Bangor council advances bus fare hike, fuel farm design, delays kitchen vote

[0:24] Susan Hawes: They're live. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome to the regular meeting of the Bangor City Council. It is January 12th. It is now 7 p.m. and we are wanting to start promptly so we can work through our agenda judiciously. We start all meetings with the Pledge of Allegiance. Sonia, would you be willing to lead us please [0:52] Speaker B (unidentified): Thank you. [1:09] Susan Hawes: Sonia, okay, this is the portion of the meeting set aside for general public comment directly related to city business for matters that do not appear on this evening's agenda. Public comment requires a person to state your name and whether you are a resident of Bangor. The City Council has adopted a public comment policy that we will adhere to. Statements during public comment should respect the dignity and seriousness of the proceeding and individuals will be restricted to speaking once. Obscene, truly threatening, or overly repetitive comments will be deemed out of order and will be interrupted and removed. Topics that are considered out of order also include matters that are in litigation, individual employees or employee groups discussing matters for which complaint or grievance procedures are in place, personal disputes between the speaker and another resident not germane to city business, support for our opposition to any candidate for a political office, and personal complaints pertaining to individual city employees. There is a time limit of three minutes per speaker and the total time allowed for general public comment regarding city business will be limited to no more than one hour. The public comment period is for city council members to listen and not to respond or debate with persons. If you do not live in Bangor or own property in Bangor, please allow those who do to have the opportunity to speak first. If you'd like to offer comment on any item directly related to City business not appearing on the regular agenda, you may approach the podium. Individuals who have appropriately pre-registered to give public comment via remote means will be given the opportunity to participate remotely. Alternatively, counselors may be reached via email at counselors bangor maine.gov. A link to the adopted public comment policy can be found on the city's website, public comment policy. Scott [3:41] Speaker B (unidentified): Party, and I'm a resident of Bangor, and I'm, I really want to say I'm happy you're, you are forming a standing committee on homelessness. However, this cannot be another bloated tax force that produces nothing but a report that gathers dust. For this to work, it must follow three strict rules of engagement. First, keep it small. We do not need a dozen different opinions in the room. We need a core group of three to five people. This committee must be headed by a singularly driven individual, someone with the grit to prioritize results over bureaucracy. Second, set a fast deadline. We are talking about weeks, not months. The people that live in encampments or on our sidewalks are in survival mode. Unless you have lived it, you cannot even begin to imagine the psychological and physical toll of not knowing where you're sleeping or if you will be fed and safe. While we, while we sit in this climate controlled room, they are fighting for their lives, and we must ask, act with a speed that reflects that reality. Third, you must commit to total implementation. You must obey the committee's suggestions, no matter how painful or inconvenient they may seem to city staff. If this committee determines that the best solution is to take over a city-owned building and relocate municipal departments to make room for 24-hour indoor space, then do it. Our city departments are staffed by professionals who are more than capable of adjusting to new office layouts or temporary locations. They are resilient. The people sleeping in the cold do not have the same luxury of resilience left. We need an indoor space available 24 hours a day to keep everyone safe, the unhoused and the public alike. I will be following up with an email in the next week or two detailing the specific financial benefits of this approach, showing how a centralized indoor space actually saves the city a tremendous amount of money on emergency services and cleanup. Stop managing the problem and let's start solving it. Find your chair, set the deadline, and be prepared to move whatever mountains or departments are necessary to save lives. And I really do want to thank you for doing that. I think it's a big move. I think that this problem can actually be fixed now, and just to be flexible, you know, or keep an open mind, and that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? [6:22] Nathaniel Fields: Good evening, my name is Nathaniel Fields. I'm a resident of Bucksport, Maine. I'm a father, a veteran, and the founder of No More Homeless Fathers Project, a newly 501c3. When we talk about homelessness, we often talk about encampments, shelters, and numbers, but we rarely talk about men and fathers. Men are who are working, trying, loving their children, showing up, but who are one missed paycheck, one custody battle, one injury, or one mental health crisis away from losing everything. Nationally, nearly 70% of people experiencing homelessness are men. In Maine, men make up the clear majority of the single adult homelessness population. Many of them are fathers. That means homelessness is not just a housing issue. It's a men and fathers issue, and therefore a single stability, public safety, and long-term fiscal issue. When a father becomes homeless, it doesn't just affect him. It destabilizes his children, schooling, mental health, and