Lewiston council advances charter changes, new community development department

[15:26] David B. Chittim: Good evening and welcome to the regularly scheduled council meeting for Lewiston City Council. I am the presiding officer for the evening as the mayor is currently has a an excused absence as well as our ward for council will not hear this evening due to an excused absence. The pledge allegiance I have not chosen anybody to do it so administer cane wrath could you please lead us in [16:02] Bryan Kaenrath: the pledge of so briefly. [16:23] David B. Chittim: I just want to apologize for the delay. We had a couple of executive sessions that ran a little late. The roll call votes will be run how this evening so the roll call votes this evening will be the counselor of Ward board five. The agenda excuse me the agenda says it'll be a word four but that counselor has an excused absence this evening so roll call votes tonight we'll begin with the counselor board five. Thank you madam clerk we have minutes to approve you do the September 1st meeting minutes. Okay can I get a move we accept the minutes as presented second okay madam clerk could you please call the roll to our counselor from word five yes word six yes word seven? Yes. Word one? Yes. Yes. Word two? Yes. Word three? Yes. Motion passed by vote of six to zero. [17:16] David B. Chittim: Perfect, thank you so much. We're surely gonna open up the public comment period. When public comments open, please stick to a three minute speaking time. Also, if you are to have any complaints about city staff in any form they cannot be voiced in public comment you must speak with our administrative staff if you have concerns that you want to address by from city staff so that named if we go to the first public comment is now open if we go to the first speaker and anybody who does want to speak please line up so we can move through I know that there are probably more people than the 18 minutes allows so we'll ask to extend that public comment period and also say keep your public comments germane to city business and let's go. [18:16] Charles Arthur Soul: charles arthur seoul 78 horton street lewis to maine i've asked scott harriman to ask the city council to move number 17 to the first agenda item that deals with the shelter yeah and he's refused and according to robert's rules of parliamentary procedure i believe i had a right to ask as long as i asked that he do it prior to the meeting starting but he's refused and so I guess it will have to wait till number 17 gets here [18:57] David B. Chittim: Excuse me I apologize could you just state your name for the record and your ward you did okay perfect thank you hi. [19:11] Sherry Wag: Good evening, I am Sherry Wag, I'm a Lewiston resident of Ward 2 and a recent member of the public health committee. I'm a nurse practitioner and a primary care provider for some of our most vulnerable elderly residents here in Lewiston. So my prepared comments were to address the mayor, but I'm here tonight to thank you, Mr. Mayor, along with counselors Longchamps, Harriman, and Roy for your public statements of support for the Central Maine Medical Center nurses and their efforts to unionize. I am no longer employed by CMMC but I was for nearly 15 years and I'm standing up and using my voice to advocate for my colleagues who may not feel safe to speak out and for my patients and my neighbors. Like so many of us I was born at CMMC, I gave birth there and I depend on CMMC to be there for me my family and my patients. Prime Health Care and its billionaire CEO may have taken ownership but Central Maine Medical Center is our community hospital and its nurses are our nurses. Please continue to advocate for them as they fight for the safe quality health care we all deserve even with their jobs on the line with eight nurses now on administrative leave after today's informational picket please continue to insist that Prime reinstates the suspended nurses and show them that when they take on one of us in Lewiston they truly do take on all of us. As you outlined in your open letter to Prime Healthcare's leadership they are not delivering on the promises they made when they acquired the hospital as they have time and time again across the country. They are putting profits above all else and it is up to us to hold them accountable. It is imperative that we do so. Lewiston cannot hope to move forward as a city or face our many challenges without a hospital that we can rely on to be fully staffed well-supplied and with all of its services up and running. CMMC is critical city infrastructure and it has been made clear in recent months that we will need to fight to maintain it. Nurses have always led the charge to protect our patients we're taught that we are the last line of defense. Thank you again for standing with us Christopher [21:54] LaRose: LaRose, Ward One. I'm a nine year Army combat veteran. In 2016, when being medically retired from the military, the military would move me and my family anywhere in the United States. We chose to move to Maine. This is a decision I'm starting to regret. How many of you remember playing in the woods, waterways growing up, building tree forts and playing tag? Well, those days are over. Now children are stepping over dirty needles and dodging bullets. As a current 100 disabled veteran, I own three businesses. Founded a local non-profit. I'm a homeowner and commercial property owner. I've hired the homeless, giving them jobs and opportunities. I volunteered my time and money to clean up the trash and dirty needles left by the encampments. I'm not telling you any of this to brag or boast. I'm telling you this to say that community starts at one's own doorstep. If you don't put forth the effort to better yourself, your home and your community, you shouldn't expect others to do it for you. I'd like to talk about the needle exchange. You call it harm reduction. If it's harm reduction, why are you allowing thousands of dirty needles to litter our streets, parks, playgrounds, woods and waterways? Did you know that on a dirty needle HIV can live up to 42 days, hep C 63 days, have be seven days? The list goes on. Now is that harm reduction? I think not. Let's talk about gun violence. In 2008 I signed my name to that dotted line to protect this country from all enemies foreign and domestic. The city is being terrorized by gunfire on a regular basis. It's only a matter of time before some innocent child is hit by a stray bullet. When that happens, will you act? Sad part is probably not. To all the protesters including the mayor that went to Biddeford, angry in the streets. Where are you for the city of Lewiston? Why are you not here protesting the shootings and the rampant drug use in your own city? The fact that you won't enact the National Guard to help combat the violent, drug-addicted streets speaks volumes on your ignorance to the situation. Like myself, the members of the National Guard signed that dotted line. By looking at some of you, the only dotted line you've signed is the credit card bill at the end of dinner. I'll circle back to what I mentioned earlier, a community starting at one's own doorstep. I feel that until it's at your doorstep, you'll continue to do nothing. In the past week, these are the dirty needles and crack pipes I've picked up around my property within just a one block radius. I encourage all like-minded citizens, Lewiston and in Auburn, walk around, pick up your dirty needles, and bring them to your town hall. Here they are, crack pipes, dirty needles. I believe I got 27 seconds left, 24 seconds for you to look at, please. [24:39] John Geary: There. [24:41] David B. Chittim: Should be no, there should be no noise in the, in the chambers. If that happens again, we'll clear the chambers. [24:49] Speaker I (unidentified): It's hard to follow this up, but I have another disturbing situation that happened today on Lizard Street in Lewiston. ICE came down and arrested somebody that was in a building in Lewiston, overstayed his visa, they picked him up. They also had another gentleman that has an active warrant for assault on a police officer, but they had to let him go because the city of Lewiston refuses to work with ICE. That is wrong. We have an active warrant for assault on a police officer, and they had to let him go because they're federal agents and they had no jurisdiction to arrest him on that. They let him walk. A simple call to LPD and they could have had this individual. Something's wrong. Everything's turned upside down. What the hell are we doing in this town? From needles all over the place to allowing people to leave. Council, you need to act. This is wrong, the safety. Remember the lady that got run over and nobody was upset about that? What is it going to take? What is it going to take? What was right is wrong and what's wrong is right. We have to stop this madness. I implore this council to change their view. This is no longer a sanctuary city. This is, we start cooperating with Lewiston Police Department, cooperates with ICE, with state police, with any law enforcement. Everybody wears a badge on their shirt, they should have each other's backs. Thank you. Hi. [26:33] Kim: I'm Kim I'm in Ward 2 we 've had a few meetings where some survivors and family members of the mass shooting had spoken and I'll be honest it broke my heart it just does it breaks me up because ever since that happened a lot of people are chumpy and they're nervous and they're frustrated and then we've got more shooting on a much lower scale and it's really nerve-racking I personally am one of four people that live in the tree Street area that our windshields were smashed in and investigations Are slow I guess in that progress because there was no one arrested, there is no restitution, there's nothing. And if you're a low-income person or no income person, I was out of work for a while, unable to work, I didn't have the funds to replace the windshield, but I got help and I'm very thankful for that. I just want to, I really want to check in with the council to find out, you know, with all that money, like 65,000 was the average that went to the NGOs and around 29,000 went to the victims families. That really, that deeply concerns me. I've been following Bobby and Susan and listening to what they're saying, and they have a right to be ticked off. So I don't know what can be done. I've noticed in my area there's been an uptick in arrests and tickets, misdemeanor stuff, like drinking beer on your porch, smoking a cigarette near the park, all this little stuff. And I don't know if the jails are filling up, but people are coming out and they have fines to pay, they're unemployed, they're disabled, they're a substance use person or they're transient, they don't have that money. And I guarantee you there are some out there that don't, that would love to pay their bill and take care of other bills that they have as well. So my idea is, what if you guys that have that situation, could you, would you be willing to work it off, like if there'd be any kind of community service, that somebody that can't afford to pay for a fine for a city ordinance, that they could work it off. I did look into it, there's nothing available, like it's not a traffic violation or moving violation that would be handled to the court and a judge directly. So I don't know if Lewiston City Council has any thoughts about what kind of resource we could find, and if we could also find a secondary volunteer opportunity for those that participate in the general assistance workfare program. Right now it's mostly through the Root Cellar, it's not a very diverse place in my opinion, and I just would love to see some other options. Stay safe out there, thank [29:28] David B. Chittim: you very much. Kim, we can follow up, you know where to find me, so we can follow up and have a conversation about some of those pieces. The [29:49] Speaker K (unidentified): Neighborhood is painted bright vibrant shades to cover the scars where the memory fades. A mural of hope on a brick wall so high with faces of children who never said goodbye. A block, a clock or two down, where the shadow expands, a needle exchange passes through clean hands. A quiet routine in a desperate fight to trade away darkness for safety and light. But corners are quiet and nobody speaks, a culture of silence that stretches for weeks. When the sidewalk is stained by tragedy young, the secrets are swallowed, the truths stay unsung. For the youth and the guns and the choices they make leave a trail of hearts that will endlessly break. So we paint over pain with a brush and a prayer while the quiet street wonders if anybody cares. My other poem I wrote. The concrete stairwells echo with a less than pleasant scent. Where citizens relieve themselves of coffee they spent. The parking garage floor is a river wide and deep, while the leaders at City Hall are fast asleep. The mayor shifts the blame and says the budget is too tight to hire a single guard or fix a flickering light. We're looking at a study, the administration cries, while the voters hold their breath and look up to the skies. Tourists pay 20 bucks to park their shiny cars only to dodge puddles under broken neon stars. It's a monument of gridlock, a civic minded mess where the public does this business and the mayor does even less. I hope you have a good night everybody and I'd like to tell you a cat joke. Just kitten, just kitten everybody. Okay, have a great night. I [32:13] John Horton: don't know if I can follow that. John Horton, Board 2. You all know why I'm here. I'll be real brief tonight. You all know I'm against the ordinance for the Momo rent stabilization. We've already proven that we've lost income based on the fact that parks have deteriorated as far as evaluations go. They've devalued. That costs the city money. It costs the owners money. One of the things I wanted to say is just because someone up at the State House or other towns are doing it doesn't mean Lewiston has to do it. You people are here for Lewiston people. Like I said, just because others are doing it, a flat CPI doesn't work. With the income just this year, we're far beyond that, any CPI that runs this year. I'll be short and sweet and I'll leave it with a quote like I did one other night. This one from Asar Lynn Beck, a Swedish professor of economics. Next to bombing, rent control seems to be in many cases to be the most efficient technique so far known to destroy cities. Think about it. Hi. [33:32] Lisa Jones: everyone my name is lisa jones i live in ward two and i own a business in ward seven I do not have a prepared comment tonight I thought I might become inspired to speak based on what I heard going on and yes that happened I watched the school committee meeting last night where the school committee and Scott Harriman chose to spend ten thousand more dollars supposedly to stop kids from selling drugs and shooting up our streets if anyone hasn't seen the news today we just had 17 and 18 year olds arrested for selling drugs. I'm not quite sure why they're graduating high school and choosing that as their life path, but they are. Scott said last night that was an investment in public safety, and I yelled at my laptop as I was watching the meeting because he voted against a second drone that could have, you know, served as a patrol officer. And then I think about public safety and I think about ICE and I think about cooperating with Lewiston police and I hear what Rick just had to say and I don't know how anybody can sit on that dais and claim they are in support of public safety, but they passed an ordinance so that criminals cannot be removed, moved from our city. I'm not sure whose best interest you're working for there, but it is not Lewiston residents. There's a government oversight committee meeting tomorrow in Augusta regarding the mass shooting victims' money and the improper allocation of it. I wish I could be there. I cannot not be there because of said business in Ward 7. I hope that any of you who can go do go and represent Lewiston and show the victims and survivors that you care and that you're advocating for them. Or you could also come run my childcare center and I will go to Augusta and support them. That would work for me too. Lastly, right before I came to the meeting, I received an email and I don't have any context with it, but I'm quite often asked to say things on behalf of other people because people know that I have no problem coming up to this podium and speaking. So I'm just gonna read this email that was sent to public comment back in June. Sorry for the people at home that have been in and out with the audio. This email says it has been alleged that Ward 3 Lewiston, Maine City Councilor attempted to take advantage of a young woman who he allowed to sleep in his one apartment building, who he owns without being sheltered, and crawled into her bed without her consent. Victim is too intimidated to come forward due to her circumstances and repetitive homelessness and brutality of male police interrogation procedures. This is clearly something the council needs to investigate, probably appropriate for executive session. Maybe it's happening executive session, but now it's in the public [36:37] David B. Chittim: comment is now closed. Moving on to the agenda, we have two items on the consent agenda. Council president, what, I'm sorry, I apologize, I skipped the admit, I was [36:51] Bryan Kaenrath: copying, sorry about that. I think you're actually the third presiding officer, so [36:56] David B. Chittim: please administrator provide us with the administrators report. All right, thank [37:00] Bryan Kaenrath: you. Administration economic development recently announced funding to help newest businesses launch and existing businesses grow, including loans