great to come away with some resources and places to look. I know, in particular, Michigan, and the my home program has been pretty successful. And so something to look at there. But also, you know good news on the horizon, is that there is a pretty massive House bill, a bipartisan House bill that's looking to address a lot of housing concerns and top into capital and be able to sort of unleash that. It's in development, it's still looking for a Senate companion, but there's been a lot of work put in on that question. I came out with some pieces on disaster planning, something that of course we'll have to keep talking about as a council as we think about things like flooding and other things that can happen here. But the creativity about who to put at the table to think about disasters with you and how to anticipate the things that happen after disasters that you don't necessarily think about when they're unrolling, like the loss, the permanent loss of property party taxes. If something is destroyed or land geography changes. And of course, there I think continues to be opportunities to better exploit our relationship with the National League of Cities. I know we are members of that. This is the time of year that they start opening applications for their federal committees, their advocacy committees. I don't know if we get participate in those. There isn't a cost to doing that, but I wanted to toss that out here to this table if we thought about enhancing that relationship. I would be very interested in bringing information about those committees to see if we could find a way in there. And of course finally, I think our being able to meet with our federal delegation was a rewarding experience, especially to be able to speak with sister cities across the state in one voice and advocate for things to care about, especially around those conversations on property taxes, especially around federal funding in regards to education, and I'll toss it over to counselor Walker. Oh well, it was my [46:59] Angela Walker: First experience going to this conference and it was very informational. A lot of things were brought up like I can piggyback on a lot of what Daniel said. I did take a lot of notes. I did take a lot of information. We kind of tried to go to different things, different sessions so that we could all get different ideas whatever connect differently. And I put it all and I'm super nervous but I put it all in a summary and I left that notebook book somewhere and I don't know what I did with it. So I'm just gonna do it off top of my head that I didn't attend the indigenous people's meeting gathering that they had that which was wonderful to meet with people all over the country that were in this meeting. We talked about different things that were all that were brought up. I can't think of those from my head. I've only had one day off since I got back so I'm like scatterbrained for my other job but and then I did go to the opioid settlement committee's meetings which was very interesting. I took a lot of notes for that too. We are not alone in what we are facing and what to do with those funds. There was a lot of different ideas being tossed around, a lot of things that worked for some cities and a lot of things that didn't work. It was kind of like we all went on different groups and tables. We were coloring and doing different things. So each session brought its own unique thing. I also went to one on computers and all this other stuff and I thought it was going to give me more insight on public comment and the data that we use, the stuff that we use, the internet, whatever. And it wasn't. It turned out that it was all this stuff and it was the longest session there that I was in. And it was more for city staff and people like that would so I took some notes and I did talk to a few people that were sitting next to me and put some things away from that but I will know better if I ever go again and then we did do quite a few general sessions where I took away some information from National leaders that were there and it was just really cool to be there to see everyone come together I know building friendships building resource connections it was really it was it was good I. Was very overwhelmed but very intrigued at what everyone was saying. I appreciated being nominated to go, and hopefully it'll be more prepared next time. I'm so sorry guys, I'm tired. Well, doesn't mean this is the only time you get to speak on it. I kind of covered all of what my participation of it was, and it was really good. I appreciate [49:58] Speaker H (unidentified): it. To go and represent the city. [50:05] Michael Beck: I'm so glad that both of you had the opportunity to go, and thank you for going and bringing all that information back. In regards to federal committees for the NLC, we get all these emails, is that you know the output of all these communities. It would be nice to have to see those tables, so I'm definitely in favor of looking how we can apply to do that. And then, and I'm also glad that you went to the opioid settlement piece, because you know we're looking at a little over two million dollars that we have to figure out what to do with over the next 12 years, and said that's 12 years, and how do you figure that out because not all one big lump, so you know it's a lot of planning involved, so it'll be very helpful to have that input. So again, thank you both for taking the time to do that and traveling down there and bringing this [50:52] Speaker H (unidentified): back. It [50:55] Angela Walker: seems like the last time I was at National League they talked about those committees and attendance as far as people signing up for them. It was low until they found out that it is something you have to travel to, that they're remote meetings, and it's open to really anyone who wants to put in an application for them. So if there's people that are interested, take a look at what they are and where we're headed, and it can be more than one per area on the committee. Wow, so something to think about and I think if you had any questions regarding like the emails that we do get are [51:40] Speaker H (unidentified): you [51:47] Carollynn Lear: ready. So I was going to give you an answer to that question, and since I have it I thought I'd do it in open session for the benefit of our listeners. So it's article 5 section 5 of our ordinances, and it says that no ordinance order or resolve adopted by the vote of the electors shall be subject to amendment or repeal by the city council for a period of three years from the date of enactment without there being an additional vote. So the three years is if the voters pass something, council can't amend or repeal it for three years. It does not relate if the voters do not, if they vote something down, does not limit bringing it back. Okay [52:41] Angela Walker: okay, so all right, we need a motion to go into our executive session [52:52] Daniel Carson: We're still into one MRSA section 405 at 6d or Malcolm negative training with union. [52:57] Speaker H (unidentified): Both with seven one four transit drivers in their session, so it's been moved and seconded. [53:04] Angela Walker: We will do a roll call vote. We'll start over here. Council Meller? Yes. Council London? Yes. Council Bill? Yes. Council Fish? [53:14] Speaker H (unidentified): Yes. Council Stone? Yes. Council Walker? Yes. Council Dean? Yes. Council Clark? I will be in. [53:21] Angela Walker: So back to unanimous.