safety, and increases the likelihood of foster care, court involvement, emergency room use, and long-term public assistance. The public pays for that collapse for decades. Encampments are not the root problem. They're the visible symptom of a deeper breakdown in stability, mental health, routine, and connection, especially for men and fathers who are losing daily access to their children and their sense of purpose. This is why our work focuses on prevention, not just crisis response. The No More Homeless Fathers Project provides housing stabilization, employment pathways, mental health, legal navigation for custody and child support, and family reunification support. At the core is Men and Fathers Anonymous, a structured accountability and brotherhood model that builds discipline, routine, and peer responsibility. Isolation is one of the strongest predictors of homelessness. Relapse, accountability, and community interrupt that cycle. goal. This is cheaper than foster care, cheaper than non-carceration, cheaper than repeated shelter, ER, and court involvement. This is about a compassionate and fiscally responsible. My act tonight is this. I'm requesting a formal working session with the council and the city's housing, public health, and social service leadership to explore a pilot partnership between Bangor and the No More Homeless Fathers Project. Specifically, I'm asking for the opportunity to formally present our full program and our outcome models. Identification of city-owned or partner space for men and fathers' accountability and support groups, coordination with housing, workforce, and family court partners, and consideration of a pilot funding allocation in the range of 50,000 to 150,000 through ARPA, CDBG, or local stabilization funds to launch a men and fathers stabilization track with the homelessness prevention strategy. This pilot will focus on men and fathers at the tipping point before tents become permanent, before children end up in foster care, before courts and hospitals become the default safety net. [9:39] Susan Hawes: Strong men build strong families. Sir, that was the time. Your time is only three minutes. Would you leave your contact information before you leave? Yes. Good [9:57] Michael Norton: evening. My name is Michael Norton. I'm at 83 on the street, Bangor, Maine. Fortunately, I have the next three months rent paid off, so other than being out of money, I'm okay with that. It's winter time. I think this year it's not unreasonable to imagine two or more people having a conversation that goes something like this: Wow, I can't believe cancer is no longer on this planet for anyone. Whoa, me neither. What are we going to do? I have a Parkinson's disease class I'm trying to get to. Universities to teach medical schools and professionals how to convey the cure for Parkinson's disease this year. But one of the takeaways they have from that class is that there is a key finding in that discovery that's related to cancer and cancer treatment. The human body has 30 trillion cells working in each and every one of us. 7 trillion of those, or 23%, are dedicated every second and every moment we're alive to water management and water productivity. The rest of the human body is what? It's water. 70% to 77% is water at any given tidal moment, second, day, week, month, year. And when the schools can incorporate a perspective of magnetism in their curriculum, they'll be able to beat both for everyone. I spoke for an hour today with a human resources representative at The Ohio State University, a wonderful person. She introduced me to contact information for a doctor with a 27-page curriculum vitae, a 27-page resume. It's unbelievable. And he's younger than me too, but he's been to universities in Pennsylvania and Ohio. He's on a diagnostic radiology board, and he was a resident for that department. He works with oncology. He works with the James Center, which is in OSU, at OSU, for comprehensive cancer care. It's just unbelievable to me because I don't play football, and neither does he. I don't think, I didn't see it on the resume, 27 page resume. I don't know anyone who's ever had to be faced with 27 page resume. I think they want me to ask him and them, do you need more continuing education in your school. So that's their play option today. But whatever. If a referee is playing cancer care for patients, and it's the football field as an analogy, the human blood has a compounded rate of resonance every day and every time we live, unlike the daily clock. And if you put the ball down, ref, on the field, the players are ready to play. You can't put it down without this class. You're just throwing it off away from the center. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone [13:17] Susan Hawes: else? Good [13:25] Steve Santiago: evening ladies and gentlemen of council. It's good to see you. I haven't been around a little bit, but if some of you might remember, I am again Steve Santiago, formerly of Food and Medicine. I was here frequently discussing transportation for all and our community connector service within the area. I'm here again for that reason. It's again, I'm not affiliated with Food and Medicine any longer, but the important, but the subject is still important to me. I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the passing of Jim Fogg, a city employee of 22 years. Jim served as a Bangor community connector driver for those 22 years. And was a ATU 714 member for just as long. Passengers and drivers alike will miss him. John Lee, another driver for the community connector, previously stated within the transportation community, WWJD stood for what would Jim do. So was his patience and compassion for those he served. He would sell, he was soft-spoken and