up to fifty thousand dollars and grants up to forty thousand dollars. The city will offer free application training sessions on September 29th at 5 p.m. at the Louisville Public Library and also on October 13th at 8 a.m. at the LA Metro Chamber of Commerce. Additional dates and program details will be available on the city's website. I want to thank everyone who came out to the 9 11 ceremony at the Lewiston Fire Department last Friday marking the 25th anniversary of September 11th. We also want to thank the Lewiston Fire and Police Department's honor guard as well as the Deansman of Bates College and the five Lewiston High School students who read the names of Maynard's loss in the attacks that day as well as Paul and Claudette Gilbert for sharing their remembrance of Robert who also died on September 11th. Last week we took the Wiser Bridge Lighting project to the historic preservation review board and received a certificate of appropriateness for the improvements to the bridge. So very exciting this project is still moving forward. There is still momentum here happening. The work includes new lighting and electrical improvements to restore the original white globes on the bridge, which have been dark since, from what we've been able to research, at least the late 1960s, early 1970s. So next year we'll mark the bridge's 100th anniversary. In 2027, looking forward to holding a rededication ceremony for the bridge to mark the occasion and the restoration of the historic glooms. Also at the historic preservation review board last week, the wayfinding project received a certificate of appropriateness for approximately 50 new way signing signs across the city. We're going to have a formal update and briefing at the October 6th Council meeting here, and the installation is being slated for next spring and summer. Element Technologies recently made an announcement. We congratulate them on their contract with the federal government for which will invest 450 million dollars in the Lewiston based Element Group to expand domestic tungsten production. The Element Group is the only US owned fully integrated producer of tungsten. The investment is expected to support new high-end jobs in Lewiston and strengthen domestic manufacturing here in Lewiston. We can expect to see about 30 to 40 jobs created because of this investment. So that's great news for us here at the Lewiston facility. So congratulations to them and we look forward to these new hires. Also the new ownership of the Coliseum recently had a media availability announcing that Recovery Real Estate Holdings LLC has purchased the Coliseum. Recovery Vice President Luke Chaquette said the company's focus is on building a strong future for the arena as a destination for hockey, community activities, and other events. This group's holdings include other commercial industrial properties including five other New England rinks, youth hockey programs, and teams. So we wish them great success with the historic Coliseum building here in Lewiston. Great Falls Forum is having their season opener at the Lewiston Public Library for the 26 27 season this Thursday, September 17th, from noon to 1 p.m. in Callahan Hall. This week's speakers will be Janet Michiko and Adam Blaze from the Public Theater presenting From Experiment to Shining Star, the story of the Public Theater. The program Is free and open to all, so again please join them this Thursday noon to one at Callahan Hall. A reminder, the rally for recovery is coming up on September 26th in Kennedy Park. The event connects individuals and families affected by substance use with information and support. Activities include recovery testimonials, speakers, music, more than 20 community organizations, free food and children's activities. Free and open to the public, all are welcome to attend. Again, September 26th at Kennedy Park. A few Staff updates. I want to welcome aboard to our team in the police department Michael Bello, Charles Vatican and Savannah Brennan to the LPD. Also we want to welcome Aaron Cheever to the city clerk's office, congrats Aaron, as well as Margarita Camacho to our social services department. Welcome [41:13] David B. Chittim: All wish you much success. Thank you, thank you Minister Kane Rath. Moving on to the agenda, so we have two items on the consent agenda. Could clerk read them? For sure, yeah there Are two items on the consent agenda this evening. Item number one, authorization to accept transfer of forfeiture funds, and item number two, order approving the disposition of 159 Pine Street. Move passage of both items. Second. Madam clerk, could you please call the role. Council from word Five yes, word six yes, word seven yes, word one yes, or two yes, word three yes. Motion passed by vote of six to zero. Agenda item number three, item number three, public hearing on a new application for a special amusement permit for live entertainment for the Gridiron, 1567 Lisbon Street. Requested action to grant a special amusement permit for live entertainment for the Gridiron restaurant, 1567 Lisbon Street. So moved. Second. Comments from the council Councilor Chittim. Thank you. Is this another issue, another license that could be delegated to the clerk's office as opposed to having come before council or their public hearing requirements? Sure The amendment that we created a couple months or so ago was for renewals, and I think the discussion at the time was that the council felt that new ones, initial ones, should come to the council for their review. So the Gridiron restaurant's a little unique in the sense that they did have a special amusement permit, but it was about 10 or 15 years ago when they first opened. They had since dropped it, but they decided that they want to reactivate it again. So because of that large span, we didn't view That as a renewal, we viewed it as a new. So from this point forward, we're just going to be bringing new one to you. The council can certainly decide if they'd like to not have a public hearing for new special amusements, but it doesn't tend to happen on that much of a regular basis. Certainly the renewals, I know, were sort of rather frequent on your agenda, so we did delegate that to staff. So it's up to council if you'd like to delegate to staff the news and waive the public hearing or not. Again, we don't anticipate having a lot during the year. I mean, less than five news probably during a year. Most of the ones are the renewals. Mr. Presiding Officer, Counselor, Mr. President, I would like to ask staff if they would come up with a recommendation for an ordinance change that would allow new licenses to be delegated to the clerk's office. Any other counselors have a comment before we move? Council Longchamps. Thank you. I too would agree. Thank you. Anyone else? The one piece that I would suggest is that in some cases licenses are actually taken away. Correct. Yes. And so if that was to be reinstated, there would be a new application process that would come forward after a license was terminated, revoked. We do have a process, the procedures outlined in our city code, when the city council or the city needs to revoke a license under the code. I can suspend the license if it is eminent health, public, safety, whatever, and the code officer would usually tell me that we need to suspend it immediately. But to actually revoke a license, only the city council can do that. So once the license is revoked, then the applicant could reapply if they've rectified with that, and that would currently go to counsel. But if we suggest making a change to that, I guess that's just something to think about, that's all. I want to open this up to public comment. Does anybody have anything to share? If you do, please head to the podium. Public comment is closed. Council, any further comments? Okay, and if we could get a roll call vote. A madam clerk? Yes. Yes. Agenda item number four. I don't know for public hearing on an application from Grimmel's Industries, 50 River Road, for an automobile graveyard junkyard permit. Request of action to grant an automobile Graveyard Junkyard permit to Grimmels Industries, 50 River Road, subject to the following conditions. Number one, the hours of operation shall be limited to 7 a.m to 5 p.m Monday through Saturday, and number two, maintain screening from the main Turnpike. Motion. Thank you. Second. First was Councilor Chittim, second was Councilor Martel. Any comments from Council? Question. These are the same conditions that are applied to Grimmel's always, correct? Yes. Correct. Any further comments from Council? Public comment? Public comment is now closed. Did you want to speak? [46:41] Speaker O (unidentified): I just wanted to clarify, I know in the past with this particular license, Councilor Chittim has brought up a good point about the screening and you can still see some of it from the do have screening up the man-made screening it was it was found out that the Lewiston that the main term like authority had cut down trees that were on their property and it that's where you see some of the tops of the mounds I just wanted to clarify that I didn't I don't think I clarified it last year or the year before so I wanted to bring that up for you [47:12] David B. Chittim: Counselor Chittum thank you director just to clarify the main turnpike authority cut down trees that were on the main turnpike authorities property not Grimmel's property correct okay thank you thank you for that clarification any further comments from council Madam Clerk please call the role council from word five yes word six yes word seven yes word one yes word two yes word three yes motion passed by vote of six to zero Agenda number five Item number five public hearing on an application from Resource Waste Services of Lewiston LLC 38 Alfred A Florid Parkway for an automobile graveyard junkyard permit requested action to grant an automobile graveyard junkyard permit to Resource Waste Services of Lewiston LLC 38 Alfred A Florid Parkway subject to the attached conditions so moved second Any comments from Council? Chidam are you considering it I am I'm considering I'm trying to think of what I wanted to say these conditions are the same conditions that have been applied annually yes the question I have we have two more of these junkyard licenses is there state law requiring that this be a council action or could this be another item that's delegated to a city department it is a state law that a public hearing be held and that the council be the licensing [48:38] Bret Martel: and authority okay thank you sorry Counselor Martel I just I'm curious are all of these the same that they've been and they're just back for a renewal this is pretty routine correct yes [48:55] David B. Chittim: Any further comments from Council? Public comment back to the council Adam clark please call the roll council from word five yes word six yes word seven yes word one yes word two yes four three yes motion passed by vote of six to zero item number seven please i think we're up at number six public hearing for an application from st laurent properties 1445 sabata street for an automobile graveyard junkyard permit requested action to grant an automobile graveyard junkyard permit to st. Laurent properties 1445 Sabata Street so moved second thank you Any comments from the council? How such a thank you. I just want to commend St. Laurent Properties. This junkyard is so well hidden that I didn't realize it was there until two years ago when we authorized its continuation. So kudos to them any further comments from council public comment public comments are now closed back to the council madam clerk please call the roll council from word five yes word six yes word seven yes word one yes or two yes four three yes six to zero item number seven excuse me item number seven public hearing on an application from lewiston public works 420 river road for an automobile graveyard junkyard permit requested action to grant an automobile graveyard junkyard [50:26] Craig Saddlemeyer: permit to Lewiston Public Works, 420 River Road. So moved. Second. Comments from the council? Questions? [50:35] David B. Chittim: Public comment. Public comment is now closed. Further comments from the council? Madam Clerk? from word five yes word six yes word seven yes word one yes word two yes word three yes. Motion passed by a vote of six to zero. Item number eight, please. Item number eight, public hearing and approval of order proposed amendments to the Lewiston City Charter regarding filling a vacancy in the office of city council and city council action on school budget. Requested action to approve the order proposed amendments to the Lewiston City Charter regarding filling a vacancy in the office of city council and city council action on school budget. So moved. Second. Second. And so to open this up, who proposed the agenda item? Sure. So if you recall this past spring there were three separate votes to approve amendments to the chart or to recommend that they go to the voters in November three separate items the state statutes regarding amending a city charter required that a public hearing be held and that the council vote after the public hearing is held to formally call for that vote and to put them on the ballot so this is just sort of cleaning it up we waited and gave an opportunity in case there were any other changes as you Recall those three changes are all housekeeping related. They all have reference errors from previous renditions and updates, and so this is just really formalizing the process to meet the state statute requirement, hold the public hearing and have the council vote. Okay, thank you very much. For the clarification, these all three have come before us before. We've approved them, and now the public, the public hearing is what allows us to put them on the, what do you call it, the ballot, right? I think it was like February, March in June or something like that they came. We did not hold public hearings. They were just a standard order. We didn't know if any other corrections, directions we're going to be discovered and brought forth. Since not, and we need to get the ballots ordered and whatnot, this is the public hearing for tonight just to meet the state statute requirements. Perfect. Any questions or comments from Council at all? From the public comment there [53:05] Charles Arthur Soul: must have been a hell of a lot taller than I was, but Charles out the soul, 70 Horton Street, Lewiston, main, age 73, Charles. I'm sorry to interrupt. Could you [53:17] David B. Chittim: possibly just pull the mic just a little closer to you? It's, I think people at home have a difficult time hearing. Yeah, that good? Now that's better. Yes, thank [53:24] Charles Arthur Soul: you. I actually, the wording of this public hearing and approval of order, public hearing and approval of order to amend the city charter, as far as I'm concern, this should be voted on by the public. I don't believe that the hearing or the city council can approve an a order amending the city charter without putting this out to vote regarding filling a vacancy in the office of city council and city council action on school budget. I think that this should probably be put back out to the voters for approval to make the change to the amendment. I think you're sidestepping. I think the word is right out to lunch. Public hearing and approval of order, proposed amendment, proposed amendment to the Lewiston City Charter regarding filling a vacancy in the office of City Council, and we don't even know what office that is, and City Council action on a on school budget. What action on a school budget? This is very vague, and I would recommend not voting yes on it. Thank you. Any [54:51] David B. Chittim: Further public comment back to the council. Madam Clerk, just to clarify, the again the public hearing is required for us to actually put the referendum changes on the ballot for the city to either the city residents to either approve or reject, correct? So this is just a formal step in order to make sure that these items appear on the ballot as referendum items that the city actually decides upon as individual voters. Thank you. Any further questions or clarification comments? Okay, could we please call the role counselor from word five yes word six yes word seven is out of the room word one yes word two board one says yes word two yeah sorry word three yes motion passed i voted five to zero okay Agenda item number nine. Item number nine, public hearing and first passage regarding an amendment to the administrative code to establish the Department of Community Development and Strategic Initiatives. Requested action that the proposed amendments to the city code of ordinances, chapter 2, administration, article 5, departments, division 1 generally, and division 2, Department of Community Development and Strategic Initiatives, receive first passage by a roll call vote, and the public hearing on said ordinance be continued to the next regularly scheduled city council meeting. Sir, does anybody want to open the agenda item? I will, I will move passage. Okay, we have a second. Okay, Administrator, please [56:39] Bryan Kaenrath: kick it off and introduce us to what this is. Council President, so as you're all aware, the Economic Development Director position was eliminated in this year's budget, which has caused us to have to reorganize with existing staff. What we've determined for the best course of action and doing obviously the best we can with the resource available is to move economic development and to be absorbed as a division under administration, and to take the community development side and move it to its own standalone department. The two areas, economic development, community development, are largely seen to have two distinct missions, and we think this structure