Bangor council rejects legislative committee expansion, passes ethics timeline

[2:00] David Szewczyk: Hi, it's 7 o'clock on July 27th, 2026. I'm David Stepchik, the city solicitor. The council chair is unable to be here tonight, so at this time I'd call for a nomination to elect a chair pro tem to run the meeting. [2:21] Michael Beck: I would nominate Councilor Faloon to serve that position. Second. [2:30] David Szewczyk: Any other nominations? Nope. Councillor Faloon, are there any objections to the nomination? No. With that, Councillor Faloon, you are the chair pro tem. [3:10] Susan Faloon: Bear with me while I set up here. Good evening. This is the regular Bangor City Council meeting of July 27th, 2026. It is currently 7.03. Three and we do start every meeting with the pledge of allegiance and I'm going to ask Adam Baker to please lead us to [3:50] Mike Burrell (public commenter): the United States of America and to the republic which stands [3:54] Michael Beck: one made under God's individuals with liberty and justice thank you [4:04] Susan Faloon: Adam this is the portion of the meeting set aside for general public comment directly related to city business for matters that do not appear on this evening's agenda. If you're here for a specific agenda item that is under unfinished business or new business please wait until we reach that item. Items under first reading and referral will be discussed when we return under unfinished business and we will hear public comment at that time. Public comment requires a person to state their name and whether or not they are a resident of the City of Bangor. The City Council has adopted a public comment policy that we will adhere to. Statements during public comment should respect the dignity and seriousness of the proceeding and individuals will be restricted to speaking once. Obscene, truly threatening, or overly repetitive comments will be deemed out of order and will be interrupted and removed. Topics that are considered out of order also include matters that are in litigation, individual employees or employee groups discussing matters for which complaint or grievance procedures are in place, personal disputes between the speaker and another resident not germane to city business, support for or opposition to any candidate for political office, and personnel complaints Pertaining to individual city employees, there is a time limit of three minutes per speaker, and the total time allowed for general public comment regarding city business will be limited to no more than one hour. The public comment period is for city council members to listen and not respond to or debate with persons. If you do not live in Bangor or own property in Bangor, please allow those who do to have the opportunity to speak first. If you'd like to offer comment on any item directly related to city business not appearing on the regular agenda, then you may approach the podium. Individuals who have appropriately pre-registered to give public comment via remote means will be given the opportunity to participate remotely. Alternatively, counselors may be reached by email at counselors at bangor maine.gov. A link to the adopted public comment policy can be found on the city website site, and with that, public comment is open. Yes, I move to suspend the rules to consider council [6:33] Susan Deane: resolve 26-245 reaffirming the city council's commitment to civility, procedural order, and [6:40] Michael Beck: public trust. Second, madam chair, I rise to a point of order. I believe the motion is not in order due to section 924 requiring that need to be filed on time. Section 19 916 a says Roberts ruled only governs where a matter isn't already determined by ordinance. Section 924 is determined by ordinance, so there's no gap for Robert's Rules to fill. Separately, Section 915's suspension power only applies to foregoing rules, which is Article 1, and Section 924 is in Article 3. And even setting all of that aside, Robert's Rules itself at 25.8 says a procedural rule prescribed by law cannot be suspended unless the rule provides for its own suspension. Section 924 does not. I asked the chair to rule the motion out of order. Thank you, and I [7:30] Susan Faloon: am going to ask for our city solicitor to weigh in on this. Yes, my opinion is [7:40] David Szewczyk: that the motion to suspend the rules is the way to get an agenda item on the agenda that has not been on there. The section 9-24 is not a rule that would stop that from happening. While I appreciate counselor Beck's opinion on what how the rules are interpreted, there is a motion to suspend the rules has always been the way that bodies move to put an item on an agenda that's not there. It is allowed. It requires a two-thirds vote. There are a number of different provisions in Robert's rules and in our own ordinances that allow the motion to suspend the rules to be used. I can't say that it is clear as day, but it is legal's opinion that is the way to get something on the agenda that's not on there. And also the motion to spend the rules is not debatable. So I can go through the rule provisions if you'd like that support my opinion, but I don't [9:03] Susan Faloon: have to if the chair okay. So we should move forward with a roll call vote, that would be my opinion. Okay, we will move forward with a roll call vote then. [9:14] Michael Beck: Counselor Carson? Yes. Counselor Beck? Just clarify the question is whether or not to suspend the rules. [9:24] David Szewczyk: There's a motion on the table, counselor. I vote no to not to spend the rules. Councilor [9:32] Joseph Leonard: Dean? Yes. Council Leonard? I go no to not suspend the rules, sorry. [9:44] Susan Faloon: I was confused there. I think no to suspending the rules, right? Okay, thank you. Counselor Fish? Yes. Counselor Maller? Yes. Counselor Walker? Yes. And I will be a yes. We [10:03] Michael Beck: will suspend the rules. Just clarification, was the final tally six [10:10] Lisa Goodwin: yes to no, that [10:14] David Szewczyk: two-thirds and [10:22] Susan Deane: we proceed with that matter or continue with dean. Were you gonna continue? Are we ready? A council resolve 26-245. At the June 22, 2026 Council meeting, during a contentious policy debate, disruptions to both meeting decorum and procedural rules fell short of the standards expected of the City Council. This resolve formally acknowledges that both the tenor of debate and the interruption of meeting proceedings failed to meet the Council guidelines, which state that members must act with civility and preserve order and decorum during municipal meetings, as well as fulfill their fundamental duties to deliberate and vote on the City business. The City Council takes collective accountability for allowing meeting control to break down and acknowledges the impact on public trust. Moving forward, the Council pledges to uphold rules of debate, maintain meeting order under the direction of the Council Chair, and fulfill the duties and obligations of membership on the City Council with mutual respect and professionalism. I move Council Resolve 26-245. Second. [11:33] Susan Faloon: The measure has been moved and seconded. We will have a roll call vote. [11:38] David Szewczyk: Councillor Carson. Excuse me, point of order. If there needed to be any discussion, I just wanted to, I'm sorry, any [11:44] Michael Beck: discussion on this item? Yep, just a clarification, which version of the actual order this once, we had two and offered to us, is this the edited one or is this the one we were given originally? [11:56] Susan Deane: This is the edited version any [12:22] Susan Faloon: other discussion. Okay, we'll take a roll call. About Counselor Carson? Yes. Counselor Beck? Yes. Counselor Dean? Yes. Counselor Leonard? Yes. And Counselor Fish? Yes. Counselor Maller? Yes. Counselor Walker? Yes. And I will be a yes. Item number 26-245 has passage. And now we will open up the public comment period. If you would like to comment, please step up to the microphone. Hi. [13:03] Linda Debe (public commenter): My name is Linda Debe. I'm a Bengal resident and I just want to ask the council to take in consideration thinking about a toxic waste take back in the city of Bangor. I had called four years ago with some chemicals that were in my garage when I was selling my home and I was told I had to take them to Lewiston. They've sat in my new garage for five years and I called again and I called Lewiston and I had to take them to Auburn now and you have to have an appointment Monday through Friday between 8 and 3 30. They give you a time you have to show up to get rid of your toxic waste. It's 50 for five gallons. I don't mind paying it but I just don't think I should have to travel two hours when I'm paying taxes to the city of Bangor. Like could we look at having a toxic waste take back day people could pay it and then they could ship a whole truckload down there rather than you know like I took down probably five gallons so you know I just think it's something that I would like the city to look for it's something that I just feel like with our taxes going up and the taxes we pay in the city that there should be some services provided to the taxpayers and not just helping the less fortunate. So I'm just going to ask the council if at some point they could look at that and consider a toxic waste take back day whether it be debt cleaning. When I got back from Auburn that day they had the fire in Orrington because someone threw it in the trash and that's what happens when people can't drive to Auburn. So I just think it would keep it out of you know starting fires in the backs of the garbage trucks and hurting people. So just something to consider. Thank you. Hillary. [14:51] Hillary Simmons (public commenter): Simmons, resident of Bangor. I just wanted to touch on something that was just mentioned in the workshop earlier. I believe the City of Bangor should reconsider whether it is appropriate to fund a local public health department. When public health is fundamentally a responsibility of the state of Maine, public health involves statewide issues such as disease prevention, health education, emergency preparedness, vaccinations, environmental health, and health regulations. These responsibilities affect every community in Maine, not just Bangor. Because these services benefit the entire state, I believe they should be funded primarily through the state budget rather than local property taxes. Bangor taxpayers already contribute to state government through income taxes, sales taxes, and other revenues that help support statewide public health programs. Asking Bangor residents to provide additional local funding for services that are statewide in nature can result in taxpayers paying twice for similar responsibilities. Another concern is consistency. If the state assumes greater responsibility for public health services, communities across Maine can receive more uniform standards, staffing and funding rather than having services vary depending on the financial resources of individual municipalities. The City of Bangor also has many core responsibilities that require local funding, maintaining roads, public safety, fire protection, emergency response parks, infrastructure and other municipal