well respected within the community. Jim was 66 when he passed last Tuesday. He survived by his mother, father, sister, and a young lady named Amber, who he considered like a daughter. I'd like to use my remaining time as a moment of silence to respect his life and his services, and to also think about our other city employees. [16:33] Susan Hawes: Anyone else? Seeing none, we'll go to... Oop, somebody's coming. Coming. [16:44] David Lyons: Good afternoon. My name is David Lyons. I'm not from Bangor, so I wanted to wait till the end, but I just wanted to thank you guys for what you're doing for the homeless and the committee and all that stuff. And it was a pleasure to hear what was going on Tuesday. I am standing here as part of Reach Ministries today to just lay it out. You guys use the word experts a lot on the Tuesday's meeting. And I was homeless 13 years. And the rehabilitation for homeless is a beautiful thing. But from lived experience, the gap between a homeless drug addict to a full term program with no drugs upturns these people lives in a way that it's too much. Only one out of 10 survive. So today I'd like to propose an idea that I've seen has worked. The state of Texas is already doing it. There's another gentleman in Canada that I've just heard is starting this. It's a 30-day transitionary program that allows homeless people to camp and have miniature homes where you take them out of the addiction, but you still let them kind of live what they're comfortable in. And that 30 days helps them to transition out of addiction and teach them community. But at the same time, it gives you 30 days to get to personally know who you're trying to help. A lot of homeless that do get the resources they need when they go into a rehab, they go in to options, let's say things like that. The person at the desk that is sitting there helping the homeless actually doesn't know the person that they're trying to help. And a relationship, for myself personally, because this was my story, that's what helped me to actually changed my life. So being able to have a 30 day transitionary program allows them to change part of their life at once while you get to know them well enough to know what program works best for them. I went through a faith-based program myself and there's so many different kinds. There's the one I went to, 168 acres out in the woods. There's another one in New York city-based. For everybody's different that's homeless, it's not just homeless is the issue, it's people need to understand people. And doing this transitionary program would allow the gap between recovery and homelessness to be a little easier where hopefully the transition actually works. So that's my proposal today and I just want to thank you guys for giving us the opportunity to get up here and speak. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone [19:21] Susan Hawes: else? Okay, seeing none, we will go to those that are on zoom. Richard [19:35] Richard Ward: ward can you hear me hello try again can you hear me now yes all right thank you richard ward banger resident i had some a few different topics i wanted to cover first this is for the members of the city council fellow citizens and anyone else brave enough to listen I speak today as a free American demanding accountability from the government that's forgotten its place. You built a fortress of hypocrisy here in Bangor, silencing voices that dare challenge your echo chamber. You censor speech, shut down debates, and label anything you don't like as hate speech while preaching tolerance. It's laughable, pathetic even. How dare you claim to champion diversity while stomping on the very beliefs that built this nation? I call on you right now to acknowledge what you're doing, violating constitutional rights. The First Amendment isn't a suggestion, it's the law. We have the unenable right to speak freely and to petition our government to address our grievances. Yet here we are acting like tyrants, blocking citizens from addressing you because your truths make them uncomfortable. Admit it, you're trampling the Constitution to protect fragile eagles egos. And let's talk about the real threats in our town, in our society, in our country. Left is violence. It's not conservatives out there burning cities or assaulting police. No, it's called progressives who resort to violence when words fail them. We see it and we are done pretending it's mostly peaceful. Take ICE for example, those heroes on the front lines protecting our borders from chaos. Remember that strange woman who tried to mow down an ICE officer with her car? She got what was coming, a swift dose of justice and self defense. Praise are all you want in your safe spaces, but that's what happens when you attack law enforcement. Reality hits back harder than your virtue signals. My message to law enforcement, enforce the laws as you do for your job, either step aside and let real Patriots restore [21:26] Susan Hawes: Mr Ward, you are out of order. I didn't hear what she said. Okay, Philip Passler, Phillip [21:54] Speaker H (unidentified): Pass, can you hear me? Yeah, I'm here, can you hear me? Go ahead. Yeah, quickly, could I get a reason why the first Zoom caller was out of order? He's [22:08] Susan Hawes: bringing in topics that if you had read the or listened at the beginning, we read what was going to be accepted and what wasn't. Once that line is crossed, I will as chair gavel him out of order or anyone else that's doing the same thing. And once [22:26] Speaker H (unidentified): He's out of order. He's off the Zoom. I not to get into a back and forth, but I'm curious, if the council changed over and new members came in, then would the appropriate topics then change? Is this a fluid concept that depending