allow them both to pursue those missions. So on the economic development side, obviously bring investment into our community is the major goal. On the community development side, we're really envisioning hopefully expanding the scope of the department to include not just working with federal grants and bringing those monies into the city, but also Doing more with working with housing initiatives, public health. Public health has been a big concern. I've heard from a number of people that would be housed here as well as management of the growing community ambassadors program that would be an initiative of the Community Development Department, other grant opportunities as well as other areas of community engagement to really get out there. I do just want to note for the public also, obviously there's no new staff being hired here with this organization. We're working with less staff and nobody's receiving any salary increases in this reorganization. So in a nutshell, that's the structure of the new department. The division, because it's moving under administration, being absorbed there, does not require any further actions. this, because it will be a separate department, does require by charter a council sign off. So that's what brings us here this evening, to sign off on the creation of this department. Then we will proceed with moving ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGAIN AS A DIVISION UNDER ADMINISTRATION AND HAVING A NEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDING ON THANK YOU [58:44] David B. Chittim: Thank you very much, Administrator. Councilors, do we have any questions for the Administrator? any comments counselor chittum thank you administrator kainrath and whoever else worked on this ordinance and the reorganization i appreciate very much the effort that you did working under duress to recover from the loss of our economic development director this has been a long time coming and i think you've done the best possible job that you can under the circumstances congratulations and kudos to you any further comment? Would the public like to weigh in? Public comment? [59:27] Michael R. Roy: Matt Roy, Word 6. Thank you, Council President. To Councilor Chittim's point, I guess, well, in my opinion, the administrator has missed the point of the assignment. The far more logical proposal would have been to take economic development, merge it so we could have a one-stop shop for businesses and organizations wanting to develop the city's economy and put it with code enforcement and planning. That would have been the far more logical thing. I mean, technically, there's a technicality here with how this is structured, i.e., charter. You're not creating a new department. You're just renaming what's left of one by chopping, well, probably two-thirds of the department, actually, if you look at the current staff directory for this department. So you're going to have a new department that has, well, a new director, which if anyone's been paying attention in the last year in the administration department, who that new director is most likely to be, without violating any personnel policies I won't mention that, but by title it's pretty obvious. So you're gonna have a new director in this department, the well the current community development manager, assistant manager, and the administrative of assistant I presume is going to stay in this new retitled department. So you're gonna have a department of four, well cost well not to mention the vacant program manager for red abatement and the grant funded intake coordinator for community development that's currently posted on the city's website. Like again, it would be far more logical to have the economic development with code and planning, because anyone that starts a business, an organization, is going to be intersecting with economic development itself. Oh that's that's going to be an even smaller entity because you're gonna have, well I assume the deputy director, the current deputy director is going to be in this division, and a economic development specialist, that's all that's left. Thank you, thank you. [1:02:09] Charles Arthur Soul: CHARLES SOUL, 74TH AND STREET, LEWISTON, MAINE. IS THIS THING REALLY GETTING OUT THERE? BECAUSE I REMEMBER IT BEING BOOMING IN HERE. ONCE AGAIN, THE WORDING, PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST PASSAGE. NOW, DOES THAT MEAN THERE'S GOING TO BE A SECOND MEETING ON THIS AND A THIRD? BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME I'VE BEEN AROUND LONG ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT WHEN IT CAME TO PUBLIC HEARINGS, were usually to pass something. We had three hearing, one to find out about it, and one to discuss it, and then the third would be to vote on it. But once again, you know, this tricky language, it's like George Orwell double talk, you know, double think, public hearing and first passes. So does that mean there's going to be a second and a third passage? Maybe you could enlighten us, Robert. [1:03:14] Glassby: glassby ward six, i appreciate your patience. so i guess my biggest concern would be as far as any kind of fiscal responsibilities, economic development should have some type of oversight when it comes to the grant management, just because it seems as if we have positions throughout the city that are funded by those grants. i just my biggest fear is that they will be tied directly or indirectly to economic development. so to me it would make a lot of sense to have all of the fiscal or yeah fiscal Oversight to go through economic development because in my mind they're all tied into one system, so that's that's the only thing I had to say about that. Appreciate it. [1:04:08] Matthew Agren: Matthew Agren, Ward Four. I see this new department is going to handle public health. Does that mean we're moving our health inspector into this department? Are we going to move the possible new public health officer into this department? There are parts of this that are there but just not fully described when I read the proposal. That's why I'm kind of curious about things. Or does the public does our health inspector stay up with code enforcement? But that's public health, so you know you got some issues when wording. Maybe I also kind of think that we'll be keeping the department all up on the third floor as one-stop shopping was probably a better option, because anyone who's trying to do a business here has to go through code, has to go through economic development. They're all on the same floor, they all can talk to each other easily. Thank you. Any [1:05:07] David B. Chittim: further public comment? Back to the council. And just really quickly, I want to clarify one thing. By state law, voting on an agenda item for an ordinance warning agenda item normally is one vote. Our charter requires two readings of any passage, and so that's why things come before us twice. It is the prerogative of the administrator with the program that's put forward before us with this agenda item to not have a workshop, and I think at some point we'll probably have workshops once this is fully fleshed out for the staffing pieces. Am I correct on that? Would there be a workshop explaining any of the new projects that were assigned under this, like a council workshop? Yeah, a council workshop or some type of public notification of what [1:06:09] Bryan Kaenrath: expansion of programs look like and how we're actually engaging them. Yeah, I'm [1:06:26] David B. Chittim: talking basically like explain like I'm five type of like approach to informing the public as well as the council, so that we all understand exactly which pieces this new department is actually going to be taking over. We can do that. Absolutely. Okay, thank you very much for that. And any comments from okay, madam clerk, please call the roll council from word five yes word six yes word seven yes word one yes word two yes. Board 3. Yes. Motion passed by vote of 6 to 0. Agenda item number 10. Item number 10. Public hearing and first passage for an amendment to the traffic and vehicles ordinance regarding unregistered or uninspected vehicles parked on the public way. Requested action that the proposed amendment to the city code of ordinances chapter 70 traffic and vehicles article 4 stopping standing and parking section 70-2 definitions and section 7153 parking unregistered or uninspected vehicles on a public way received first passage by a roll call vote and to continue the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled city council meeting. Thank you very much madam clerk. Chief Conley would you like to kick us off? Certainly. Oh sorry let me make a motion first. My apologies I'm new at this. Move passage. Second. [1:07:47] Chief Conley: Okay. Chief Conley. Good evening. So basically this is just an update to the parking violations and associated fees. It kind of came from a meeting with Councilor Noble where we were discussing some of the issues with parking in the city and we came up with one of the things that we don't have is parking violations for unregistered and uninspected motor vehicles and we've been dealing with that. quite frequently and this gives us an avenue to enforce that with a parking ticket and basically what it would be is if your vehicle is parked on a public way for and it's unregistered or uninspected for more than 30 days we can issue a parking ticket for that violation and the associated fee would be fifty dollars. Okay. [1:08:41] David B. Chittim: thank you any questions or comments from the council councillor chittum thank you yes our fees are in a separate section of the ordinance are they not this i believe they are this fee unless i'm misreading this i guess i am because it says the policy manual would be adopted so this will be coming back to us again to change the policy manual to implement the 50 fee yes thank you [1:09:11] Scott A. Harriman: councillor harriman thank you thanks for bringing this forward i asked for this in early 2025 so i'm glad to see this coming forward my biggest concern around this issue is the is the lack of excise tax revenue for the city when somebody doesn't register their vehicle i've seen several vehicles parked on streets that are you know years out of registration i've seen several new vehicles with temporary plates on them for MONTHS AT A TIME THAT DON'T GET REGISTERED AFTER THEY GET PURCHASED SO UM AND THAT'S POTENTIALLY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS THAT THE CITY BUDGET IS HAVING TO MAKE UP IN OTHER PLACES WHERE THEY'RE NOT GETTING THAT REVENUE SO I'M GLAD TO SEE THIS COMING FORWARD AND I HOPE IT PASSES. [1:10:01] David B. Chittim: ANY OTHER UH QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BEFORE WE OPEN UP TO THE PUBLIC UH COUNSELOR MARTELL THANK YOU. [1:10:07] Bret Martel: UM THIS ISN'T IN REPLACING ANYTHING, RIGHT? THIS IS NEW, SO THIS ISN'T GOING TO PREVENT YOU FROM being able to do towing of vehicles that have been there for longer than they're supposed to be or anything like that. You still have all of those tools at your disposal. This is just something new [1:10:22] Chief Conley: for unregistered parked vehicles on the street, correct? It would be just an additional violation. [1:10:27] David B. Chittim: Thank you, chief. Chief, I do have one question about this. So currently we don't actually have a ticket that we issue for unregistered or un or unlicensed vehicles on our public ways, correct, like when they're parked, correct? And so this new process would actually one ticket the vehicles, and currently the way I understand it is that if an abandoned vehicle is considered 24 hours, right, does this speed up that process? Can we can we tow immediately? And then also could you just speak to what we actually do when we take it somebody and we know they're going to tow, because I know that we do try to reach out to the owners, so just so that you could [1:11:09] Chief Conley: enlighten us a little. Yes, this wouldn't necessarily increase the process of the abandoned motor vehicle. That's a policy, it's 24 hour window, and to be honest, 24 hours is we don't generally tow within 24 hours as a process where we chalk the tire, make sure it's not moved, return back the next day, sometimes it's you know over the weekend, so you might chalk the tire on a Friday, our parking enforcement will go see if the vehicles been moved, issue a ticket, a parking TICKET, THEN RETURN THE FOLLOWING DAY, AND SO GENERALLY SPEAKING I WOULD SAY IT'S PROBABLY 72 HOURS BEFORE WE ACTUALLY TOW A VEHICLE IT'S ABANDONED. NOW THAT'S THERE'S SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, RIGHT, WHERE IT'S A HAZARD, IT'S BLOCKING SOMETHING, IT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED, THAT THOSE ARE THOSE ARE AREAS WHERE WE OBVIOUSLY WOULD TOW IMMEDIATELY IF NECESSARY, BUT THIS DOES NOT NECESSARILY AFFECT WHAT OUR POLICY IS AS FAR AS ABANDON MOTOR VEHICLES. AND ALSO YOU DO [1:12:02] David B. Chittim: do reach out or you do attempt to reach out to, yeah, yes, our parking enforcement will run the [1:12:09] Chief Conley: registration, determine if we have a contact for the registration, and then try to reach out to the [1:12:15] David B. Chittim: owner to let them know. Thank you very much for that, councillor Longchamp. Thank You councillor I'm just curious what happens if someone doesn't pay their ticket or tickets, so there's a there's [1:12:26] Chief Conley: A process at the PD where what's called a scoff law, and if they reach a certain threshold of unpaid fines, then we could see the vehicle on the road, and if it's under scoff flower, we're able to [1:12:36] Bret Martel: tow it. Thank you. Any further comments? Council Martin. Thank you, Councillor. I just did have one other question. So say you come across the vehicle parked on the street and it's got bad tags on it, can you escalate anything from there? It's a false attachment, not having a valid inspection sticker, or does it need to be moving for that to be the case? If it's in a public roadway, does it need to be stickered, registered, insured, even if it's not moving? Generally the 29a, which is what you [1:13:07] Chief Conley: know officers deal with as far as traffic violations, those generally are moving violations, so the vehicle would be moving, so [1:13:18] Bret Martel: if you just workshop this with me, so if you pull up to the vehicle and you see that the tags are bad, but you run the plate, it doesn't come back to that car, what are the next steps? It makes it difficult to reach out to the owner if you're towing it or something along those lines. I guess that's what I'm trying to dig down. I mean, it'd be hard to [1:13:37] Chief Conley: reach out to the owner if it's if it's illegally attached right so let's say you know you come up to a vehicle and it's in violation it's not registered and you'd get it comes back to a registered owner but then you determine that 's not really the registered owner it doesn't come back to that vehicle so you're running into that's a 29a violation that's that's it's [1:13:56] Bret Martel: illegally attached, so would you just tow that vehicle immediately then, in lieu of the 24-hour weight, or do you, what would be the next steps on something like that? It's really circumstantial at that point. It depends on the situation. Okay, I'm just hoping that some of these traffic violations can lead to, you know, bigger issues, you know, running down drug dealers or people, you know, if they're illegally attaching plates and they're bad plates, you know, there's a good, LIKE THERE'S AT LEAST A LIKELIHOOD THAT THEY'RE DOING OTHER THINGS THAT MIGHT BE ILLEGAL, AND I JUST WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU GUYS EMPOWERED TO RUN THAT DOWN ANY WAY YOU CAN, SO THANK YOU. ANY [1:14:34] David B. Chittim: FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? WE'D LIKE TO OPEN THIS UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT. IF ANYBODY HAS A PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM. I'M [1:14:46] Charles Arthur Soul: GOING TO GET CHARLES SEWELL 770 HORTON STREET Lewiston, Maine. Well, you guys are setting yourself up tonight. I mean, to tow a car after 24 hours of parking, I mean, you could tow the whole inner city for the most part, because people have no place to park. Another thing is, if you want to straighten out, you know, uninspected vehicles, make sure they're inspected before you give them their registration, and that's to take care of that pretty quickly, because I live in the inner city, And I see a lot of vehicles that aren't, and I'm thinking to myself, that must have woke you up. But anyways, I see a lot of people that aren't registered. I'm wondering, or inspected, and I'm thinking, geez, why am I doing it? But anyways, get the inspection sticker, and when they get the inspection sticker, then they can show proof when they register the vehicle, and it will take care of that issue. As far as the 24 hours goes, I mean, that is downright ridiculous. We could, we could probably tow a few police cars. I don't know what the hell's the problem with these people. You just, you know, it's, I'm 73 and you guys are really out to lunch. Have a good day. Okay. [1:16:17] Christine Holden: Christine Holden, Ward 1. No objection to the content of the schedule of fines and so on, but a very brief comment about the note. I believe that the boldface exception, number 3, parking in a physically handicapped zone, should actually be number 12, not number 13. That's been added in just, and if somebody was always concerned about parking and physically handicapped, that one jumped out at me, so in the bold exception 13, parking should be parentheses 12. Thank you, thank [1:17:01] David B. Chittim: you. Any further public comment? Could we, could we check on the writing that Miss Holden brought up, to make