services such should remain the Council's highest priorities. As budgets become tighter, it makes sense to focus local dollars on the function that only the City can provide. This does not mean public health is unimportant. On the contrary, it is essential. My argument is that simply that it should be financed and administrated primarily at the state level where the resources can be distributed more fairly across all Maine communities. I encourage the council to advocate for increased state support for public health while limiting the city's financial role in programs that are more appropriately managed by the state of Maine. [17:07] Mike Burrell (public commenter): Mike Burrell, resident of Bangor. I want to talk about redundancy. See. Just recently the Bangor City Council established a legislative committee. I want to point out that the City of Bangor pays lobbying services from the Maine Municipal Association, Maine Mayor's Coalition and Maine Service Center Coalition. The question is how much the City of Bangor pays for each of these lobbying services. The legislative committee would like to have $20,000 set aside to pay a lobbyist for a particular challenging pieces of legislation to seek guidance outside their expertise. So why do we have four representatives and one senator who are all extremely liberal? This sounds like another separate political action agenda paid for by the citizens of Bangor. If any of these associations slash coalitions have good operating plans, would Bangor be the ghetto city it is turning into now? I recommend we stop paying for all associations slash coalitions and disband the legislative committee because whatever they are prescribing is wrong. Since Bangor has five legislators representing us, do the old-fashioned thing and write them letters. Do more rules and no more rules by committees. Each member of the House of Representatives in the state of Maine represents approximately 4,000 constituents. Constituents. Are we trying to say that the four Bangor representatives do not represent us? Stop the nonsense of fraud, waste, and abuse. Point of interest. Counselor Carson, the chair of the legislative committee, is also on the board of directors for Food and Medicine. Food and Medicine is a 501, which does engage in political activities. From the Food and Medicine website in 2020, our membership indicated a desire for us becoming more active in public education around legislation and elections. We initiated an effort to educate our membership on when and how to vote, and candidate stances on issues affecting the low-income and working communities. Our 501 also engaged candidates for the first time in our history. We are continuing this effort in 2021 with a focus on local races, particular Bangor City Council and Bangor School Committee. Portland also has a legislative committee with a population of around 68,000, twice the size of Bangor, which is the third largest city. So we would be the second one. Maine is a home rule state, granting municipalities broad authority to govern themselves independently of the state legislator. home rule allows main municipalities to operate without needing specific legislation approved for local matters unlike dylan's rule states where local governments require explicit state authorization thank you very much thank you good [20:20] Greg Prattley (public commenter): afternoon, counselors. Greg Prattley, Angler resident. I'm here just to talk a little bit about Together Place and my recovery, my sobriety, and what they've have done for me. This time last year I was homeless, drug addicted, and through till now, Together Place has helped me find employment. They have helped me find an apartment. They have helped me find a car. They have been pivotal in my recovery. They opened me with, they welcomed me with open arms this time last summer. I just hit a year sobriety on the 14th of this month. And it's really important to me and just not only me, but the other people you see out here on the streets that could do the same thing that I do with the help of this organization. And I think it's very important that they receive support. So thank you very much. Appreciate your time. [21:30] Scott Party (public commenter): Good evening, my name is Scott Party and I'm a citizen of Bangor and a resident of Bangor. I'm here tonight to talk about accountability, leadership, and the future of Bangor's government. For years we've watched our population remain flat, hovering around 31,000 to 33,000 residents for decades. Yet as our population sits still, city hall keeps expanding. We keep adding staff, expanding administrative overhead, and creating new positions in departments like legal and finance. We are spending more taxpayer dollars to manage the exact same size city. Why does this happen? Because under our current council manager system, this council relies entirely on what staff feeds you. You only see the options, the numbers, and the policies that administrative staff chooses to make available. The truth is the council is simply not equipped to make sweeping budget decisions for complex operational departments. Not one member of this council has ever run a police force, managed a fire department, directed public health, or overseen a parks and rec system. Expecting part-time councillors to effectively check a full-time bureaucracy without real operational expertise isn't fair to you, and it isn't fair to the taxpayers paying the bill. It's time to change how Bangor is governed. It's time to move toward an elected mayor. An elected mayor brings real benefits. An elected mayor works for the voters, not a contract. If they fail to manage the budget, control administrative bloat, or deliver core services, the public can vote them out. A mayor isn't just a reviewer of staff proposals. They are an independent executive given a mandate by the people to set priorities, streamline administration, and challenge department spending. Right now decision-making is diffused. An elected leader gives Bangor a single clear voice focused on growth, fiscal discipline, and transparent management. We cannot keep rubber stamping and expanding payroll while our population doesn't grow. We need structural change. We need a government model that puts power back in the hands of the people of Bangor, and that starts with a charter change to elect a mayor. You know this. I'm gonna get off track here. I've watched for a while now. I've been watching what goes on at city hall and trying to pay attention, and it's out of control. It's out of control and it's really time for you all to make a change. You know, you know it, I know it, and so does everybody else. So let's, let's put our big boy pants on, or their big girl pants on too, and do some, do some right things. Thank you. [24:16] Susan Faloon: Thank you. My [24:23] Jacqueline Smallwood (public commenter): name is Jacqueline Smallwood. I'm a Bangor resident, taxpayer. I'm here tonight because Bangor's is absorbing a crisis it did not entirely create. The influx of people arriving in this city seems apparent to all of us, but the systems driving the crisis seem invisible. I have identified at least 17 publicly accessible websites actively directing people from across the United States to Bangor's homeless and addiction services. I am sure that this is just a fraction of live sites. However, some of these include findhelp.org a for-profit platform out of austin texas shelteringlistings.org an anonymous volunteer network icarol also known as harris computer systems a tech conglomerate out of canada nascent homeless shelter directory.org volunteer me which is part of maine united ways platform and our premier referral pipeline 211 main. Our own city's website, banguarmain.gov slash 509, links directly to 211 main, listing our shelters, our services, our phone numbers and more. 211 main is operated by United Way, DHHS and the Opportunity Alliance, a massive non-profit headquartered in South Portland. Not one member on this board represents Bangor or Penobscot County, yet they refer callers to Bangor services while bearing zero financial consequence for those referrals. Not one of these platforms is required to notify Bangor before listing our services. The city has no removal authority and cannot attach a single condition, no residency requirement, no accountability standard to anything they publish about us. These referrals, the more referrals these systems make, the more federal metrics they satisfy, the more funding they justify. It's a perpet, self-perpetuating loop and a loophole that Maine has never closed for hub cities like ours. We're beginning, we're being marketed nationally and locally for that matter as a destination. The harder we try, the more referable we become. Pebble Streets, Hope House markets themselves as low barrier, no background check, no ID required, no income verification, no sobriety required. They take more, the more people they take in, we give more money for more services. Taxpayers are required by law to fund general assistance, but nothing prevents the city from requiring work or community service in return. Where did those kinds of requirements spread just as fast as no sobriety and no ID required? We're not required to give grants to private non-profits, that's a choice, and when we make that choice, proof of measured success should be required. How many people are transitioning into long-term recovery? How many are moving into independent housing? What are the program completion and retention rates? This data should be reported regularly and publicly, and if targets are missed, funding should stop. Without high expectations, accountability is impossible, and without accountability, we're just paying to maintain the crisis instead of fixing it. Thank you. [27:27] Susan Faloon: Thank you. Good [27:36] Rich Trott (public commenter): evening. My name is Rich Trott. I'm a resident here of Bangor, lived here my entire life. I am here tonight as part of a growing group of Bangor citizens who have spent the past several months doing something this council should have been doing all along, reading the public record. What we have found is a consistent and documented pattern. Advisory committees recommending funding for the very organizations that employ their own members. Counselors voting on grants and agreements that directly benefit organizations they work for, sit on the boards of, or were endorsed by. With conflicts of interest disclosures either absent or never filed. There have been nine separate documented conflict scenarios involving members of this council. In those nine scenarios, one recusal was ever filed. One. It's documented that the city's Board of Ethics did not convene for two and a half years during the precise period when the most significant of these votes were taking place. We have documented that at least one advisory committee responsible for the recommending the distribution of over $600,000 in public opioid settlement funds was classified as ad hoc by the city, which exempted every member from filing conflict of interest disclosures entirely. These are not allegations. These are public records, meeting minutes, grant applications, IRS filings, city clerk responses to FOAA requests, state certification