on who is here tonight, that's what we can talk about? Or is there something set in stone? It seemed kind of vague. I read that too, and I was just left with, I mean, I thought this was the moment that the public got to come in and speak and not be judged by what they were said or what they had said. Am I incorrect? [23:04] Susan Hawes: Correct. What was read at the beginning is the public comment policy that has been adopted by the city council. All the topics are listed there that are going to be considered out of order. [23:20] Speaker H (unidentified): And it does not matter who's in the chambers. I heard, I heard somebody speaking about First Amendment issues, and I know recently we had an issue where you guys shut down Zoom because you didn't like what was said, and then it has to come back, and now it seems like you're still saying it all depends on whether you guys like what the public has to say, and that's what I'm confused about, because I don't want to, you know, I'd like to have my opportunity to speak as a Bangor resident of eight years and eight months, but I'm up against like these arbitrary rules. I don't, I feel like it's, it's hard to navigate, so maybe I just proceed, hopefully that you know, as an American citizen, the ideas that I have, whether you agree with them or not, you'll allow me the space to put them forward. So, okay, with that being said, I'm here tonight to talk about the outrageous decision to shut down public comments over Zoom, just because some words got a little too spicy for your delicate ears. You came to the censorship mob, silencing voices under the guise of protecting us from disruptive behavior. But let's be real, this is about you squashing speech. Sorry, my phone screen went blank there. You're squashing speech that you don't like. Squashing speech that is offensive. Squashing speech that challenges your comfy little echo chamber. You know, freedom of speech isn't just polite and the politically correct. The First Amendment protects even the ugliest words as long as they are legal. Offense isn't a crime. It's a choice. If someone drops a slur or rants like a lunatic on Zoom, that's their right in a public forum. Mute them if you must, but banning the whole platform, that's cowardice, and you guys showed your hand there, that you are cowards when it comes to time is up Mr. Hasler Mr [25:12] Susan Hawes: Lance, hello. [25:23] Speaker I (unidentified): Can you hear me? Yes, go ahead. Yeah, hello. Restricting virtual public comments is silencing unpopular speech. That's viewpoint discrimination. This meeting's public comment period is a limited public forum. In such a forum, the city may impose reasonable time, place, and manner rules, but it may not engage in viewpoint discrimination. That is settled constitutional law. Supreme Court held in Rosenberger versus University of Virginia that the viewpoint discrimination is per se unconstitutional. In Metall versus Tam, the court stated plainly that speech that offends, that offense is protected. Government officials may not silence speech simply because it's uncomfortable, harsh, or unpopular. No matter what you guys think on your board, you can't do that. Public comments exist for political criticism. Citizens have the rights to criticize public officials, government policy, foreign governments, and political movements. In New York Times v. Sullivan, the court held that even sharp and damaging criticism of public officials lies at the core of the First Amendment. Citizens may also speak about true historical and criminal facts concerning public officials. Truthful statements about a council member's public record or criminal conviction are protected political speech and may not be censored simply because they are embarrassing or harmful. The city may regulate conduct, not content. Under Brandenberger versus Ohio, speech may be restricted only if is intended and likely to cause imminent lawless action. Mere offense, anger, or controversy is not a disruption. Courts also reject the heckler's veto. And Bible Believers versus Wayne County, the court held that government must protect speakers rather than silence them because others might react negatively. Courts have also made clear that manner of expression does not remove political protection. Political speech does not lose protection because it's profane, crude, or offensive. In Cohen versus California, Supreme Court protected bolder political expression. I am speaking calmly, within time, and without threats. I ask that the same rules be applied to other viewpoints, to be applied here on any interruption during this final segment. Absent actual disruption will demonstrate viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment. Thank you. Public should know about Angela Walker. Then Angela Humphrey, you're [27:28] Susan Hawes: out of order, sir. That's it. Taylor and Vaughn, hi. [27:43] Taylor Ann Vaughn: My name is Taylor Ann Vaughn, and I'm a resident of Bangor. My goodness, some of these comments, I'm not going to say that I necessarily agree with every comment made, but I do think it's important to listen because we are residents. We are citizens. I actually came today to talk about the ICE protests going on right now, but I find that the issues that we have are much deeper than that when our own citizens can't even have a voice. That is disgusting. I am all for every single illegal immigrant being put back where they came from because they are not here legally, but we have legal citizens here just wanting to be heard in their own community by people elected in a position that their entire job is to listen. Maybe 10% can be signed this paper and act on what they have listened to and make the best decision for their people based on that. But every