sure that when we come to the second reading it is corrected, that it's, if it's, and at this point I'm going to bring it back to the Council. Does anybody else have any further comment before we vote? Question. Okay. Madam Clerk, please call the role. Councilor For Word Five? Yes. Word Six? Yes. Word Seven? Yes. Word One? Yes. Word Two? Yes. Word Three? Yes. Motion pass by vote of six to zero. Okay, agenda item number 11, please. Item number 11, order authorizing application and acceptance of funds from the U.S. Department of Justice Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program. Requested action, to approve the order authorizing application and acceptance of funds from the U.S. Department of Justice Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant. Program, I have a motion. So move, second. Chief Conley, please kick us off on this as well. You'll [1:18:10] Chief Conley: be here for a little bit, it seems. Two more. So this is just a grant that we get on a yearly basis, Auburn PD, and we get this, receive these funds. This year we received forty six thousand dollars, six hundred, or forty six hundred, and it's, it's something we use for training, OT, replacement equipment. This year we're asking for training, OT, replacement pepper ball guns, vests for the new officers, and traffic barricades. Okay, thank you very much. Do any of the counselors [1:18:43] David B. Chittim: have any questions or comments? Counselor Chittum. Thank you. Yes, clarification. It looks to me as though you're being authorized by this to apply for the grant, and it also looks as though it's a foreground conclusion that you will receive the grant. Are those good assumptions? Yes, that's a good assumption. Okay, so apply for it and get it, but that's not the way grants normally work, but I'm happy it does in this case. So that's, that's my only comment. Any other comments from council? Questions? Let's move to public comment. Does anybody have public comment for this agenda item? Public comment is closed. Back to the council. Madam Clerk, please call the role. Council from word five yes word six yes word seven yes word one yes word two yes word three yes agenda item number 12 please item number 12 amendments to the parking municipal parking fees policy to establish fees for abandoned vehicles requested action to approve the proposed amendment to the parking fees policy manual number 42 as recommended by city administration and the police department. May I please have a motion? You may. So moved. Second. [1:20:03] Chief Conley: Perfect. Chief Conley, floor is yours. So we explained, we spoke a little bit about abandoned motor vehicles, but what this really is right now, we currently don't have an appropriate violation for abandoned motor vehicles when we're dealing with them, so we bounce between parking, you know, too long, exceeding time limit, and we just wanted to clarify what an abandoned motor vehicle violation is so that can be designated when we [1:20:31] David B. Chittim: issue a ticket for that. Okay, thank you very much. And just as a follow-up, how many abandoned motor vehicles do we really have? An idea of how many we're [1:20:39] Chief Conley: towing every year? Not off the top of my head, but I did just run numbers for Counselor Noble, and I'd have to go back and get that back to you. Okay, no [1:20:50] David B. Chittim: no worries. If you could get it out to me, I'd appreciate it, but thank you. Counselors, any [1:20:55] Scott A. Harriman: Questions, comments? Okay, let's move it to the, sorry, Counselor Herman. It's okay, I just wanted to ask under the very end of the agenda item, under public awareness, it says that the police department will post this on social media accounts, and I wondered if we could use other channels as well for folks who aren't very active on social media or not at all, like the city's email and text system and newspaper, TV stations. We can work with communications on that. All right, thanks. [1:21:28] David B. Chittim: Thank you, Counselor. Anybody else? So let's move to public comment. Does anybody have a comment in the public concerning this agenda item? Public comment is closed. Any further follow-up? Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Council Member Ward 5? Yes. Ward 6? Yes. Ward 7? Yes. Ward 1? Yes. Ward 2? Yes. Ward 3? Yes. Motion passed by vote of 6 to 0. Okay. Agenda item number 13. Agenda item number 13, amendment to policy manual number 6, the rules governing the city council. Requested action to approve the proposed amendment to the rules governing the city council, city policy manual number 6, to authorize non-residents of Lewiston the opportunity to speak during the general public comment periods. I have a motion. So moved. Second. Okay, I'm gonna pass this off to Councillor Chittim to introduce as it was his agenda item. Thank you, Mr. President. We seem to honor this rule more in the breach than in the practice. The rules state that if you are not a resident or taxpayer of Lewiston, you may not speak at public comment, and yet in the past half dozen meetings, non-residents and non-taxpayers have spoken on numerous occasions. It seems to me if we're going to have a rule, we ought to follow the rule. If we are not following the rule, or even worse, if we're following the rule only sporadically, that we ought to get rid of the rule. So the purpose of this is to allow anyone who wants to speak on matters that are germane to the city of Lewiston to do so, and not limit it to taxpayers and residents. Thank you, Counselor Chittum. Do any counselors have any questions [1:23:17] Scott A. Harriman: or comments at this point? Counselor Herman. Thank you, I could support this as long as it's set up so that anyone from out of town has to go last, so that priority is given to Lewiston residents and Lewiston taxpayers. I think that's that's important, that's that's who we are serving as elected officials is residents and taxpayers, and if others wish to comment, I think they should be at the end of the line. Any [1:23:49] David B. Chittim: Other counselors have any comments, questions? Okay, let's move to the public comment period. Anybody have anything to say from the public? Hi. [1:24:01] Lisa Jones: Lisa Jones, Ward Two. I am skeptically in favor of this. Obviously, I have advocated for Destiny Johnson to be able to speak at this podium, and you have allowed that. I just have to wonder if we're going to end up with a line of people from out of town talking about Gaza again. So I guess I'm just a little nervous. I'm also wondering when my state legislator, who's sitting up there, became concerned with excise taxes and income into the city and representing people who speak in public, because he has never shown me that he wants to represent anything that I have to say, and he continues to have me illegally blocked on social media. [1:24:49] Sherry Wag: Matthew [1:24:57] Matthew Agren: Egren, Ward 4. I applaud you, Councillor Chittim, for making this proposal, because it's very hard to determine who is a taxpayer here in Lewiston. If I buy a package of gum, am I now a taxpayer of Lewiston? If I attend 10 businesses here, do I pay taxes here because I'm paying taxes through the business? Great plan. And I agree, if we're gonna have the rule, we need to have it consistently applied. That same thing needs to apply with the time limits to our public comment sections. You guys put them in for the same reason why you put in no outside people speaking. We have an 18 minute time limit for the first. We have the end one was supposed to be originally unlimited, it's got moved to a 15 minute and then can be expanded. I think we need to go back to making that first one 18 minutes hard stop. You're gonna do this. Other than that, good job. Any [1:26:03] David B. Chittim: further public comment? Back to the council. Councilor Chittim. I'm sorry that the mayor isn't here, because the purpose of this proposed policy change was directed at the presiding officer, the mayor. This is a council decision. The council can easily at each meeting decide to waive the rules and extend the 18-minute public comment period. It can easily decide to waive the rules and allow non-residents to speak. This has historically been a decision made by the presiding officer without consultation with the council, which is wrong, and that's the reason that I brought this forward. So if we're going to allow non residents and non taxpayers to speak, then let's make that so in the rules. Many further comments for anyone? [1:26:58] Scott A. Harriman: Counselor Herman, yes. I just wondered if other counselors would be amenable to an amendment if I were to put it forward to prioritize Lewiston residents and taxpayers. Are you putting that amendment forward? I guess I could. I would. I don't know exactly where this sentence would be inserted, but I would say Lewiston residents and property taxpayers will have priority. I'm [1:27:29] David B. Chittim: comfortable with that. So that can be a friendly amendment if Counselor Martel, I believe, seconded this. Yep. Second. Okay. In just my comments on this is a process piece. Ultimately, we have the ability to waive any of any of our roles, right? And so I think the challenge has been that we have not voted to waive rules and then we've allowed our rules to be violated, I guess I'll say. And that is part of the, like we have the ability to waive the rules. And so since we haven't passing this, I think maybe a little heavy handed, but at the same time, you know, I also I'm not I don't object to it. I just want to point I don't have a dog in the fight. I did the point I'm trying to make is that if we stuck up for ourselves and police the chair, we wouldn't be in this situation, that's all. So anybody else have anything else to say? Let's let's call the roll. madam clerk council from word five yes word six no word seven no word one word two no word three yes motion failed by a vote of two to four okay moving on to agenda item number 14. Item number 14, discussion regarding proposed ordinance really regulating mobile home lot rent. This is a discussion matter, no action required. So this is an agenda item that I put forward. What I would I'm hoping that we can do is start by identifying how we got here, naming a couple of the process flaws I think that we saw, hearing from the housing committee concerning the proposed ordinance that they have in front of us, and then making a decision on whether or not we're moving forward with the proposed ordinance. Basically where I want to leave this, if that makes sense to all. So I'm just going to start by stating that back in last year, actually, I was Hearing some complaints from mobile homeowners who lived in mobile home parks about rent increases. Specifically the they were not necessarily cohesive, it was one offs, and ultimately this February I believe the main labor climate council organized many tenants of mobile home parks who are mobile home owners to speak to some of the challenges that they were having. It was I think clear to at least a quorum of the council at that point in time because many of the counselors attended some of these public meetings that we need to look further into it and that an ordinance may be required. The vote that we had to create the moratorium happened and at the end of that vote there was a verbal request from the mayor to assign the housing committee this project to basically come up with a sample look at the look at the situation and come up with a sample ordinance. In that process I think there are a couple of process flaws. One of the things that we absolutely should have done would have been to and this is my opinion would be to give a written charge to the housing committee stating what that we are what we're actually asking the housing committee to do. That's one piece to I think that we probably should have had a couple of joint workshops in order to determine whether the course of the housing committee's work was actually being was actually fitting into what at that point in time a quorum of the council was looking to accomplish. That all said that's why we're here today. We're here today because we had two meetings when we were talking about the original moratorium where almost 100 residents of mobile home park showed up specifically around mostly three properties that are owned by one private entity and we were asked to do something. So that's where we're at right now and I would like to bring up the members of the housing committee at this point to just speak to the work that they've done in order to bring forward an ordinance that we can either decide to work on decide to change entirely or decide not to drop so now that 's said i would ask you to introduce yourselves and thank you for being here [1:32:59] Craig Saddlemeyer: Good evening Craig Saddlemeyer resident of ward 4 and chair of the housing committee. Katie [1:33:07] Speaker X (unidentified): Losey resident of ward 2 and property owner in wards 3 and 7 also member of the housing committee. [1:33:13] Craig Saddlemeyer: So we both have written statements, and they're happy to answer questions or discuss after we read those. I'll mention I brought 15 printed copies of my written statement, as well as the two documents that I emailed council yesterday, so staff have those, and they're available for members of the public who would like to look at them. I'm sorry I didn't print more. I encourage folks to share. Okay, dear City Council, thank you for allowing us the opportunity to speak with you this evening. The purpose of this statement is to document the housing committee's recommendation regarding the lot rent ordinance, as well as summarize the process to date to prepare the ordinance. This statement has been reviewed and approved by the housing committee in advance of today's meeting. I will begin by clarifying that throughout this seventh seven month process, the committee's primary activity has been drafting what the committee believes to be the most fair and appropriate lot rent stabilization ordinance for Lewiston, and to provide that draft to City Council so that City Council may choose whether or not to adopt the ordinance at their discretion. The committee's recommendation should be understood as what we feels best if the council chooses to implement a lot rent ordinance. While the committee has learned a lot about this issue over the course of our work and research, we did not have sufficient time to both draft this ordinance through a public process and also debate whether the committee supports or recommends that an ordinance be adopted in general. For this reason, our committee is neither for nor against the passage of a lot rent ordinance. Given the time constraints, given the fact that the decision belongs with city council, and given that there may be certain legal implications that the housing committee has not been able to fully understand or discuss directly with legal counsel, we believe our work is concluded and that the final stages of this process belong to city council and staff should you choose to pursue it further. If council does choose to bring a final draft forward for a public hearing, the housing committee would like one more opportunity to review it and make any final comments on the language in advance of that hearing. Therefore, if city council chooses to move forward with a lot rent stabilization ordinance, the housing committee recommends the following course of action. Option 1. Modify and simplify the committee's draft ordinance by removing all language pertaining to the total recurring charge and increase limit table and replace it with a simple inflation-based limit that is applicable equally to all lot rents and fees. The option above should also include the recommended exemption as follows. Any mobile home park for which park owners control no more than 100 licensed lots in Lewiston and in which the net worth of the park owners together with affiliated and related entities is less than $75 million. There's some more language in there that just speaks to some of the definitions. And this exemption would require annual certification with business relicensing. The purpose of this exemption and the increased limit table that preceded it is to mitigate the impact of lot rent stabilization on small businesses that had traditionally kept their lot rents at low and affordable rates to their residents. Through our research we found there is a wide range of what is charged for lot rent in Lewiston as well as a wide range of what lot rent includes or does not include. While we hope that these small business owners continue to offer low rents to residents we generally wanted to avoid locking them in at those low rates particularly given that most of those small parks did not have residents coming forward with complaints of excessive fees or decreased service throughout our survey process it should also be noted that the exemption language provided is only a draft from the committee and it has not undergone legal review and much like the rest of the ordinance it should receive further legal scrutiny before finalization and adoption alternatively if the city council or legal council believe that is still too difficult or labor intensive to work with that option the housing committee would also be supportive of the following option two copy the ordinance from auburn which has already gone through legal review and final passage option two is probably the fastest option and lowest cost it also provides the potential for a joint lot rent stabilization Review board between the cities. Option two should also include the addition of the size and net worth exemption as outlined earlier. In either case, the Housing Committee would like the opportunity to review the final product before it goes to City Council for