records. And the consequences of this pattern are not abstract. Penobscot County is the only county in the state where fatal overdose deaths rose last year. 67 people. We are a drug destination. Over 20 million dollars in American Rescue Plan funds flowed through this process. Zero dollars went to private business development. Every dollar went through the same network of organizations. Organizations with documented ties to the people making the recommendations and casting the votes. I want to be direct with this Council tonight. I want to be on the public record. The citizens of Bangor are watching. We are organized, we are documenting, and we are not going away. Every vote cast tonight and every vote cast going forward will be reviewed against the public records for conflicts of interest, procedural compliance and adherence to the disclosure requirements, this council is bound by under Chapter 33 of the City's own Code of Ethics. This council has the legal authority to act tonight. We understand that. But legal authority and ethical conduct are not the same thing. Let me be unambiguous. No member of this body is above scrutiny, ethically or legally. The decisions made at this table tonight will be thoroughly reviewed. Every vote, every recusal that was not filed, every conflict that was not disclosed, the era of blatant conflicts of interest being quietly swept under the rug is over. The eyes of Bangor are upon you. Thank [30:45] Susan Faloon: you Adam [30:55] Adam Baker (public commenter): Baker. Being a resident, all my words are my own and do not reflect any committee I am a part of. I'm here just to give more advocacy to our unhoused here and that we really need a plan or something to help these people, these human beings. I mean, with the Together Place possibly shutting down, it takes away another resource that so many people rely on, and I don't want another sweep again. Winter is coming, and I think the first step to that is a sanctioned encampment. It's not the end-all answer, I think it's the first step to get these people in a place where we can give them resources. It's a safe space for them, and nobody can recover if they don't have a roof over their head. So I just advocate that we start thinking about winter. We should have been, and the city should not sweep again. So thank you. Thank you. My [32:08] Emily Ellis (public commenter): name is Emily Ellis, and I am a Bangor resident. And I wanted to start on a high note. And that is that the Maine Savings Theater Waterfront Concerts is absolutely spectacular. If you had an event there, you are taking a quick vacation away from Bangor, Maine to the best of the best. And I applaud everything that has to do with that concert venue that is top-notch love it a couple other items one is last meeting i did speak about the vacant and abandoned properties issue and how it pertains to our current council subsequent to hearing subsequent to that i heard as all did from counselor hal wheeler of a class action suit in the making. And apparently there are people who have paid the vacant fee all along that are not on board with someone in power not paying that fee and having it waived. As a taxpayer, I can see very clearly how this scenario could play out. And I, for one, hope that someone's doing due diligence and make sure that either the people who have paid all along are reimbursed or the person who isn't paying is required to pay. And in keeping with what others have said, if we are the gold standard for the homeless and that is a requirement from the state that we have to step up and people are coming from all over the state and all over the country to get services from Bangor, Maine, if we are only getting 70 back from the state, that means the Taxpayer has to come up with the other 30. For all the people that are coming, that is unacceptable. I know what I pay for taxes. I know what the budget was approved for. There are a couple of old dogs in Bangor and they're sitting on the porch with a nail coming up through the floorboard. When that nail gets high enough, I want you to understand that there will be a mass exodus from Bangor and those taxpayers are not going to put up with it. So just think about what the impact is for people who are all about compassion and empathy and the greater good for all, but there is definitely a limit. I received my tax bills this week. Yeah, talk to you later, Phil. [35:05] Susan Faloon: Thank you. Hello. [35:16] Jody McDonald (public commenter): Jody McDonald, Bangor resident for 20 years. I also want to speak up on behalf, as a taxpayer, that I do want my money going to help neighbors. People didn't like when my ancestors showed up. People didn't like it when we didn't have what they had. It takes a lot of work to be able to stay on your feet today. I don't know how my ancestors did it a hundred years ago. I don't know how my mother would be doing it right now. I have spoken to this council how close I was to homelessness as my mother held down three jobs. Professors are living in cars currently. It's a systemic problem and I would much rather see neighbors who are much more like me be taken care of. I would much rather see that funding is going to children. I would much rather see that hospitals are given any sort of support. I would love to see all of our socialist care like the fire department and like our police department be able to focus on what we are doing. The state's not going to save us. The feds aren't going to save us and politically the more that we fight back and the more that we ask for humanity to be protected, the less we are going to get of 30,000 of us. We want our city to be better. There are solutions, there are plenty of solutions. But it's just like so many other issues, let's fight amongst ourselves against a small population who can't fight back, who needs some sort of different help. So, thank you. [36:59] Susan Faloon: Anyone else wishing to speak. [37:03] Robert Benedict (public commenter): Hi, I'm a Bangor resident. My name is Robert Benedict. How do I apply for this missing a payment on the uninhabitable home. I have five children in the school. school. We bought a house. We dreamt of living there. We've been working at it. It was abandoned for 10 years prior to us owning it. If I miss a payment, I get threatening letters. You guys are going to drag me to court. Never mind. Get $17,000 behind. How do I apply for that? I was told I can't do my own electrical. It's the only property I own. It's the house that we're going to live in i think that's a state law saying i can i just don't understand you know maybe somebody could give me a formal response on how i can apply for missing these payments so i can help my family and how i can do my own electrical like the state law says i can thanks [38:10] Susan Faloon: thank you members [38:18] Karen Quirk (public commenter): of the council my name is karen quirk and I'm a licensed clinical social worker practicing here in Bangor and I'm also on the board of the together place I joined the board because I've seen how urgently people in the city need a safe place to go during the day not to defend an organization but because I know how it feels to need a place like this [38:39] Susan Faloon: excuse me can you just say whether or not you're a resident of Bangor okay [38:42] Karen Quirk (public commenter): thank you when I was young I spent stretches of time homeless I didn't I didn't have safety, guidance, or anyone watching over me that made me vulnerable to people who offered me alcohol and drugs instead of support. I didn't choose those substances, they were offered to me because I was unprotected. A place like Together Place would have changed everything. It would have given me safety instead of danger, support instead of exploitation, and community instead of isolation. isolation. So when I speak tonight, I'm speaking from lived experience, from the part of me that remembers exactly what it feels like to be scared, confused, and alone with nowhere to go. There's a lot of misinformation circulating. People are being told Together Place is a hangout, it enables people, and it's a waste of money. And none of that is true. If you want to know what Together Place is, come see it. Spend a few minutes there. You'll see people who are trying to stabilize their lives. You'll see peers supporting each other. You'll see dignity, structure, accountability, and hope. And you'll see prevention. Because without a daytime resource, people don't disappear. They get pushed into doorways, parking lots, business entrances, and emergency rooms. Every one of those outcomes is more expensive financially, emotionally, socially, and then investing in prevention. We all know what happens when people have nowhere to go. More police calls, er visits, crisis interventions, preventions, strain on businesses, and more visible suffering. Crisis is expensive. Prevention is humane and cost-effective. I also want to speak respectfully about the RFP process. The city identified the need for a daytime resource and put out a request for proposals. The Together Place responded, met the criteria, and offered a solution aligned with the city's stated goals. I'm not here to point fingers. I'm here to say that following through with the process the city began is how we build strut trust, stability, and continuity for the people who need it most. If the city steps back now, Bangor is left with no daytime plan. No alternative and no safety net. That's not criticism. It's simply the reality we're facing and it's a reality. We have the power to change. I'm asking you from lived experience, professional experience, and human compassion to choose the option that improves conditions for everyone. Support together place, honor the process the city began, invest in prevention instead of crisis, and before you vote, please come see the truth for yourself. Come see the people whose lives depend [41:16] Jason Fish (public commenter): on this. Thank you. Thank you. Good [41:24] Shaymalini (public commenter): evening my name is shaymalini i am a resident of atkinson but i am a daytime professional resident of bangor i am the board chairperson for maine mental health connections the non-profit organization that runs together plays peer-run recovery center due to a funding shortfall a drastically more competitive grant landscape and the extended timing of proposed contracts mmhc is forced to close our drop-in day center and our food program unless we are able to address that shortfall immediately Every weekday from 8 a.m to 4 p.m, Together Place serves the citizens of Bangor struggling with substance use disorder, mental health, housing instability, and homelessness. Our day center provides a safe space for these citizens to gather, receive peer support, attend recovery meetings, receive case management and housing navigation. We have turned over every stone to fund these services, but we have not been able to make up for the shortfall from losing a substantial state contract last year and an unsuccessful bid for opioid settlement funds. We are eager to partner with the city and the state, and as this council acknowledged after the warming center closed, we are a partner who delivers. We have developed a sustainability