a vote, so the Housing Committee can provide a recommendation on that final draft. Furthermore, we would like the City Council to understand that the data we collected was analyzed for the primary purpose of drafting the ordinance and determining the target, determining the target total recurring charge, the target TRC, and increase limits. The data was not necessarily collected or analyzed in order to build a case for or against rent stabilization as a concept. The target TRC was an estimate of what most parks could charge while reasonably sustaining their business operations and with positive net cash flow and park improvements, including debt service and capital reserve deposits. One of the challenges in performing this analysis is the variance in what is included in lot rent. At least one park self-reported during a phone call that lot rent includes water, sewer, and pets, all within the same flat rate for a lot rent of $420. Other parks self-reported on the survey lot rents that were in the approximate range of $350 to $600, but also charged extra fees for water, sewer, and pets in addition to that lot rent, or in some cases, the addition of new persons to a household. some parks reported ranges of lot rents and fees rather than averages resident self reports may have sometimes included these fees in the report of lot rent some parks neither completed the survey nor responded to phone calls and in those cases the data is missing we also received third party data for resident owned communities throughout Maine which operate at cost rather than for profit but that method for data collection in the time period over which that data was collected is different from the manner in which data was collected for Lewiston parks. We regularly reviewed the data, discussed it, challenged it, and sought more help to expand our understanding. While the process of this data collection was educational, has helped to create a better understanding of the economics of operating a park, it should also be contextualized and understood for its limitations as well. To the extent that there is more or better data analysis to be provided, we welcome that and encourage staff and city council to supplement our research with your own. It is also worth noting that the Maine Office of Community Affairs recently launched a dashboard with their own information about lot rents statewide. The committee has not had time to discuss the data disclosed here. Having this third-party data before we began our process would have saved us a lot of time, but our contact at the state was not able to provide us with this information at the time of inquiry. Attached is both our data analysis as well as an export of data from the MOCA database, Maine Office of Community Affairs, and the two documents and rest referencing are the ones that are printed and available from staff. No edits have been made to the state data. I did just block out the contact information for the property management, but it is, it's available on the website for what that's worth, but for what I printed tonight, those, the two things I blocked out was just the email and phone number for property management, and anyone can find the information at the website, and I've printed the website in my statement. I'm available tonight accompanied by fellow committee member Katie Lozi to discuss the details of our draft ordinance as well as the new exemption and alternative option presented. Before we begin that discussion, I will now invite Katie to speak to our process doing this work together and some reflections that [1:41:00] Speaker X (unidentified): we have as a committee. Thank you very much. This statement has also been reviewed and approved by the housing committee in advance of today's meeting. This was the first time we as a committee have undertaken a policy issue of this magnitude and divisiveness. Needless to say, we've learned some important lessons throughout this process and felt it was important to address those here for the benefit of the council and the public. First, we should have requested clearer direction from council back in March, April when our work on this issue began. This would have highlighted the need to begin our process with an evidence-based approach, specifically gathering information on the cause for resident concerns, determining the root cause of any existing concerns, as well as deciding based on this information whether an ordinance was a viable solution. This could have also allowed us to investigate other potential approaches. Our committee has historically been a research and advisory body for the Council, as this was our first time dealing with this type of regulation, our traditional process for working on an issue together did not feel adequate and caused strain among committee members and beyond. Our goal is to improve our process going forward, and we have some thoughts on how to accomplish this, which I'll address in a moment. Second, we would have benefited from dividing up work and sharing responsibilities more broadly, rather than relying so heavily on our chair to take the lead on this work. We are lucky to have someone of his expertise and experience on the Housing Committee, and while this is certainly a bonus, we need to remember that this level of time commitment cannot be expected from individuals who are not city employees. As a group, we need to do a better job of supporting one another and taking shared ownership of our work. That said, we have discussed that we also need to be cautious of allowing one member to speak on behalf of the Housing Committee before we've had an opportunity to have a full and complete discussion or an official vote if necessary. This was a lesson learned, and one we as a committee feel was done with the best of intentions. We are grateful that the Council takes our recommendations and work into serious consideration when deliberating on housing policy. Moving forward, we would like to make the following requests. We feel these requests will help us operate effectively within our committee as well as partnering with Council. The Housing Committee will be partnering with the City Clerk's Office to familiarize ourselves with Roberts Rules of Order, as well as to reorient and further educate ourselves as a committee regarding policies, procedures, and expectations. We will also be reviewing our charter and making sure that our priority activities are aligned with our purpose. Additionally, as Council President mentioned, when the City Council would like the Housing Committee to work on an issue, we request that such instructions are included in a motion and clearly specify the parameters of the activity. In this instance, there was some disagreement within the committee on whether the Council order was to draft an ordinance or simply to research the subject more broadly. But in this case, with such a high-stakes issue under consideration, having that order from Council clearly written in the motion itself would have helped to reduce confusion on part of committee members. As part of our effort to divide up and share committee responsibilities more broadly, so that we have a more shared understanding and ownership of this work, we will seek outside support more frequently, including but not limited to legal counsel, City Council, and city staff, so that these tasks do not rest entirely on committee members. We hope that staff and council will support us in such requests for outside support moving forward. In conclusion, we thank you all for your service to the city and for entrusting us with this work. We look forward to continuing the good work of promoting the growth of Lewison's housing market in a manner that helps to meet the critical housing needs of our community. Thank you. Thank you both very much. [1:44:48] David B. Chittim: Before I open this up to the other counselors, I just want to verify a couple of things right now. The first piece is that we have currently, I believe, nine ownership groups in our community, of which eight are either local or regional. Am I correct on that? And one being a large private equity firm located outside of our state. [1:45:11] Craig Saddlemeyer: That is, that is generally correct. I would need to look at it and know if that exact number [1:45:19] David B. Chittim: of owners relative to parks is precisely right. But okay, and that large private equity firm currently controls 73 percent of the mobile home lots in the city, is that correct? I believe that's correct. Okay, and they currently charge the highest rents in the city and self [1:45:37] Craig Saddlemeyer: reported there are, there is one other park that is not owned by that firm, but it is the next largest park after the three that they own, and I believe that one is also charging that fourth part is charging rents that are at a similar level as the [1:45:59] David B. Chittim: other three with the same fees included or separate fees that 's a part [1:46:06] Craig Saddlemeyer: that is, we didn't get that granular per part. We know that some clarified [1:46:12] David B. Chittim: that for us and some did not, and so a lot of this is self-reported as well. Correct, I mean, yeah, reported basically the park and the tenants. Yeah, so there's the self-reported [1:46:20] Craig Saddlemeyer: Data is what we were working with most of the time, and you know, I'm pointing your attention to what the state has, presumably what the state has is from licensing, but I haven't talked with the state about how they collected their data. So you can look at, you know, the lot rent data that the state has itself, but yeah, you know, it, we, in an ideal world, I guess, in order to have the most precise analysis, we would have a rent roll for every property and a breakdown of what's included in each lot rent and then what are charged for like mandatory fees and then what other kinds of we, but we didn't have that level of information, so that's why I can't answer some of [1:47:01] David B. Chittim: these questions as precisely as you'd like. No, understood, and I think that's part of the part of our failure as a council to say, you know, this is the data that we're that we're kind of looking for in order to make determinations about whether or not rental lot stabilization makes sense or makes sense under certain circumstances. I just want to say publicly as well I greatly appreciate the work of the housing committee. I am sorry that the process has been so onerous and has created some divisions in the community. So in your working groups as well, it's not that wasn't the intent. I'm sorry it happened. I want to open this up to the remainder of the council before a public comment Counselor Chin. Yes. Thank you. I'm very pleased that all of us appear to be viewing this as a learning experience and have taken away some good solid recommendations for behavior, better behavior and more clear communication in the future, so that's an encouragement. It has been a fraught process. I have said many times that the ordinance that the housing committee developed is or the draft ordinance is perhaps one of the most complex pieces of municipal legislation I have ever seen, and I believe that was done with the intent of being as fair and equitable to all parties as possible. The whole sliding scale total TRC concept is unique in Maine and perhaps in the country, and it was implemented with the thought that the mobile home park owners who have been good stewards of their property should not be punished with a flat rate. So I think that the ordinance was crafted very deliberately keeping both parties, owners and renters, in mind, and I congratulate you on that. I'm sorry to see that the recommendations do not Include this sliding scale. I'm inclined at this point to endorse the adoption of Auburn's ordinance, although frankly I have not read Auburn's ordinance. The benefits of having similarity on both sides of the river and the potential of having a rent stabilization board composed of residents of both cities speaks highly in favor of that option. I would like to thank you both of you and all of the members of the committee and former members of the committee for the intense work that you have done over the past nine months, and I apologize for the travail that has occurred because this council was not as clear in its direction as it should have been. Thank you council [1:50:00] Matthew Agren: Martel. Thank You counselor [1:50:04] Bret Martel: this just really irritates me. I've been against this from the very beginning, and it irritates me that this body is arrogant enough to think that we need to decide what's fair and equitable for someone else's property that they own. We don't decide what someone can sell their vehicle for or sell a gallon of milk for. Counselor Longchamps certainly wouldn't be inclined for to let me tell her what to charge me for an Italian when I go into her store and ask for one, amazing Italians by the way, and saying that I just would like TO TOUCH ON ANOTHER COMMENT THAT WAS MADE BY ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES THAT MOST OF THE PARK OWNERS HAVE BEEN GOOD STEWARDS UM OF THEIR PARKS AND TO THEIR TENANTS WHERE I BELIEVE THIS UH ORDINANCE OR I DON'T THINK THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ONE BUT THE RESEARCH FOR THIS SHOULD HAVE STARTED LET'S SEE IF ANYONE'S BEING EXPLOITED PERIOD WE HAVE NO INDICATION THAT ANYONE HAS BEEN EXPLOITED. we have indication that prices have gone up. The prices of everything have gone up across the board for everyone, and part of that is this body right here that continues to spend money like crazy driving up property value, property taxes, which incurs gets passed on to these lot owners that they have to pass on to their tenants, suggesting that because someone it feels like this new iteration of this moratorium not moratorium ordinance rent stabilization or ordinance is clearly targeted at one group and that group seems to be bigger and call it more financially successful or to have More money and we don't want to be chilling or dissuading outside investment in the city of Lewiston, especially when it comes to housing. That's my opinion. So if we started this search or this task by establishing that there really had been exploitation, I may feel differently. Probably not, because I still think it's socialist in nature, and we live in a free market economy, and you know, when you own something, you pretty much can do what you want with it, and no one was forced. And I don't mean to be insensitive here, but everyone knew what the contract was when they signed up. They knew they didn't own the land underneath their trailer. And just like no one should tell any of these homeowners what they should sell their trailer for, should someday they want to sell it, or their vehicle for, or enter into an agreement to work or for wages, a this is a consensual agreement that was entered into, and I think it should stay that way. You know, like I said, the cost of everything is going up, so if we had seen, I thank you. So you had said that there is a local park that also has similar rents to the big bad mean out of state conglomerate. So is that park owner also like evil or mean or exploiting their tenants? And I also can say firsthand that I've spoken to many residents that live, and I'll say it, the Boa Vita parks, they're the nicest parks, they're the most well kept parks, they have, they're more expensive for a reason, just like there's different versions of homes, there's 200 000 homes and there's 1.5 million dollar homes. They have different levels of luxury or amenities that go with them, and again, it's someone's choice. If there was any evidence that one group had way outpaced increases or was truly exploitive in nature, I'm not talking about whittling down every penny or criticizing every fee, but if it was so obvious that it couldn't be ignored, maybe there would be cause for this. I haven't seen any evidence of that, and evidence of that should have been where we started, if we were going to go down this road, in my opinion. Anybody [1:54:33] David B. Chittim: else have any comments? Thank you, counselor. I just have one question. Can someone remind me who brought this forward from the beginning? At the beginning it was a the moratorium was originally Councilor Harriman, the first moratorium, but the direction to hand this to the housing committee and look at an ordinance was given by the mayor after we passed six to one the vote as a, what do you call it, consensus, which I think is part of the challenge with the history on this. [1:55:15] Bret Martel: Councilor Martel. I just left out one part, the, it was very clear that the way that members of this body behaved was that again there was no directive given to the housing committee to go down this road formally, and we as a council are supposed to vote on things and to give direction, but it became very clear that the members of this body who intended to see this past and we're carrying this torch we're not going to be sidetracked or dissuaded by anything regardless of absent counselors objection from park owners or anything else, and that behavior by this body deserves as much scrutiny as we've given any of the park owners before. [1:56:07] David B. Chittim: We go to public comment, I just want to make a few comments and I am not trying to do it back and forth, but the state actually regulates the cost of milk by both what it can be sold as a minimum and a maximum. If the state did its job, we wouldn't be in this situation right now. The state had the ability to actually set the stabilization ordinance, the sample ordinances that they wrote. They just didn't have the willpower to do it because I think ultimately lobbies bought them. Homeowners in mobile home parks also pay property tax, when we raise the property