plan that includes graded revenue from grants, private donors, billable services, as well as contracts with local, state, and federal entities. However, the timeline of these things are unfortunately longer than we have the funds to wait out. Our shortfall is 220,000 for the next year, but I have a wonderful update speaking for the whole organization, I am tremendously amazed and grateful to say that as of today, we have secured $139,000 in pledge donations, provided that we can raise the remaining $81,000. If we can't raise the $81,000, we lose that pledge donation. Much has been made of websites that list available services, and they do exist and people do find them. them? People in Penobscot County, Piscataquiz County, Washington County, Aroostook County, Hancock County, Mainers find them. And why do Mainers come to Bangor? Because this is where the services are in this half of the state. Housed and unhoused use the same services. So when you talk about cutting services, both housed and unhoused citizens lose. When you talk about putting 200 homeless people in jail at the cost of a hundred thousand dollars per year, you are asking taxpayers to shell out 200 million dollars. Speaking as a fiscal conservative, that makes zero sense. I myself am a person in long-term recovery from alcohol and a person who has struggled to overcome mental health challenges, and I stand unashamed before you to say that because stigma and silence lead to death. Today I live a life of service, and you can ask TD Bank, I'm not doing it for the money. I am a Mainer helping Mainers, as my 95 year old stepfather from Campton taught me. Thank you. Thank you. my [44:57] Bruce Campbell (public commenter): Name is Bruce Campbell. I'm a citizen of Holden, but I've been involved in a lot of things, particularly employment in the city of Bangor. And there's two documents that I want to refer to in just a second, but first off, I want to tell you the power of recovery. Okay, so on August 1st, I will celebrate 42 years of recovery. And when I started that journey, it was during Ronald Reagan's first term, and I was living in a school bus, and I lit with one spigot of running water, and I lived there for two years. Before I upgraded to a garage, you know, and so when we moved back to Maine 20 years later, I was able to buy a four-bedroom house out in Holden with a couple of acres of land. My boys were able to go to John Bapps High School, and we've been living the dream since. I want to point out some stark realities to this document. This was actually developed by the Barn in 2015, and the graph on the blue, orange, gray, and red graphs are the increasing costs, annual costs of substance use in Maine, and you multiply each one of those numbers at the top by $100,000. Okay, you, the graphs, the little graphs, little red, those are county dollars that were spent in Penobscot County Jail. Okay, so the total economic impact and the total cost to every man, woman, and child in the state of Maine, and when you prorate that to Penobscot County, it's $1,376 in 2015. Okay, so, you know, we haven't done this since, and the state stopped doing the studies, and I don't want to go down that trail. But there was a study done in 2015 called Life and Recovery, and it was done by Alexandra Laudet. She was a renowned researcher, and she found that in recovery, problems decrease, illegal acts and involvement in criminal justice decrease tenfold, good outcome. Frequent use of costly emergency room departments decreased tenfold, good outcome. Reports of untreated emotional and mental health disorders decreased over fourfold. And personal debt decreases and knowing back taxes decreases, good outcomes. At the same time, assets increase. Steady employment and addiction recovery increases by over 50%. Participation in family activities increased from 68% to 95%. You can read the rest for yourself. I also want to include that this proclamation was signed by this council by Susan Hawes in 2008. The next page... We'll take a look. Sorry, you're out of time. Yeah. The next page is handwritten, but it's got a lot of good stuff on it. Thank you. Okay, thanks. Hello. [48:32] Scott Party (public commenter): i'm sean hinkley resident of bangor i want to talk about community and accountability and what role philosophically we have as community members in bangor and what expectations do we have for one another i want to get i want to just tell a quick story and it's going to relate back to something that happened to me last week and just think about it but i love the YMCA in Bangor. I go all the time. Great place to go if you want to work out in an approachable, nice place. Great people that are there, the employees and the people that go. And I was driving there and I saw someone in their mid-20s throw like a Dunkin' Donuts cup kind of dramatically up in the air. And it landed on their front lawn. And I said, whatever. And I parked my car and I walk into the gym. I actually crossed paths with the guy. And I said to him, hey brother, I'm not trying to bust your balls because I've littered too, but Bangor is a nice city and we want to keep it nice, so if you don't mind, would you pick it up? And he kind of looked at me and he's like, sure, whatever, I'll pick it up, but do you care if I do on my way back? I said, no, I'm not going to chase you over a bottle, right? And that was it, go work out. Then I get back in my car, you know, right on the street Broadway, you know, going back home, and I happen to see him coming back. I just stop at the stop sign just watching. He doesn't see me and he picked it up and he put in his bag and probably disposed of it properly. And I think that's just a small example of accountability that we can all do with each other. And if you do it in an approachable kind friendly way, it's nice. You just say to people, hey, this is Bangor, it's a nice city and we want to keep it nice, so please don't litter. And the reason I bring it up is because last week someone dumped a ton of garbage in my front lawn. It dumped like rusty metals like a cooler, it was trash or just like kind of a lot of stuff. And I wasn't happy about it and I actually contacted the city and they took care of it, they took care of it the same day. So thanks to the city for taking care of it, parks and rec did a great job, really appreciate it. But someone told me, they said, hey, I saw that person dumping all that trash in your lawn. And I thought to myself, why didn't you say something, right? And as citizens, I think it's okay for us to hold people accountable and say hey it's not cool to litter in bangor it's not cool to leave your trash here wherever you want this is a nice city and we want to keep it nice and i think you know the city leading with empathy and compassion i like that those are great things that we should do but i think having standards is extremely important and we all should leave with kindness but we need to have some expectations so what i want to say to everybody in the room and anybody watching is if you see someone litter, be kind about it, but say this is a nice city, we want to keep it nice. And if you see someone littering in my front lawn, definitely do it. Just kidding around, but that's it. So you know, that's it. Thanks for your time. [51:35] Susan Faloon: Thank you. Do we have anyone else in the room who would like to speak? And do we have anyone [51:48] Karen Quirk (public commenter): registered? We have two folks registered for Zoom comment, but neither of them are online at the [51:54] Susan Faloon: moment. Okay, well with that, we will end the public comment period and we will move on to the consent [52:03] Lisa Goodwin: agenda. Madam Chair. Sorry, Madam Clerk. Minutes of Bangor City Council regular meeting of July 13th, 2026. 26-238, order authorizing the execution of a municipal quick claim deed for real estate located at 36 Grove Street. 26-239, order authorizing the execution of a municipal quick claim deed for real estate located at 166 Larkin Street. 26-240, order authorizing the city manager to execute a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Bangor and the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 714 representing transit drivers. 26-241, order authorizing the city manager to enter into a construction contract or DBU Construction Inc. to horizontal directional drill under I-95 for sewer improvements. Madam [52:58] Daniel Carson: Chair, I move passage of our consent agenda. Second. [53:04] Susan Faloon: The consent agenda has a motion and a second. Roll call vote, Madam Clerk. [53:14] Lisa Goodwin: You don't need a roll call vote if there's no doubt. [53:19] Susan Faloon: Okay, we have no referrals to committee in first reading, so we will move to, oh, I'm sorry. The item has passage. We will move to the referrals to committee in first reading and there are none. Next, we will go to Unfinished Business. Madam Clerk. [53:39] Lisa Goodwin: 26-222, Ordinance Amending the Code of the City of Bangor to Modify the Duties and Responsibilities of the Legislative Committee. Councillor Carson. Thank you, Madam Clerk. [53:50] Daniel Carson: On February 25th, 2026, the Bangor City Council established a standing legislative committee to liaise with the city's state legislative delegation and other elected officials on legislative matters of city interest, provide the city state legislative delegation and other elected officials with input on legislative proposals, and seek sponsorship of legislation that is in the city's interest. Council wishes to include additional duties and responsibilities within the scope of the standing legislative committee to commit to permit the committee to engage in conversations with candidates for office other than candidates for Bangor City Council. Partners and other stakeholders on topics falling within the purview of the legislative committee. This item is being amended by substitution so that it is clear that the permitted conversations with candidates for office do not include candidates for Bangor City Council. Madam Chair, I move passage of Council Ordinance 26-222. Second. [54:55] Susan Faloon: Item number 26-222 has a motion and a second. Chair, I wish to, I move to amend by substitution Council Ordinance [55:07] Daniel Carson: 26-222, replacing this version with the version in our packet that has the appropriate language of prohibiting conversations with Bangor City Councilors. Second, we have a motion and a second [55:25] Susan Faloon: second to amend item 26 dash 222. do we have any comments Madam Chair I'd like to make [55:35] Carolyn Fish: a comment about this. Was discussed in workshop and there were reasons discussed that we thought were would be beneficial for candidates, but I've given it a lot of thoughts since those initial conversations and I won't be voting for this because after further consideration, candidates obviously for Bangor City Council having conversations, for those that are not on council but advocating or are campaigning to be on council, I just, I think those same concerns would lie with me as well with legislative candidates that have not yet been voted in. I just think that could present some problems that I'm concerned about. And even though initially I was all set with this, after further consideration, I'm not comfortable with that. And I just wanted to explain my change of opinion about that. [56:40] Susan Faloon: Thank you, any other comments? So we have a motion to amend in a second in on item number 26-222 and a roll call vote madam clerk councillor beck yes councillor carson [56:57] Lisa Goodwin: yes councillor dean yes councillor fish no councillor leonard yes councillor maller no councillor walker [57:13] David Szewczyk: Point of order, Chair. Public comment can be had, but this is a [57:18] Susan Faloon: Motion to amend by substitution. Yeah, so we, yeah, we will accept public comment after. Yeah, Council Walker. Yes, absolutely. Yes, six yes, two no. Okay, the motion to amend item number 26-222 [57:38] Daniel Carson: has passage. Madam Chair, I wish to move passage of Council Ordinance 26-222 as amended. Second. [57:50] Susan Faloon: Item number 26-222 has a motion and a second. Do we have any comments? My [58:04] Jacqueline Smallwood (public commenter): name is Jackie Smallwood. I am asking you to vote no on Ordinance 26-222. I'm opposed to this ordinance. I do not believe it's in the best interest of the city or council to expand the reach of the legislative committee in any way beyond the ward. The wording, look at the scope. This committee can now engage in conversations with candidates for office on any topic falling within the purview of the committee. That purview could touch housing, homelessness, ICE, opioid fundings, and countless other topics. The counselor heading this legislative committee is Counselor Carson. This counselor has remained on the board of directors with Food and Medicine despite this non-profit's active involvement in helping him and two other counselors get elected. Food and Medicine openly postures itself around political positions and actions concerning candidates and political issues. There are other councilors on this board who have also tipped their hand to their political ideology, and for those exact reasons, the legislative committee's role should not be allowed to be amended beyond its founding structure. Keeping this committee's integrity and transparency on the up and up should be top priority. If this council genuinely wants the legislative committee talking to campaigns, dialogue should be put in writing with real guardrails and public disclosures of who was contacted and why. Thank you. [59:37] Hillary Simmons (public commenter): Hillary Simmons, resident of Bangor. Well, the ordinance specifies excludes candidates from Bangor City Council. It still permits discussion with candidates seeking other elected offices. That raises an important question. Why should a city committee be meeting with candidates before they are even elected? Even if these conversations are well-intentioned, they can create the appearance that the city is favoring certain candidates over giving some greater access than others. Public confidence in government depends not only on fairness, but also on the appearance of fairness. Another concern is transparency. These discussions may shape the city's legislative priorities before they ever come before the full council. Residents deserve to know who is influencing the city's agenda. agenda, what issues are being discussed, and whether all viewpoints are being considered. The ordinance also uses broad language such as partners and other stakeholders. Those terms are vague. Who qualifies as a stakeholder? Who decides what clear definitions, excuse me, the scopes of the committee's authority could continue to expand over time. Major legislative priorities should be debated openly by the entire city council during public meetings not developed through committees, conversations that many residents may never hear about. If the purpose of this amendment is simply to improve communication with state officials, then there should also be stronger safeguards. Those could include requiring public summaries of meetings, clearly defining who the committee may meet with and requiring the full council to approve the legislative positions. And they are advocating on behalf of all of the city, Bangor residents deserve an open, transparent government where important policy decisions are made in public, not behind closed doors or through expanded committee authority. For these reasons, I respectfully ask you to vote against this ordinance. [1:01:40] Susan Faloon: Any other comments? Item number 22, 26-222. Oh, sorry. [1:01:48] Philip Henry (public commenter): That's okay. No. So, Philip Henry, Bangor resident. And I think based on some of the comments that were already brought to the attention of the council in terms of conflict of interest potentials with food and medicine having campaigned for many of you, know, opioid settlement funds being distributed amongst a group of nonprofits, there is also some concern from the citizens that there is some bias happening already. And so to put something forward like this after you've already been approached by the public and asked to be much more transparent, much more clear on discussions, who is benefiting from what it would just be one more step in a direction where there's where there's some lack of transparency happening. There's some freedom to meet and discuss things similar to food and medicine. They campaign for a group of individuals that have a specific ideology and belief, right? It's not an equal situation. So there's concerns from citizens, and I just encourage you to vote no. There's a reason that is in place as is, to protect and to have guardrails. And now you're looking to remove those and provide additional ambiguity when there already is a lot of ambiguity and concern from the citizens. So thank you. Thank you. [1:03:16] Mike Burrell (public commenter): Mike Burrow, resident of Bangor. After hearing all these, I encourage you all to vote no against this. Has the flavor of we don't have the candidates we want, we want to try to get the candidates we need. It just, it doesn't make any sense to me. There's a, there's a political process out there. Just use the political process. It's like you're trying to force your own agenda. We have a lot of activists right now on the city council, and this is not a good idea. So I encourage all of you to vote no against. This, I'm very concerned this is going to have some bad implications and repercussions down the road. Thank you. Thank you, Madam. [1:03:56] Daniel Carson: Chair, I just want to make a comment. I want to appreciate everybody who just stood up and made some public comment. I want to share that in the committee, the idea around this language change was not to pick candidates for office or to put forward a specific ideology. In fact, the committee, I know all the members are committed to acting in a nonpartisan way. And that committee is compelled in its ordinance to report to the full city council. It doesn't have the authority to just move and to do what it wants. But I do wanna appreciate the concerns that people raise. And I think that with the comments that I'm hearing, there is enough concern out here that I want to encourage my fellow city councillors also to vote no on this amendment or on this ordinance. [1:04:55] Susan Faloon: Thank you, Councillor Carson. Item number 26-222 has a motion and a second. And roll call, we'll vote. Madam Clerk? Councillor Beck? [1:05:12] Lisa Goodwin: No. Council Carson, no. Council Dean, no. Council Fish, no. Council Leonard, no. Council Maller, no. Council Walker, no. Council Falloon, no. Zero yes. Next item, Madam Clerk. 26-237, ordinance amending chapter 33 code of ethics to add sections 33-22 response deadline and 33-23 council response to an ethics board advisory opinion. Council Leonard. Thank you. [1:05:59] Joseph Leonard: Madam Clerk. This ordinance will amend Chapter 33, Code of Ethics, to add sections 3322, Response Deadline, and 3323, Council Response to an Ethics Board Advisory Opinion. This addition to the City's Code of Ethics would establish a deadline of 120 days for the City's Board of Ethics to field a referral from the City Council, conduct its work, and draft and issue its written advisory opinion to the City Council. It also provides its investigation and issue its written findings within the 120 days. The deadline is intended to be sufficient for most matters while preserving the Council oversight over the pace of the process and while providing flexibility in instances where additional time is needed. The addition to the Ethics Code also provides a procedure for the Council to follow when the Ethics Board's written advisory opinion is received by the Council. Currently, the City's Ethics Code does not contain any procedure for the Council to follow after receiving an Ethics Board advisory opinion. The proposed addition also provides a framework for considering an appropriate penalty in the event the City Council finds a violation or violations of the Code of Ethics has occurred. This item was reviewed and recommended for approval at the Government Operations Committee meeting on July 6, 2026. Madam Chair, I make a motion in favor of Ordinance 26-237. Second item. [1:07:28] Susan Faloon: 26-237 has a motion and a second. Are there any comments? [1:07:36] Michael Beck: Councilor Beck. Yeah, do we receive any feedback that you're aware of from the Board of Ethics about this? [1:07:45] David Szewczyk: Council Chair? Yes, go ahead. Yes, City Solicitor David Szewczyk. I spoke at length with the Chair of the Ethics Board about numerous provisions that he wanted to talk about regarding the provision, including the deadline and the procedures and the options and such, and there were there were a lot of opinions that he had, but ultimately the Chair indicated that the draft is acceptable to them, and if there are changes that they would suggest that they would look at that at a later time. Thank you. [1:08:38] Susan Faloon: Any other questions, comments? Any comments from the public? Adam. [1:08:51] Adam Baker (public commenter): Baker being a resident all my words of my own and do not reflect any committee. I just want to advocate that I think this is a good change. I think the board of ethics should have more power in a sense to hold city council and others accountable. I mean what's the point of having a board of ethics if we do an investigation we find something wrong and then we do nothing about it? So I'm just advocating for more of a standard so thank you. [1:09:23] Susan Faloon: thank you and i just like to clarify i presented this and i just want to be clear that it this was not because of any action taken against a particular counselor it was more about the fact that when something went to the ethics committee and then it came back to us there was that question of now what and so this really clarifies the now what and also it was designed to kind of tighten up that timeline so that when there is an ethics referral that it doesn't kind of hang out there for an extended period of time but this was not related to any action on any particular counselor with that said item 26-237 has a motion and a second a roll [1:10:15] Lisa Goodwin: call vote madam clerk council beck yes council carson yes council dean yes council fish yes council leonard yes that's the mallard yes that's the walker