tax for the landowner the homeowner also sees a raised property tax that goes across the board, so I just want to say, you know, those two things really quickly before we open this up to public comment and yeah let's go thank you. [1:57:10] Craig Saddlemeyer: Council president, sorry, do you want us to stay [1:57:12] David B. Chittim: here or should we sit down, if I don't know if anybody's going to have questions for you so I'm not quite, we can call you back up, okay thank you, go [1:57:25] Jamie Alley: ahead, thank you, good evening, my name is Jamie Alley, I'm a ward 6 resident and a mobile home owner. I recently reviewed campaign finance information for counselor Brett Martell's campaign for Main House District 95. That information shows five contributions identified with mobile home parks. To be precise, I have not confirmed whether these represent five independently owned parks or whether some are all of the related to the same company. I'M NOT CLAIMING THAT THEY ARE SEPARATE BUSINESSES, NOR AM I ALLEGING WRONGDOING OR A QUIB PRO QUO. HOWEVER, COUNSELOR MARTELL CURRENTLY SERVES ON THIS COUNCIL, AND THE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATED WITH THESE CONTRIBUTIONS IS DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY ITEMS 14, 15, AND 16 ON THE AGENDA. Multiple contributions associated with that industry create, at minimum, a reasonable concern about the appearance of a conflict. Main law states that municipal officials should attempt to avoid the appearance of a conflict through disclosure or abstention. Lewiston's ethics policy also emphasizes impartiality, transparency, and maintaining public confidence in city government. Although no final vote on the rent ordinance appears to be scheduled for tonight, discussion and deliberation can still influence future council action. Before Councillor Martel participates in these items, I asked that he disclosed the contributions and his understanding of the contributors' connections to mobile home park ownership on the public record. I also asked the presiding officer or city attorney to address whether Councillor Martel should recuse from any discussion and deliberation, as well as any future discussion, procedural action, or vote concerning this ordinance and the related threatened litigation. If he does not recuse, I ask that the reason be clearly stated on the record. Mobile home residents deserve confidence that decisions affecting our homes and the housing costs are being made impartially. Transparency is the minimum the public should expect. Thank you for your time. Good [1:59:25] John Geary: evening. My name is Sean Gary. I'm a resident of Ward 6 and a mobile homeowner in Fox Run Mobile Home Park. All of the comments that have been made here by the man who says that he didn't want to sound insensitive when, in fact, he hasn't heard anything more insensitive ever. But I'd like to turn his argument around and say that we, mobile home park owners, shouldn't have to prove anything. Anything. If you look at the evidence that hasn't been presented, it is that the mobile home park owners, none of them have said ever that they're operating in the red or even break even. From that, we can infer that they are in the black. Now, there isn't any business across the country that has guaranteed an increase of revenue year after year, but the proposed ordinance would do exactly that. Inflation over the last 10 years has averaged 3.2%. That would be 32% if you just piled it up, but it's compounded and it comes out to be about 37 or 38%. The state model ordinance or the proposed limit increase from the state, which is only optional, is the CPI plus 1%, is which would be 4.2%, which over 10 years would be an increase of over 50%. This is guaranteed now, guaranteed increases of revenue that we're offering park homeowners who refuse to give information about what their costs are or what their revenues are. They just want to say we're not exploiting anybody, but we shouldn't have to prove they are. Now, the one park that's locally owned that has the same rent structure as Boa Vidas does, they preempted the state, they felt that the state was going to put in a cap, so they raised the rents. Who was going to define what exploitation is? If something is raised by 50 or 70 percent, is that not exploitation? Our rent three years ago at Fox Run were $385, now they're $550, they're a new owner at $600, and it would have been much more already if the rent wasn't in place. Now there was a comment that Boa Vida's parks are the best in the states, well maintained, not because of Boa Vida, but we the owners of the mobile homes take good care of them. And that's why the park is the best around. I'm [2:02:29] Charles Arthur Soul: Eugene Perron, and I live in Country Lane Estates, which was sold about two years ago. And rent almost tripled. Now, my partner and I are on a fixed income. If they go any higher, we're struggling now. And the thing is, we have about six or seven other people that want to get out of there and go to senior housing because it's too much for us to handle our homes. I'm 80 years old, he's 83, we both have bad health problems, and if this ordinance is not passed, we'll be out in the street. And I don't think that's right because before they sold the park, they went up on a $50, they never had before. Then when the new owners bought it, they went up $50, then they went up another $50. They're an out-of-state owners, which we were told were in California. All right, California is a state that can afford $600 or $700 a month. I can't afford $600 or $700 a month with my health and everything increasing. He does not make enough money to help me out with the rent and other bills. So it's very, difficult for us and we are thinking that building new housing over run by Shaw's and we are thinking if we can get a good deal there, we will sell our home and move up and we've been there almost 20 years and I don't think this is right. That park is about I would say 75% elderly and then you've got the other 25% that are our young working people all right they might be able to afford it but we have two choices of trying to get into housing that doesn't cost what we're paying or to live out of a car and I'm frightened of this and thank you good [2:05:13] Julie Smith: evening my name is Julie Smith I'm the executive director of the manufactured housing association of Maine and I'm here on behalf of all of the owners in Lewiston has now spent six months considering the municipal regulation of manufactured housing community rents but there is a fundamental question that must be answered first does Lewiston have the lawful authority to create its own rent control system for manufactured housing communities our position is it does not the Maine legislature has already acted twice in two consecutive legislative sessions to regulate this exact subject in 2025 the main legislature established a statewide process governing manufactured housing community rent and fee increases it requires 90 days notice establishes a CPI based benchmark and provides a mediation process for increasing exceeding that benchmark this year the legislature returned to that same law and imposed additional restrictions including limiting lot rent increases to in to once per calendar year Maine has a detailed and recently amended statewide statutory framework. Our position is that Lewiston cannot simply overlay a separate municipal rent control regime on top of it. There are also serious constitutional concerns. Rent regulation that produces a confiscatory result raises the protections under the two process and takings clause of the United States Constitution. The issue is not whether an ordinance happens to use the words of reasonable return the issue is whether it contains adequate safeguards to prevent a confiscatory result and that risk is not theoretical in May the New Jersey Appellate Court affirmed a judgment against Winslow Township involving its mobile home rent ordinance that trial court found that ordinary arbitrary and capricious as written and applied and unconstitutional the owners were also awarded attorneys fees under the federal Civil rights law, the appellate court specifically pointed to the ordinance's lack of adequate procedural safeguards and contrasted it with New Jersey's statewide statutory framework. Lewiston should pay attention to that warning. There are economic consequences as well: insurance, labor, paving, utilities, infrastructure, materials, financing, and emergency repairs do not stop increasing because municipal governments restrict revenue. Community owners are responsible for roads, water, and sewer systems, drainage, electrical systems, and other major infrastructure. If owners cannot reasonably recover these costs, investments become harder to justify, financing becomes more difficult. We've already seen that with several banks refusing loans to mobile home communities in rent restricted townships, and the long-term viability of communities will be affected. Ultimately, as we've seen in other communities, an owner may determine that continued operation no longer makes economic sense. Communities will close or be converted to another use. These consequences and the city's potential legal exposure deserves serious consideration before Lewiston proceeds any further and loses the homes it has. I thank you for your time. Good [2:08:17] Diane Gendron: evening. My name is Diane Gendron and I live in Ward 6 and Foxhorn community. I was just very frustrated with Council Martel because I have to say something, because he made a statement stating that Boa Vida had the nicest parks around. No. They are nice because we take care of them. I drove in Country Lane, where I do not live, but I drove inside it because they said that they spent all this money, $80,000, doing construction into that park, where we drove in it and we found broken down porches, skirting missing, boats in driveways. I mean, just deteriorating. And as far as our part goes, everybody in our part takes care of their property very well. My cousin and I have gone to the where we get our mail and cleaned up and we've cleaned up all around where we've got that box, I mean buckets, we've even found needles. We've even had a sexual encounter happen there where I called Boa Vida on it and they did nothing about it and allowed that person who was having sexual encounters by our mailbox in the winter time and they still are living there. So whenever we call Adam or the management, we don't get any resolvement. We're every free for all at this point. So I urge you, council Martel, to take a drive into Country Lane and see what, for yourself, what it is like, and take a drive around Fox Run, because it's nice because of all of us. It's nice. They don't come and take care of it that well. Who used to own it used to take care of it, the mom and pops, but not anymore. And we're scared because we don't know what they're gonna do to us because they're not there for us and we can't even contact them that we're like, we're on our own. So any [2:10:26] David B. Chittim: Further public comment? Okay, so we're going to go back to the council and just really quickly I want to frame this as not taking, obviously there's no vote to take today, so we're, what I'm looking for is indication of whether or not we are going to continue looking at a lot stabilization ordinance. I think that there, if we are, there is work we need to do here. There's also pieces that we require from our legal counsel in order to give us advice on what path will even take, so like if we do decide to move forward, I think we shouldn't be indicating that we'll take option one, two, or three at this point, or any option, just knowing that like we'll have to state whatever the process is going forward, how we're going to get there. One of the concerns that I have is removing the moratoriums as quickly as possible, which is one of the reasons why I voted against the moratorium originally. I don't know where everybody else is sitting with that, but let's, let's go back to council. If you have questions for staff or the housing committee [2:11:41] Bret Martel: to call them up, but counselor Michelle, thank you. I just want to address some of the comments that were made. I did, in addition to the public comment that asked me to recuse myself, I did actually receive an email before this meeting asking the same thing of me. I contacted independent attorney and I also counseled, asked counsel of our city administrator, both of whom suggested that there was absolutely no reason for me to recuse myself tonight. I'm not gonna dig down into the reasons and get into a debate, but I did look into it, and if I thought that there was any reason to do so, I would have. The second comment that I would like to address that is actually more bothersome to me was the suggestion that I was not sensitive or that was not worried, or the most, instance, I forget how it was made, but that I don't care about people living in mobile home parks. I received lots of emails from people living in mobile home parks that requested that I change my mind and my position on this particular Topic and I responded to each and every one of those people, every single one, not some of them, not most of them, every single one of them. And I explained to them that I understood their struggles and what increased lot rent was doing to their finances, and that a lot of them were on fixed income and seniors. And what I responded with was that I was not likely to change my position on this topic. And I have my reasons for that, and I've expressed those reasons. What I did suggest to every single person that contacted me was to reach out to me and let me work with them to try to find other ways to reduce their budget, to reduce stresses on their budget, to see if we could find other ways to reduce their costs that didn't include a lot rent moratorium, whether that was exploring general assistance, other potential programs, whether it could have been through the state or the city. And I didn't hear back from anyone. The only thing that was asked of me was to change my position on this, and I was very clear and forthcoming with each and every individual that I would not be likely to do that, but that I would help each and every person that was struggling with financial issues any way that I could, and I meant it. And I never heard back from anybody else, it with a secondary email after that to explore those options. So I am not insensitive to any of you, and I see you, and I'm standing up here, and I understand that a lot of you probably aren't very happy with me right now, but that same offer goes out right now to each and every one of you. My email is on the city website, SITE, WHETHER YOU'RE IN MY WARD OR NOT, I WILL DO EVERYTHING WITHIN MY POWER TO WORK WITH EACH AND ANY ONE OF YOU TO TRY TO REDUCE YOUR THE CONSTRAINTS ON OR THE CHALLENGES ON YOUR BUDGET IN LIEU OF CHANGING MY MIND ON THIS, BECAUSE I AM NOT GOING TO CHANGE MY MIND ON THIS, BUT THAT IS AN AUTHENTIC OFFER, AND I ENCOURAGE ANY OF YOU TO TAKE ME UP ON IT. [2:15:09] David B. Chittim: COUNSELOR HERMAN [2:15:12] Scott A. Harriman: Thank you. I just wanted to speak to one of the public comments that was made earlier. So if you go to the Maine Ethics Commission's website, you'll find campaign finance reports for all candidates running for office. The campaign finance report for Councilor Martel indicates that on June 24th of this year... [2:15:35] David B. Chittim: Councilor Herman, what is your point of order? [2:15:36] Bret Martel: This isn't the discussion at hand. This isn't germane, and it's not the councillor's job to respond to public comment. It isn't to do with the topic of this agenda. I addressed it because I was personally called out. Councillor Harriman is not up here to call balls and strikes on public comment. I do believe that [2:15:57] David B. Chittim: The perception of conflict of interest is germane to what we're talking about. Continue, but please keep it brief. [2:16:07] Scott A. Harriman: Yes, so on June 24th of this year Councilor Martel reported a $500 maximum contribution to his campaign from the Wiener family trust, which is has an address of 1910 Teresina Drive in Sacramento, California, which is the same address as the Boa Vida group? Which is owned by a man named Eli Wiener? And then on July 2nd of this year he reported five contributions. First one in the amount of $330 from Fox Run MHP LLC, which I understand to be owned by Boa Vida. $322.55 from Keywood Manor MHP LLC, which I understand to be owned by Boa Vida. $370.50 from Lewiston MHP's LLC, which I understand is Country Lane Estates owned by Boa Vida. $283.60 from Yankee Commons MHP LLC, which is in Kittery, I understand to be owned by Boa Vida, and $245 from Yankee Settlement MHC LLC, also in Kittery, which I also understand to be owned by Boa Vida. So that's over $2,000 in campaign contributions from the Boa Vida group to Councillor Martel. So I believe that does meet the definition of a conflict of interest for someone who is working on legislation vigorously. [2:17:40] David B. Chittim: Councilor Harriman, I think that would be a point that we would reference with the attorney, and that would probably be done in executive session. So I appreciate the comment. I understand that a more to the point and what we're talking about. Where are you at? Concerning the process that we're at right now. Do you want to continue to move forward with some type of ordinance? I do want to continue to move forward with it. Counselor Martel has stated that he does not [2:18:11] Bret Martel: I'd like to be recognized. Certainly, I would just like to point out that counselor Harriman forgot the donation from the local park owner John Horton who donated $100 to my campaign. It'll be on my next reporting requirement. I would also like to point out that main campaign finance laws the reason that is the conflict of interest is for personal gain. Main campaign finance laws are monitored and they need to be reported, which is in its public, which is why he had access to that, and there are laws what you can use and what you can't use those for and there's very strict laws against any personal betterment or improvement for use of campaign funds they can be used only for the for the cause of campaigning now you can draw any conclusions that you want from that but that is the truth and that is the advice that I got from legal counsel when I reached out and you know I invite anyone to draw whatever conclusions they want from that i'm not going to shy away from it 's public record for a reason. I'm [2:19:19] David B. Chittim: i'm going to just go around here counselor chittum i guess i'll start or actually counselor noble i'll start with you and then we'll go around and i'll finish it is this about the moratorium what i'm asking is with a with a with a more defined process us do we want to continue to move forward okay thank you i have been a proponent of protecting the interests of folks who are captive in their homes on mobile home parks from day one my position has not changed yes counselor long champs can you just explain to me again what we're, what we're asking is tonight, like generally we either could have said we don't want to continue with exploring an ordinance, right, or we're going to continue with exploring an ordinance but with a more clearly defined process. And so that's what I'm asking each of the counselors up here tonight, so that we either, and the state is currently in process of creating the ordinance, right, or has already, currently everything that the state passed is in the past at this moment. It depends on what happens in the new, in the new group that comes in, so we won't see any new laws passed until something was passed, something was, yep. So what was passed was some restrictions against new private entry equity firms coming into the communities in Maine to purchase mobile homes, basically mobile home parks. There's basically a $10,000 per lot fee that is applied when a large private equity firm now comes in that does nothing for the private equity firms that currently exist in the community. But they had also set some guidelines around a lot stabilization program that they then did not enforce. So ultimately the rules are the 5.1 percent increase is actually a suggestion. If you exceed that 5.1 percent increase and 51 percent of the residents of a park file a registered complaint, you're entitled to mediation, but there is no requirement that mediation actually results in anything. So a mobile home park owner could say I'm going to raise the rent by 60% 51% of the residents and now we don't want that to happen, that they have to hire a mediator at their expense, meaning that the mobile park homeowner, I'm sorry, the mobile park owner, but there's no requirement that they come to any terms. So basically it just basically extends the notice by the length the time it takes to go through the mediation and probably five thousand dollars for a mediator. So ultimately there is no stabilization program from the from the state at this moment. So i think just given all the confusion and everything that's happened i will not be able to support this at this time. Thank you. Thank you. I would simply say that the majority of the constituents that came out to express concern are who we work for, who we represent, and without a doubt there are indications of the exploitation of captains tenancy, and that's not just in our community, it's actually a nationwide practice with private equity firms, which is why they're being investigated by the federal government and they're being sued in many states. We have an opportunity here to come up with a solution that right now we're pitting a large national entity against a bunch of private owners and tenants and we're being threatened meanwhile by multiple groups including the one tonight. night this is the you know the battleground I guess apparently for the entire state, which is unfortunate because all we're trying to do in my opinion is to protect our constituents, but I would support redefining the process and moving forward with an ordinance. So I think we kind of have a direction now. If anybody else wants to bring up anything before we close this and move to the next, okay, so thanks everybody tonight for coming out and we're gonna move on to the next agenda item number 15 order authorizing the waiver of attorney-client privilege from the August 18th executive session and authorizing the city attorney to publicly discuss the potential of a lawsuit regarding the mobile home lot rent stabilization ordinance. Requested action to approve the order authorizing the waiver of attorney-client privilege from the August 18th executive session and authorizing the city attorney to publicly discuss the potential of a lawsuit regarding the mobile home lot rent stabilization ordinance and madam clerk can we just clarify normally it takes a supermajority to waive executive privilege since there are six of us my understanding is it's four that would need to support this? Yes, correct. Okay. And also, there was a legal opinion shared that the lawyer, or excuse me, our corporation counsel should probably not be testifying to us, that we would be free to share our opinions or recollections of the conversations that we had in the executive session, but that the Corporation Council would not be the arbiter of what was said in the room. Did have I gotten that correct? And he's Corporation Council here, yes. I [2:25:44] Bryan Kaenrath: would want to defer to the city attorney maybe to weigh in on that rather than speak myself. Okay, thank you. [2:25:51] David B. Chittim: Should be Mr. Carey, Esquire. Yeah, so I just wanted some clarification for all that. Can I get a motion to open this? I one, I was getting clarification. Please, decorum, please. I was getting, I was getting clarification from the. Would you like to run the meeting? Okay, have just a little, a little bit of motion. I've said that motion to move, second. I was asking for the motion to move. Okay, perfect, there we go. So it's open, yes. [2:26:54] Bret Martel: I it's our taxpayers that foot the bill for legal bills for our legal expenses, and those legal expenses are growing exponentially because this, we've been chasing this down for so long, and there's a certain group on this diocese intent regardless of anything to slam it through. So I just think that everyone should be aware. I don't think there's anything that is, you know, this isn't a real estate deal that could be compromised or swayed like we normally go into executive session for. It was an opinion expressed by our city attorney to us and the likelihood of certain outcomes and expectations, and I think the public is here deserves to hear that, and that this body should be transparent in what it does. You know, this, that we failed to go into executive session by a supermajority vote to continue to have this discussion because there were MEMBERS OF THIS COUNCIL THAT DIDN'T WANT TO DO THAT, AND WE'RE TIRED OF US RUNNING TO THE BACK ROOM TO DO EVERYTHING BEHIND THE BACKS OF OUR CONSTITUENTS, AND UNFORTUNATELY ONE OF THOSE COUNCILORS ISN'T HERE TONIGHT, BUT I STILL SAY THAT WE HOLD A VOTE BECAUSE IT IS MY DESIRE TO FULLY INFORM THE PUBLIC ON ANYTHING THAT WE CAN INFORM THEM OF, AND I CAN'T SEE ANY REASON WHY THIS NEEDS TO REMAIN PRIVILEGED BEFORE [2:28:27] David B. Chittim: We continue more further conversation. Do we want to have the vote to discuss executive set session privilege first? Okay, I think I think it's pertinent to any of the information. So what we're voting on right now is the waiving the attorney client privilege from the August 18th executive session. Okay, everybody understand that we're not, that's the next agenda item is concerning future information we don't have yet, correct? The next [2:28:56] Bret Martel: agenda item will be moot if this vote fails, right? Correct. Okay, ultimately so I [2:29:04] David B. Chittim: would move to end further debate to have the vote. Sorry, go ahead. No, I think that we ought to have discussion and since this is a council action shouldn't we have public hearing and public comment as well? Fair enough. I think this is a dangerous slope. Our attorney has recommended that we not waive attorney-client privilege. There are circumstances where the public it's dangerous to have information in the public. It tips the city's hand in potential litigation and this is a situation where if we waive attorney client privilege here we have done harm to the city and to our council. So I oppose this. [2:29:54] Bret Martel: Counselor Martell. I would just like to point out that my colleague right here just divulged confidential information by explaining that we had gotten that legal advice, that we came in an e-mail that was specifically noted as privileged with that recommendation from our counsel in it. So being the arbiter of what is and isn't the best for the public to hear doesn't lie with you. It lies with the vote. Anybody [2:30:25] David B. Chittim: else have anything further to comment before I ask our lawyer to give his opinion on whether or not we should waive attorney-client privilege and then also whether or not he should be the testifier? Okay, could we see Mr. Carey please? Thank [2:30:53] Glassby: you sir. Hello, I provided the public comments that are not [2:30:58] Speaker O (unidentified): privileged in an email to you all a week and a half or so ago and I believe that's what was [2:31:03] David B. Chittim: in the council packet so I had nothing else to add to that document and perfect thank you so if there's no further comment let's go to public comment Mr [2:31:19] Michael R. Roy: council president chinem is correct about actually like we don't know who i am the deputy administrator to placate the deputy administrator i'm at roy ward six again mr council president council chairman is right by waiving confidential client attorney privilege you lessen the authentic nature of any future advice from an attorney so this should be and that and i and as someone who's been sued by this city personally and professionally by this attorney that is that should carry some weight also Thank you again. [2:32:10] John Geary: i'm john geary i'm a resident of ward 6 and i'm retired now but i was an attorney at law had my own law practice here in the state of maine and for the last 20 years in lewiston and i would say our esteemed representative from ward seven complains about the cost of attorney's fees but he doesn't want to listen to the attorney's advice it doesn't make any sense you know attorney-client privilege is a reason that there's a reason for it and if you ignore it 's you're at your own risk any further Public comment coming. [2:33:01] David B. Chittim: Back to the council, please. Call the roll, can we. [2:33:11] Speaker AB (unidentified): Just be clear about what a no and a yes foe is for this. Sure, let me read the motion for you for. [2:33:17] David B. Chittim: Clarification, it's the one that's printed in your book, item number 15, requested action to approve the order authorizing the waiver of attorney client privilege from the August 18th executive session and authorizing the city attorney to publicly discuss the law, the potential of a lawsuit regarding the mobile home lot rent stabilization ordinance. No word six, no word seven, yes. [Bret Martel: Word one, no.] Word two, no, word three, no, motion failed by about of one to five. [Lisa Jones: Item.] Number 16, please. So I believe, counselor, item 16 is a moot point because item 15 failed. If item 15 passed, then item 16 would be that discussion with. Them, and we don't have to vote to table that, we can just, no, I believe it. Basically does not move forward as a result. Okay, thank you, so we can move on to item number 17, resolution to conduct a review of the master services agreement with Alter LA transitional shelter for contract compliance along with the financial and operational review and potential Council action. Requested action to approve the resolution to conduct a review of the master services agreement with Alter LA transitional shelter for contract compliance along with a financial and operational review and. Potential client an act council action could. I get a motion. Okay, second? Yeah, do we have a second? Okay, I'm going to pass this off to Councillor Martel as he's the writer of this agenda item. [2:35:14] Bret Martel: Thank you. I want to start by explaining why I asked for this item to be brought forward tonight. Over the last several weeks, concerned were raised at public comment about the operation over the shelter. Those concerns prompted me to go back and review the city's master services agreement and better understand exactly what the city agreed to fund and what was required in return. As part of my review, I requested financial documentation that the agreement requires to be provided to the city when administration was unable to produce the required monthly reporting in the financial documentation now before us was submitted only after the city requested it this month. I felt more a more thorough review was warranted and I do want to be clear I am not beginning tonight with any accusation of wrongdoing. This is a significant amount of taxpayer money and Lewiston taxpayers were generous enough to commit substantial funding to provide this service. With that comes an obligation on our part to make sure those dollars are being spent for the purposes council approved and that the requirements of the agreement are being met. Just as importantly, some of the most vulnerable people in our community are relying on this facility. They were promised a certain level of shelter care and access to services and the city was has committed significant taxpayer resources towards providing it. They deserve to receive what was promised just as much as the taxpayers deserve to know what they're paying for. So my purpose tonight is straightforward. I want to establish what the city has paid for, what services and facilities have actually been provided, what remains outstanding, and whether both the contractor and the city have fulfilled their responsibilities under this agreement. And I appreciate everyone being here tonight to help us answer those questions. Am I going to, I was under the impression that there would be representatives to answer [2:37:02] David B. Chittim: questions for us from the shelter or there from Arthur 207. Did you arrange that in any way shape? PERFORM FROM MY UNDERSTANDING WE'RE SITTING ON A MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE SHELTER THAT STAFF WAS MANAGING WITH THE STAFF FROM ALTAR 207. I CAN CERTAINLY INVITE THEM TO COME UP AND SPEAK BUT AT THE SAME TIME I DON'T THINK THAT THEY EXPECTED TO SPEAK TONIGHT. [2:37:27] Bret Martel: WELL DID YOU WOULD YOU CARE TO WEIGH IN EITHER OF THE ADMINISTRATORS WE [2:37:35] Speaker AC (unidentified): HAD REACHED OUT BY EMAIL TO Kane's kitchen to his board of director and they were advised that of council Martel's questions we had supplied them some questions there was an email back and forth part of the service agreement was that the questions have to be sent by certified mail which I have done they did explain that they were not going to answer in depth the amount of questions but I do see Kevin Boyard here in the audience with some of the staff it would be up to them if [2:38:05] Bret Martel: they want to address the counselor they did express in an email that they would make [2:38:10] Scott A. Harriman: someone available this evening to answer questions yes numerous times tonight someone has interrupted and spoken out of turn without being recognized i was wondering if we could just have one mic for the meeting make sure people are recognized when they speak yeah i apologize that is that is my [2:38:27] Bret Martel: FOLD AND I'LL TRY TO DO BETTER UM COUNCILOR MARTELL YES I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT IN AN EMAIL TO THE CITY IT WAS EXPRESSED THAT THERE WOULD BE A REPRESENTATIVE HERE TONIGHT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER AS IN DEPTH AS POSSIBLE DUE TO NEEDING TO GATHER MORE INFORMATION SO I'M HAPPY TO PRODUCE THAT EMAIL IT'S A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD i came here with the understanding that someone would be provided this is an entity that is getting taxpayer dollars and it is in their contract that they you know have it provides certain things and i don't understand why they wouldn't want to be cooperative and answer some questions about what they're doing with the money that we're providing to them councilor noble [2:39:26] Speaker AB (unidentified): did you say that they were working with city administrators on the agreement [2:39:33] David B. Chittim: that we have with them it is my understanding from the from the way that this has been developed and from the orders that we've passed that it is mostly staff level communications so ultimately the we put out the RFP asking for a service provider in our community to provide a low barrier shelter there was one applicant that responded that we chose them which is older 207 the in June we had a vote before us to extend a conditional license based on code enforcement improve approving the homeless shelter license knowing that they were working on getting the building they were behind schedule basically or they were not necessarily behind schedule but they were challenged but with getting the work done. We left most of the communication to staff as well as staff at altar 207 which is also outlined in the in the master