yes that's the falloon yes eight yes zero no item [1:10:34] Susan Faloon: item 26-237 has passage moving on to new business madam clerk public hearing [1:10:45] Lisa Goodwin: hearing application for special amusement license of Pike and Pepper LLC doing business as Barlemans [1:10:50] Michael Beck: to Hammond Street counselor back thank you Madam Clerk sorry Madam Chair I move that we open the public hearing for the application for special amusement license of Pike and Pepper LLC doing business as Barlemans to Hammond Street second okay [1:11:09] Susan Faloon: any questions or concerns we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing if anyone has anything to say please come up seeing [1:11:22] Michael Beck: no one approach and no one online and i'm chair i move we close the public hearing second the public [1:11:28] Susan Faloon: hearing for the application for special amusement license of pike and pepper llc dba barlemans to [1:11:35] Michael Beck: hammond street is closed i'm chair i move passage of the application for special amusement license of Pike and Pepperd LLC doing business as Barlemans to Hammond Street second we [1:11:48] Susan Faloon: have a motion and we have a second roll call vote madam clerk oh okay sorry my apologies next item I'm sorry the application for special amusement license of Pike and Pepperd LLC DBA Barlemans to Hammond Street has passage public [1:12:13] Lisa Goodwin: Hearing application for special amusement license of American Cruise Lines, Inc., doing business as American Independence and American Constitution, Float Dock 5, Bangor Wharf, Council of Beck. [1:12:23] Michael Beck: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Madam Chair, I move we open the public hearing for the application for special amusement license of American Cruise Lines, Inc., doing business as American Independence and American Constitution, Float Dock 5, Bangor Wharf. Second. [1:12:37] Susan Faloon: We have a motion and a second to open the public hearing for the application for special amusement license of American Cruise Airlines DBA American Independence and American Constitution float dock 5 Bangor Wharf the public hearing is open see [1:12:55] Michael Beck: No one approaching no online I move we close the public hearing the public [1:13:00] Susan Faloon: hearing for the special amusement license of American Cruise Lines DBA American Independence and American Constitution is closed ma'am chair I move passage for the application for a special [1:13:14] Michael Beck: Amusement license for American Cruise Lines Incorporated doing business as American Independence and American Constitution float dock 5 Bangor Wharf second any [1:13:25] Susan Faloon: Comments the special amusement license for American Cruise Lines DBA American Independence and American Constitution float dock 5 Bangor Wharf has passage 26 [1:13:42] Lisa Goodwin: -242 order authorizing the execution of a credit enhancement agreement with Bangor Housing Development Corporation for a portion of the property addressed at 205 Corporate Drive, Councilor Leonard. [1:13:53] Joseph Leonard: Thank you Madam Clerk. This order authorizes the execution of a credit enhancement agreement with Bangor Housing Development Corporation for a portion of the property addressed at 205 Corporate Drive. The Bangor Housing Development Corporation has an option to purchase from the City of Bangor the noted property for the purpose of constructing 30 units of supportive housing. This district will capture the added value to the property for investment back into the property as the city may choose. This credit enhancement agreement proposed to return 75% of the real estate taxes paid on the subject property contained in the proposed TIF district for a period of 30 years. Under the requirements of the city policy, this credit enhancement agreement meets the general principles to encourage new affordable housing investment. It's also in keeping with the 2022 Comprehensive Plan for Affordable Housing and Supportive Housing Creation, as well as the council's priorities for housing development under the main statute 5250-a affordable housing tax increment financing. This is a public hearing. Madam Chair, I make a motion on order 26-242. Second. [1:15:06] Shaymalini (public commenter): Item. [1:15:09] Susan Faloon: 26-242 has a motion and a second. Any comments? Yes. [1:15:18] Richard Chaucer (public commenter): My name is Richard Chaucer. I've been involved with the housing stuff for many years in different states. Here in Bangor, Maine we seem to be stuck in a pill. We have a word here says supportive housing. Where in this motion is the taxpayer to know what supportive housing is? How do we know what implements must be in place for this to take effect? How do we know you're going to be able to we're going to be able to capture and implement this we've tried this many times with different programs and different acronyms what are we going to mean for supportive housing does supportive housing mean yes we're going to pick a person up off the street that needs supports what do you mean by support to mental health counseling supports as physicals supporting and helping an individual get to a doctor helping a support person with transportation. And if we are saying okay all this will be fighting dandy what bids or what our rfps have been submitted to the council and approved for the council we're supportive this what i mean because it sounds good on paper but where because what it looks like to me is yes we're going to build this and we're going to have this but when it comes time to pay the piper people aren't going to have any supports not going to have case managers we're going to have organizations that fall back on what they're. Like what they say they're going to do where is that in the contract and agreement i'm not trying to be a jerk i'm being serious because next door there's a lot of crap going on there and that wasn't the rfp i've done my homework i really have him and folks please what is in this and how and how long and how and we use credits what are the credit numbers what are the numbers i'm just curious thank you thank you. [1:17:29] Philip Henry (public commenter): Okay my name is Philip Henry Bangor property owner and I'm here on items 26242 26243 Tonight, this council is being asked to approve a 30-year tax rebate for the 30-unit development at Corporate Drive. Total cost, $11.2 million. That's $373,000 per unit, and the project's already about $1 million short. Here is the math that this council should consider before voting. At Bangor's current mill rate, a fully assessed $11.2 million building generates $176,000 per year in property taxes. And we are recently we've all received our significant increases based on the budget under the TIF agreement you are voting on tonight that city gives back 75% of those funds and it says I'm just if the same city land and these same TIF incentives have been offered to a private developer with the same eleven point two million dollar budget at a construction cost of about two hundred $111,000 per door. That developer builds 53 units instead of 30, and they pay 100% of the property taxes, which is about $4 million of additional tax revenue over 30 years, and 23 more housing units occupied by working families who contribute to the local economy instead of 30 units of permanent supportive housing with no treatment requirement and no defined exit. The citizens of Bangor have seen this pattern before. When the methadone clinics were approved, the argument was the same. We are helping the most vulnerable. What followed is documented history. Bangor became a regional destination. Our population is 30,000. We absorb the region's highest need population, and the consequences are visible every day. Encampments, discarded needles, public safety incidents, businesses and families that are choosing to live elsewhere and not in Bangor. Permanent supportive housing with 24 seven onsite services. No treatment requirement is the same model. It carries the same risk. And we're locked in for 30 years, regardless of what happens on the ground. The HUD secretary had said housing first model is dead. It's obsolete. It hasn't functioned. It's wasted a lot of taxpayer money. So before the council votes yes tonight, three questions on public record. What is the specific measurable outcome that justifies locking in 30 years of tax relief, and what happens to this agreement if that outcome is not achieved? As this council calculated what a private developer could build on the same land with the same incentives, how much more tax revenue could that generate for a city who's asking its citizens to pay more real estate taxes because they don't have enough revenue, given that HUD officially changes funding model away from housing first and to a treatment first, recovery first model. I think the taxpayers of Bangor deserve to see, to have some of those answers before we vote. Based on the fact that the past typically predicts the future, and in the past these housing first models with no accountability, no sobriety, no requirement on behalf, is destined to fail. Thank you. Thank you. I'm [1:20:49] Linda Debe (public commenter): Linda D, Bank taxpayer, Mayor Bangor. And I agree, you know, we need to be smart about it. There has to be specifications in there. You just can't say you're going to build 30 units. And we're going to provide care because we don't have enough social workers, we don't have enough care managers, we don't have enough medical professionals, we don't have enough mental health professionals. So you can build 30 units, but it's going to become a drug house if we don't have the resources to provide the care that they need. You know, I'm all for are helping people with, you know, recovery, and god knows my family's been through it, but you know we need to have specific specifications in there. They have to be measurable. There has to be accountability. There has to be the resource people to provide the things that we need before we start forking out more money for something that's not going to work. So I too think that we need to have more specifications in there before we approve something like this. Thank you. Thank you. [1:21:55] Rich Trott (public commenter): My name is Rich Trot. I'm a resident here. I want to talk about basic supply and demand and economics of what you're trying to accomplish here. I'm here tonight to urge you to look beyond the immediate appeal of subsidized units and consider the long-term economic damages approaches afflicting on our broader housing market. By continually proving only subsidized housing, we are inadvertently creating the very housing shortage we are trying to solve. The economic reality is that subsidized housing Distorts the free market. Each year HUD and subsidized housing programs survey local landlords to establish a baseline of maximum rental rates, often referred to as fair market value. But here is the critical flaw: because subsidized housing artificially compresses these rates, it pulls the entire market downward. While lower rents might sound like a victory, they have a devastating secondary effect. They make free market housing construction financially unfeasible. Developers simply