service agreement. And so ultimately I believe the normal process would be if staff on either end of the agreement had issues with what was happening within the master service agreement they would they would work with each other because they're partners in our community providing a low barrier shelter that we've requested. The council does not have the I mean these are business meetings right we don't have the authority to set up inquests or inquiries. If we were to investigate ourselves it would take a vote of six of us to investigate one of us investigating community partners under these master service agreements doesn't make much sense to me ultimately but you know anybody can put an agenda item on you put the agenda item on so i am i'm looking for [2:41:34] Bret Martel: information on it council martel all right so i will i would like to ask city administration to ask the representatives from the shelter who are sitting here in our chambers and invite them up to the table and see if they would like to answer some basic questions [2:41:54] Bryan Kaenrath: so just as the deputy administrator said we did receive questions from counselor martel we did forward those to katie's kitchen. There is an appropriate process to ask them via certified mail. I don't think we as city staff have the ability to direct an outside organization right now to testify. I don't think we have that authority. Yeah you can pose the question or could well i think the question hasn't right sorry [2:42:24] David B. Chittim: i did pose the question okay [2:42:27] Bret Martel: so i think this is where we're at yes counselor mental i'm gonna read some statements into the record then on this agenda item sure so i'm gonna have to do this a little differently please provide me just a bit of latitude as I was told in an email that the shelter was going to make someone available to answer questions so I had prepared this in the form of questions but I can also shift gears and make it as a statement so part of the master services agreement is that a statement of work and This is signed on July 17th, 2025. Alter the service provider agrees to operate a shelter for the unhoused individuals during the term of agreement. In the center will operate at 70 Horton Street Lewiston Maine. Designated representative service provider for contact with the city's designated representative is provided in the agreement is Kevin Bullard. Here are the service provider shall do the following. Operate 12 months per year, 24 hours per day. Provide a safe, warm place for guests that will include clean, functional furniture, bedding, and other items necessary for the operation of a homeless shelter in compliance with legal requirements in this agreement. Maintain peace, order, and cleanliness on the center premises. Provide all right execute a purchase and sale. Okay so we're going to go to sections five and six in the master services agreement. The city's funding obligation under this agreement shall not exceed the amount set forth in exhibit A. It requires the service provider acknowledges that it is a condition of its funding that the service provider obtain funding from other sources. In that event, service provider does not obtain adequate funding commitments from other sources prior to December 3, 2025 for the first year of term of the agreement or the service provider does not provide obtain adequate funding commitments from other sources prior to December 31, 2026 for the second year in December 31, 2027 for the third year of the term or any source of funding withdraws its funding source withdraws its funding and the service provider does not obtain alternative sources to provide adequate funding the city reserves the right to terminate this agreement with 30 days notice financial statements and information section 5. Providers shall provide to the finance department on a monthly basis its financial statements including its funding commitments from other parties and anticipated sources of funds. The representative of service provider are designated by the service provider in the statement of work shall meet with the city designee upon reasonable advance notice by the city designee in the service provider representative to discuss that funding source. So to date the shelter has not provided well actually to date they have provided shelter those financial statements they were received I believe on September 8th, 2025 for the year that funding has been provided. There were no financial statements submitted to the city council [2:46:18] David B. Chittim: Martel, I hate to interrupt, but one thing that we would ask is that things be concise, as this is a business meeting. And the second thing I would, I would indicate is that if staff has not told you at this point that they did not request that information because they did not believe that it was re, that it was required at the point that this is, like, again, I'm going to refer back to the fact that this is a master service I'm going between the city and the provider that staff manages. If you have issues with the way staff is managing that, then we need to, we need to direct one employee to do something different, yes. [2:47:06] Bret Martel: I just think it speaks for itself that there's multiple representatives from the shelter here that have taken nearly four hundred thousand dollars in taxpayer money this year alone, and they refuse to come up and answer the most basic of questions about what they've done with that money. That speaks for itself. There is other ways to pursue this information, and so for that reason, if there is not going to be anyone that's going to come up and answer any questions, then I will certainly pursue other avenues to get answers for our taxpayers, I mean. [2:47:38] David B. Chittim: One of the things you could do is actually talk to the service provider. The other thing that you could do is under the master services agreement we, they do have requirements for reporting, so I [2:47:48] Bret Martel: withdraw my motion. It's [2:47:52] Jamie Alley: good evening, my name is Linda Scott, I'm the administrative director. When [2:47:57] David B. Chittim: do, sorry, bear with me, yep, we didn't get a public comment, but you asked to have somebody speak. [2:48:04] Bret Martel: No, I asked for someone to answer my questions, okay. This is a mess, it is. [2:48:11] David B. Chittim: I concur, bear with me for one moment, Councilman Champ, thank you. I want to apologize to the public because this meeting is a mess. This, I would like to ask our city administrator, because I have spoken with you in regards to this, we do need some timelines, we do need to know when the shelter is going to be, when they are going to be able to provide beds and showers. We spoke about that, so I do understand what Councillor On a Gene is saying, that it's basically your job to speak with the organizations, right, but there have, there have been some things that have Fallen through the cracks and administration and our finance department have dropped the ball on a few things. And so I do want to say that Counselor Martel is correct in some of what he's saying. It is unfortunate that we didn't have someone here to sit and answer some of the questions. I don't know why that changed all of a sudden, but here we are. But our meeting is a mess. So I just wanted to share that. I thank you. Any further comment from counselors? [2:49:50] Bryan Kaenrath: Mr. Council President, Mr. Minister, thank you. I just want to address a few of the comments. So it is true, according to the master service agreement, the shelter or Cadence was supposed to be providing us with monthly financial statements. Those financial statements were not coming in. I'm not going to assign blame in any one particular person, staff member, or anything else, but that has been communicated to the shelter. These financial statements need to come in monthly. They weren't being sent. We weren't asking for them following up. That's all. That's all a fact. But I don't think any other major balls have been dropped. I do want to defend the staff. I don't think anything is a mess here. They were before you in June seeking a conditional permit, which you granted. I think at that time, I'll let them speak for themselves, they gave you quite an update on their progress, timeline, other goings-on. I think it has been obviously common knowledge that they are getting to the point of opening a low barrier shelter when we entered this agreement, they were not going to be operating as a barrier shelter on day one. I agree there should be timelines. I agree there should be communication. I think they have been before you in the past to talk about those things. So I do just want to offer some defense. I don't think I'll speak on the city staff's defense. Yes, the financial report should have been coming in. It is a two-way street. We should have asked for them, but you know, our finance department deals with many moving pieces all the time. And so we're not going to cast blame or sign blame, but we will make sure those monthly reports are coming in on a monthly basis from now on. But I think that's where we are. But I don't think any other major balls have been dropped on behalf of the city. Thank you. [2:51:45] David B. Chittim: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Does anybody else? Counselor Chinem? Yes, I do. I have a question for our parliamentarian. The motion to entertain discussion on this agenda item has been withdrawn. Does that kill the item? The maker of the motion did withdraw it, but then I'm not sure that was acknowledged, because then other comments were made. So if that could be clarified again, that yes, if someone is withdrawing their motion, Council. [2:52:18] Bret Martel: Martel, I withdraw my motion. [2:52:20] David B. Chittim: The counselor and the counselor from Ward Two, second, did you concur with the withdrawal? Thank you. So the maker of the motion has withdrawn his motion, so it is now not before the council. okay so moving on to new reports and updates does everybody have a report or [2:52:44] Scott A. Harriman: an update go ahead counselor Harriman yes the school committee met last night and one of the things that we discussed was the creation of sort of a pilot program for something called the Lewiston community coach core I'll just read from the document here it's a structured way to train certify employ and deploy adult volunteers and community nonprofit partners so Lewiston public schools can safely open more sports and more spaces to more students without asking existing staff to do more than They already are, and there was a lot of discussion on the item. There was some suggestion that it be that it encompassed more than just sports and encompass other kind of after school activities. Some examples were things like a chess club or an anime club or other things that aren't specifically sports. So that ended up it passed six to two, and that pilot will be moving forward, and if it if the first stages of it go well, it could expand in the future. [2:53:53] David B. Chittim: sure thank you very much anybody else have any reports or updates so we're moving on to new business does anybody have any yes counselor noble so a few [2:54:07] Speaker AB (unidentified): months ago we had a lady that came to public comment and she was talking about all of the telephone poles in the city and how messed up they were so after that I started noticing like I'm when I'm walking downtown on my walk to work if I'm driving in a car with somebody that she wasn't kidding these poles are a mess there's wires hanging down into the street on some of them I took a picture of one and I sent it to Brian on East Avenue by Shaw's there's one that's like literally leaning it's it Doesn't look safe and I know that Brian you were like well send me the address so I can send people out but there's so many I think that it would be worth it for CMP or whoever owns those polls to be coming and checking. I mean if I can see them when I'm walking or driving down the street they can see them too and they're their responsibility I feel like to take care of. And the other thing that I wanted to know is if we could look at the flag policy and maybe just talk about that a little more. Maybe not tonight but after we look at it just. [2:55:22] Bryan Kaenrath: To respond quickly yes on the flag policy and the polls that you have mentioned we have been communicated to CMP as needing repair. Thank You Brian counselor. [2:55:36] David B. Chittim: Chittum thank you yes it is campaign season the campaign signs are out in proliferation. My understanding of the state law is that they are permitted for a six week period between July 1st and December 31st and also for a six week period which is irrelevant to our case for the first six months of the year. This law was passed two years ago and it requires every sign to have the date that it was installed. I have and inspected many signs that are lacking that date so it's impossible to determine. Whether they are complying with the law or not. These are people who are running for public office I'm not going to name any names or any parties but they ought to be aware of the law and they ought to be complying with the law. I don't know what responsibility the city has whether that's a code enforcement issue. I'm seeing the clerk nod her head so I would ask administration to refer for campaign sign compliance and establish a priority of some sort to the code enforcement office. Thank you any. Other new business from any of the. Counselors so I do have some new business I would like to address the fact that tomorrow at 9 a.m. The office of program evaluation and government accountability also known as the Oversight Committee at the state will be taking up the issue of whether or not they can explore the distribution of funds raised in the mass shooting. I have written a letter which I'm going to send to the our delegation OPEGA the Mills administration and as what as well as the House and Senate leaders it is as follows as the current president of the Lewiston City Council and elected ward 1 counselor I asked that. The Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability, or OPEGA, to the extent legally possible, provide an overview of the City of Lewiston's involvement in fundraising and in the decision-making surrounding the management of donation funds associated with the events of October 25th, 2023. I encourage OPEGA to investigate any claims of possible wrongdoing or mistakes made by the city or our partners in the management of and distribution of funds associated with the capital campaign through an independent, nonpartisan, and apolitical framework. I further urge the Main Community Foundation, or MCF, to provide an accounting for the actions taken and rationale and metrics used for the decisions that led to the allocation of funds to area nonprofits as part of the broad-based recovery fund distribution. I would also hope that MCF would be open to dialogue and considering entering into mediation between aggrieved members of our larger community who are present or impacted by the horrific tragedy and advocates for those impacted by the mass shooting events which occurred in Lewiston. Last, I urge the current state administration and law-making body to consider that the families and victims of survivors of the events of October 25th still have unresolved medical, financial obligations directly tied to medical expenses and mental health services received after the shooting, as well as a loss of income which has led to housing instability and other hardships for some survivors due to the trauma caused by the events that night. And please do it as there ever is in your power to make this right. That's the letter that I'm sending in. I am asking any of the council that would want to sign on to it. I do have just a further statement to quickly read out. No one asked to be targeted for horrific and unimaginable violence or cruelty in our community. No one asked for their lives to be impacted irrevocably by this tragedy, and no one should feel that they are alone in this community while advocating for themselves and trying to make right what cannot ever be made whole. While I Personally have no authority over the decisions that were made. I believe we can start to heal by examining in a transparent fashion, through an accountable process, the actions and decisions made by our city and community partners in order to provide answers to questions and concerns that will keep resurfacing until they are addressed. Owning up to and fixing any mistakes that may have been made and apologizing for our inability to address these concerns in a meaningful way for so long is the least we can do as city leaders, in my opinion. Well, I know that some in our community want to move past this dark recent history. Holding space for and caring for those who never had the ability to move forward from horrible events of October 25th and their families as well as those survivors and families who remain traumatized while their needs are not met, their concerns remain unaddressed, and their voices are not heard is not the path we should continue to follow. That's it if anybody else has anything else to add, otherwise like we could entertain a motion to move into the executive session. I'll read the motion so I item number 21 executive session regarding consultation with the city attorney requested action to enter into an executive session pursuant to main revised touches annotated title 1 section 405 6a and e to discuss a legal matter with a city attorney. So moved, second. Please call the roll. Yes, no, word 1 yes, word 2, word 1 is yes, I'm sorry, word 1 is yes, word 2 yes, word 3 yes, motion passed by a vote of five to one. Thank you all, Lewiston, have a good evening.