cannot justify the high cost of land, materials, and labor when the rental returns are artificially suppressed by government intervention. The data supports this. Academic research, such as the prominent study published in the Journal of Public Economics, demonstrates that subsidized housing projects severely crowd out private development. In fact, studies show that for every subsidized unit built, private construction can fall by nearly the same amount. What does this mean for the city? It means new housing starts are stagnant. The only new construction we've seen in recent years has been subsidized because the private sector is effectively locked out of the building. We are left with less overall housing. Less housing inevitably leads to higher demand and, paradoxically, higher rent for everyone who doesn't win the lottery for a subsidized unit. The housing market is capable of regulating itself. When demand rises, private developers build to meet that demand, man. Naturally subsidizing the prices. But when the city continually steps in, putting its thumb on the scale to prioritize subsidized project, the market never gets a chance to correct itself. We are trapped in a perpetual cycle. The city builds a few subsidized units for overpriced private builders walk away, the shortage worsens, and the city feels compelled to build more subsidized units. I urge the council to reject this project and instead focus on policies that remove barriers to free market construction. Let the market build housing we desperately need. Thank [1:24:06] Joseph Leonard: you. Thank [1:24:08] Susan Faloon: you, Jackie. [1:24:14] Jacqueline Smallwood (public commenter): Smallwood, I'm taxpayer president. I'm here asking you to table order 26, 242, and 243 tonight and bring it back for a proper first reading. These two orders are directly tied to Ellen Pines, the housing first model that is currently being built with and whose developer or has openly admitted that they are between 600,000 and a million dollars short on funding and behind schedule. The city already sold this land to Bangor Housing Development Corporation, 4.8 acres, for a discounted price of 120,000. My question tonight is simple. Was this 75 tax giveaway part of the plan when this project was first announced, or is this a new ask tonight without a first reading because the funding gap this council already knows about hasn't been closed? In part of how that gap actually got closed in 30 years is 30 years of the city giving up most of its tax revenue on this property. The public deserves to know that. I'd also ask whether the construction contract on this project was competitively bid. Also worth noting, this project's housing first model was changed when HUD announced a new model that required treatment before housing in June. As of a few weeks ago the battle is back on and being hashed out in the courts again. I'm not questioning whether people need housing. I'm asking whether the city is being straight with taxpayers about the real cost when you add up a below market land sale, a credit enhanced agreement handing back three-quarters of the taxes to the developer, and now forming a TIF district on top of that, all while the federal money being the federal money behind the project is genuinely unsettled. There are still a lot of unknowns that may be in the city's best interest to resolve before this vote is pushed through bypassing the first reading. Thank you. Thank you. [1:26:13] Richard Chaucer (public commenter): Yes I have some, I have some data too that I could bring up too. Oh sir, I'm sorry, you're only allowed to speak once. Okay and the next I could bring in the next issue it's about data next door it's fragmented. Okay thank you. I'm [1:26:30] Mike (public commenter/contractor): Mike, I live in Bangor, I'm a contractor, I built 400 houses in Bangor, a thousand statewide, I mean excuse me, a little horse voice here. We just completed a 60 townhouse project, 1540 square feet each, so you could fit almost four of these units that they're proposing. The total cost was 11.5 million dollars. We gave the city 53,000 just in our building permits, not counting plumbing, heating, and electrical permits, so it was pretty close to a hundred thousand dollars. My problem is I just cannot wrap the day like throw a dart at a dart board, you know, with numbers on it, and come up with 11.2 million, and then in excess of that, because this project, should the 30 units, should easily be able to be built out for no more than four million dollars, and that would be with a contractor stuffing a million dollars in their pocket. I actually figured it today, and I believe there's a supportive building attached to it to this project, or they were thinking about it one time, I figured that also at about 1.5 million dollars, so looking at between five and six million dollars, depending on what the project really is. We are one of the last contractors standing in the city of Bangor, private contractors, everybody else has moved on to other towns, Herman, Orno, Levant, Carmel, so I just like I say, I don't know how they come up with the number, but if they want someone to review it with them, I'd be happy. Thank you, Mike [1:28:18] Mike Burrell (public commenter): Burrow, resident, Bangor. I do urge the council to vote this down. Hey, it sounds great. It's on paper. These are going to be beautiful places, definitely overpriced. But let me bring your attention to the porta-potties. We had 175 soap dispensers ripped off the wall. We have seven towel dispensers ripped off the wall. And I don't know how, but five doors of steel porta-potties ripped off the container that had to be replaced at a cost of over $200,000-some thousand. Okay, let's look at COVID, the Ramada Inn. It costs us $2 million to renovate that place. My point is, if you give somebody something for nothing, they have no skin in the game. And what's going to happen is they don't care. They're going to destroy these places, yeah, $300-some thousand per unit. That is a lot of money. Those are going to be very nice. They're going to be destroyed in short order. and then the city's going to be stuck going in and doing repair after repair after repair. These people that they don't have any skin in the game, they have, they have nothing to give, they're giving something for free. I think it's a bad idea, and I encourage the city council to [1:29:29] Susan Faloon: vote against it. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments? Sir, please. Hi [1:29:42] Jason Fish (public commenter): my name is jason fish i think you all need to look at what kind of messages sends to private investors out there 's a lot of guys here tonight who have put their heart and soul in the city of bangor all these seats you sit in this building the electricity is all paid by our tax dollars everybody who is invested into the city we're not getting tax rebates for our investments we spend hundreds and thousands of dollars ourselves and friends here tonight have done the same i think it's important that you sit down and you think about who's in this community you can reach out to. Any of these guys, I'm sure they'd be happy to sit down and speak with you. These costs are outrageous, and giving these benefits does not help the private investor. No one wants to invest in Bangor. We don't, we moved away. I grew up here, I've been here for 30 plus years. We moved out of the city, we don't invest here anymore. It's a, it's a heartache. I mean, the last time we did an investment I had to jump through a million hoops, spend tons of money, and we barely make ends meet. And just like this poor guy, you know, he's trying to get it figured out. You guys have the power to change regulations, these codes, these move back codes, these IBC codes. They're going to get worse, they're not getting better. And there's suitable housing that's out there, you just need to make it happen. A lot of guys own a ton of property that can make a third unit, but no, there's, there's not enough square footage for parking. Give me a break. Not everyone has a car. I think it's time to just sit down. You guys have the experience in this community, you know, take the time and realize that the tax dollars come from these guys. If they leave with their money, it doesn't matter. Non-profits haven't paid for one seat in here, not one dollar. Thank you. Thank you, Madam [1:31:16] Michael Beck: Chair. I'd like to make a motion to postpone this item until the meeting of August 10th, 2026. [1:31:27] Susan Faloon: Do we have a second? Item number 26-242 has a motion and a second to postpone. Any comments? Roll [1:31:44] Carolyn Fish: oh go ahead if i could make a point a comment originally when It came up to give the option to sell this land. I opposed it. But it is a democracy and I got outvoted. So then it was to look at the services and the plan for this property. And we do need services wrapped around housing. We need mental health services. We need supportive services. And I'm all for that, especially for our vulnerable group that 's where we're lacking. We're lacking mental health and rehab and prevention programs, and to go in that direction, I'm pleased with, I'm not pleased with giving up 4.7 acres of precious city land for the city residents for the benefit of the majority. So I was hoping that we could come up with something more creative with less land than 4.7 acres and, but that ship sailed, so now here we are. However, I would like to attach some restrictions to protect our future from what I feel is a bad decision already made that we have to live with. But I think we still have time to implement some restrictions and requirements, so if something fails with this project, this property comes back to the city of Bangor. I'm one counselor, but I think we all feel tonight that there's a lot of questions raised, and I'd also don't think this sends a good message to our developers and our private citizens who, citizens who are investing, you know, to get this kind of a tax break or 70, you know, percent for 30 years. I don't blame you guys for being upset. So I'm, I'm all for postponing this and, you know, and see where we can work collaboratively listening to the public and see what we can do with this. Thank you, council. [1:33:42] Michael Beck: Back. Yeah, I moved to postpone it. Just I need more time. I think we all need more time. I don't think we have enough time to discuss what the possibilities are for making sure we get the best deal possible for Bangor. So I mean, taking those couple of weeks to really look at the options and give the city manager a really solid set of instructions for what the council wants to see, I think that's the right move, so that's why I moved to postpone. Thank [1:34:08] Susan Faloon: you. Any other comments? Well, we did wrap up the comment period. Yeah, if the vote now is to postpone, so if we do postpone, then you will have an opportunity to speak on this when it comes up on August 3rd, 10th, August 10th. So item 26-242 has a motion and a second, so we'll need a roll call vote. Madam Clerk. Council Beck. Yes. Council Carson. Yes. Council Dean. Yes. Hustle Fish. Yes. [1:34:55] Lisa Goodwin: Hustle Leonard. Yes. Hustle Mallor. Yes. Hustle Walker. Yes. Hustle Falloon. Yes. Eight yes, zero no. [1:35:06] Susan Faloon: The motion on item 26-242 to postpone has passage. [1:35:16] Lisa Goodwin: 26-243, order authorizing the creation of a tax increment financing district for affordable housing for a portion of property addressed at 205 Corporate Drive with Bangor Housing [1:35:27] Joseph Leonard: of Development Corporation. Council Leonard. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I think I will also make a motion to postpone this order as well, 26-242. Second. Okay. [1:35:43] Susan Faloon: Item 26-243 has a motion and a second to postpone. Are there any comments? Excuse me, point of order. Is the motion to postpone to the same [1:35:55] David Szewczyk: date? Affirmative. Yes. Oh. [1:36:03] Susan Faloon: So we have the motion and the second, and we will need a roll call vote. [1:36:07] Lisa Goodwin: Madam Clerk, Councillor Beck? Yes. Councillor Carson? Yes. That's the Dean? Yes. That's the Fish? Yes. That's the Leonard? Yes. That's the Mallor? Yes. That's the Walker? Yes. That's the Balloon? Yes. Eight yes, zero no. [1:36:29] Susan Faloon: Sorry, the motion on item 26-243 to postpone has passage. Next item. [1:36:38] Lisa Goodwin: 26-244, order finding Council on Wayne Mallar violated three provisions of the city's ethics code by his actions on August 14th, 2025, during a recess of a meeting of the city's historic preservation commission, and imposing a requirement to undergo training. Council of Dean? Thank you. Thank you, Madam Clerk. [1:36:57] Susan Deane: This order would find that Councillor Mallar's conduct at the August 14, 2025 Historic Preservation Commission meeting violated three provisions of the City's Code of Ethics and would impose a requirement that Councillor Mallar undergo training with the City's legal department on the appropriate use of titles and disclaimers. Councillor Mallar approached the Commission during a recess of the meeting while some members of the public, including the person with an application before the Commission at the meeting, were not present in the hearing room. Councillor Mallar made comments to at least one Commissioner within hearing range of other Commissioners regarding the subject matter of the pending application. Whether Councillor Mallar's statements to the Commissioners were being made in his capacity as City Councillor or as a private citizen was left ambiguous. By approaching the Commission during a recess without the applicant present and discussing the subject matter of the pending application, Councillor Mallory's actions could diminish public confidence in the integrity of the City's government. This matter was investigated and reviewed by the City's Board of Ethics and the Board submitted a written advisory opinion to the Council. This order follows the recommendations made by the Board, including finding that Councillor Mallory's actions violated Section 33-13.B of the City's Code of Ethics, which prohibits a city councilor from using his titles unless the official makes it clear and unambiguous that the official is speaking in his individual capacity and not on behalf of the city council. Section 33-13.1c, which places an affirmative duty on the city councilor when there could be ambiguity to make a disclaimer indicating he is speaking in his individual capacity and not on behalf of the City Council, and Section 33-1, which requires City Councilors to maintain a standard of conduct that will inspire public confidence in the integrity of the City's government. This order also follows the Ethics Board findings that Councillor Mallory's actions did not violate Section 33-13.1 or any additional provisions of the Code of Ethics. I move passage of Council Order 26-244. Second. [1:39:19] David Szewczyk: [1:39:22] Susan Faloon: Item number 26-244 has a motion and a second. Are there any comments from the council? Any comments from the public? My [1:39:40] Scott Party (public commenter): name is Scott Party. I'm a citizen of Bangor, and how this is something I was going to present to the workshop, but I wasn't allowed to speak. We are standing here watching this council waste precious hours to sanction Councilor Mallory. Let's be honest about what a sanction actually is. It's an empty gesture. It carries absolutely no legal weight, yet you are spending public time and resources on it. All it does is open dangerous floodgate for a never-ending cycle of retaliation and retail retaliatory ethics charges back and forth, and we've been seeing this right along with all of you. If we're going to talk about ethics, let's look at the bigger picture, because not a single person up there can claim they have never crossed a line. It is unethical. It was unethical for Council Leonard to use a local municipal meeting to grandstand on a national political issue that have a zero, that had zero to do with running the city of Bangor, because the chair failed in their duty and unethically refused to Gavel down and stop this distraction. It triggered yet another ethical failure. Counselor Fish chose to walk out of the out of the meeting, abandoning her post and failing to vote on the city budget, a direct violation of the city charter, which explicitly states that she must vote. Look at what you were doing. One rule violation leads to another, which leads to a walkout, which leads to a sanction, which leads to more investigations. It is a carousel of dysfunction function. It's really kind of fun to watch though. Believe me when I tell you this looks terrible on all of you. The public doesn't see one righteous side punishing a wrongdoer. We are seeing a governing body completely consumed by infighting, wasting time on finger pointing while our taxes go up and our actual local problems go unaddressed. Drop the theater, stop the endless cycle of ethics charges and get back to the business of managing the city [1:41:43] Bruce Campbell (public commenter): please and thank you thank you my [1:41:52] Jacqueline Smallwood (public commenter): name is Jackie Smallwood. I'm not here to argue Councillor Mallar's case. The board of ethics reviewed it, after nearly a year found three narrow violations, and training is being recommended. This council is about to formally resolve the case about one ambiguous remark. Meanwhile, six weeks ago on June 10th, 10 separate formal ethics complaints were sent to this board. Every one of them involves actual money and conflicts. One doc one documents a committee member whose employer received thirty nine thousand dollars from a public grant she helped to oversee with no recusal on record. Two more document appointed committee members whose employers, a housing developer and healthcare service provider, stand to directly benefit from the exact policies these members were appointed to shape, again with no disclosures filed. Another documents a pattern across an entire committee, members voting on grants to their own employers, and one directing $550,000 toward her own city department. If this council feels it's important to hold Councillor Mallar to the high standards of ethics codes, So as not to erode the public confidence and the integrity of the city's government, Then the same standards should be held for all counselors and committee members, including Joe Leonard, who publicly slandered the President of the United States a few short weeks ago during a City Council meeting. Tonight, one counselor gets a full counsel order, a public finding, and a corrective action. On the same night, this council tried to fast-track two major financial orders with no first reading at all. If this council can resolve this case in one sitting, it can tell the public when the other six ethics complaints will get the same scrutiny. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing [1:43:43] Susan Faloon: no one else approach, we will, we have, let's see, we have a motion and a second on council order 26-244. Any comments from the council? I think I already asked that. We will have a roll call vote. Point of order. Yes. [1:44:00] David Szewczyk: Counselor Maller should be given an opportunity to speak if he wishes and provide whatever defense he may wish to do so. That's what I wanted to make sure happened before you take a vote. Thanks. [1:44:15] Lisa Goodwin: Council Maller, I agree with the Miss Smallwood. We've wasted enough time. Let's just have the [1:44:23] Linda Debe (public commenter): vote and get it over with. Thank [1:44:27] Lisa Goodwin: you madam clerk councillor beck yes council carson no councillor dean yes council of fish no council leonard yes council walker yes council faloon yes five yes to no item [1:44:53] Susan Faloon: 26-244 has passage, and that wraps up our agenda for tonight. And are there any comments from staff members? No [1:45:09] Philip Henry (public commenter): comments. No comments, I would say. [1:45:13] Bruce Campbell (public commenter): I can. Okay. [1:45:17] Susan Faloon: Counselor Carson, any final comments? [1:45:23] Daniel Carson: I just want to thank the rooms clearing out. I want to thank everybody who came and delivered public comment. I appreciate that absolutely every week, and particularly, you know, as people stay through all of council business and continue to comment, and certainly we are experiencing a lot of challenges across the city, and without hearing from you, we aren't able to appropriately address those. So I really appreciate it every single time, and good night, Bangor. Counselor Back, [1:45:57] Michael Beck: like to thank Counselor Flune for her service tonight. Appreciate it. And, you know, summer's running out, so make sure you get outside and enjoy it. School will be starting before we know it, so let's enjoy summer while we got it. Good night, Bangor. [1:46:14] Susan Deane: Councilor Deane. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good job tonight. Just want to thank the public and the council for bringing up some concerns over some of our orders or ordinances that may need some additional investigation. I do appreciate it, and we will look into it. And good night, Bangor. Councilor Leonard. [1:46:34] Joseph Leonard: I just want to remind the Council that we definitely need to make a vote on whether or not we want to have an emergency session at some point later this week to discuss the Together Place financial issues. So if we can get that underway so that we can determine what that date is to accommodate all of our schedules, that would be phenomenal, and also to the public and Together Place as well. Have a good night, everyone. Councillor Fish? [1:47:05] Carolyn Fish: I want to thank everyone for coming out. It's very important and it does, your voice does matter. As we've seen tonight, sometimes we need to be called out. We need these things pointed out to us. We need to hear everybody's perspective. I'm very grateful for everybody that comes out and speaks up. Thank you very much. Good night, Bangor. Council Mallor. Good night, Bangor. Counselor Walker. [1:47:29] Susan Faloon: Good night, Bangor, and I just want to say thank you for bearing with me. This is my first time in the chair seat, and thank you also to everyone who came to speak out. As you can see, it really does make a difference. So thank you so much. Have a great night, Bangor, and we are adjourned.