single thing that you do relies on listening to us. There's what, six, seven of you, and how many of us? I find it abhorrent that you think is appropriate to cut off anyone's speech. We have the right to three minutes, and that's not asking for anything. It is pathetic that we have to sign up to speak in our community and be heard in our community. The fact that we are not capable of coming in, raising your hand, and just being heard is disgusting. You set up all these extra barriers, Roger got it. But the people who have done this and have done everything they're supposed to do can't even be heard by the people they elected. In despicable, you simply do not have the power you think you do, and it is pathetic when you try to flex something that you don't have. A bunch of boomers out here trying to tell us what is and is not appropriate. We have the right to free speech, and every single Supreme Court justice that has ruled upon free speech has said so, as long as you are not inciting violence or saying fire in a crowd you are allowed to your words i don't care if you like them i don't care if you find it offensive i don't care if you find it so offensive that it i don't know incites enough violence for you to commit murder and then be written off as though it was nothing and then i don't know be elected into city council even that 's enough too and we're done i [30:51] Susan Hawes: think we've had enough Zoom exposure for one evening. Okay, madam clerk, if we could go to the consent agenda, please. [31:05] Lisa Goodwin: Minutes of Bangor City Council regular meeting of December 22nd, 2025. 26-061, order authorizing the execution of a municipal quitclaim deed for real estate located at 541 Kanduskake Avenue. 26-062, order appointing constables for the year 2026. 26-063, order accepting the 2025 annual report from Historic Preservation Commission. 26-064, order accepting the 2025 annual report from the Planning Board. 26-065, order accepting the 2025 annual report from the Panjshirwak Marsh Bangor Mall Management Commission. [31:51] Carolyn Fish: I move approval of the council's consent agenda. Second. [31:58] Susan Hawes: So I moved and seconded. Is there any objection or further discussion? Seeing none, the consent agenda has passage. There are no referrals, unfinished business. Madam Clerk. [32:15] Lisa Goodwin: 26-050, order authorizing the city manager to negotiate with Sheridan Construction for construction manager services for the Bangor Central Kitchen project at 50 Cleveland Street. [32:27] Susan Faloon: Councillor Faloon. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Madam Chair, I move Council Order 26-050. Second. I move to postpone consideration of Council Order 26-050 to the regularly scheduled City Council meeting on January 26th, 2026 at 7 PM. Second. It has been moved and seconded to move [32:54] Susan Hawes: this council order 26-050 to the meeting of january 26 is there any discussion seeing none is there any objection seeing none the order will have passage to move this to the january 26 city council meeting 7 p.m [33:29] Lisa Goodwin: Madam Clerk. 26-058, ordinance amending the land development code section one 165-13 definitions to remove Ohio Street and State Street from the minor arterial street definition and add Ohio Street to the major arterial definition. Councilor Carson. [33:48] Daniel Carson: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Madam Chair, I move Council Ordinance 26-058. Second. Madam Chair, I move to postpone consideration of Council Ordinance 26-058 to the regularly scheduled City Council meeting on January 26, 2026 at 7 p.m. and refer discussion of Council Ordinance 26-058 to the Business and Economic Development Committee. [34:23] Michael Norton: Second. Okay. It's [34:28] Susan Hawes: been moved and seconded to move this ordinance to the meeting of January 26, but to move the discussion of this ordinance, further discussion to the Business and Economic development committee at their next meeting is there any discussion any objections okay it is an ordinance we'll need a roll call vote Madam clerk counselor back clarification [34:59] Michael Beck: This is just a vote to do the referral, not the actual past ordinance, right? This is moving it [35:05] Susan Hawes: to the referral. Yes, Council. [35:11] Lisa Goodwin: Carson yes, Dean yes, Council of Falloon yes, Council of Fish yes, Council Mallard yes, Council Walker yes, Council Haas yes, eight yes, zero no. [35:25] Steve Santiago: Okay. [35:28] Susan Hawes: Ordinance 26-058 has passage to be referred to the meeting of January 26th and the Business and Economic Development Committee unfinished. [35:42] Lisa Goodwin: Business we have 26-059 resolve appropriating an amount not to exceed 900,000 from the airport unappropriated fund balance to fund the phase one design of the fuel farm facility. Council of Fish. Thank you, Madam Clerk. [35:59] Carolyn Fish: Madam Chair, I'd like to move resolve 26-059. Second. This resolve will appropriate up to nine hundred thousand dollars from the airport unappropriated fund balance account to fund the phase one design of the fuel farm facility. The current fuel farm is originally 1968 surplus military transfer and consists of three storage tanks connected by a pipeline with a storage capacity of three million gallons. The facility's age, remote configuration, and the pipeline which crosses Main Avenue at three different separate locations create growing operational regulatory and liability challenges. The FAA approved airport master plan calls for the relocation and construction of a new fueling facility that meets the current industry standards. Preliminary proposals placed phase one of a two-phase design and engineering process at approximately $900,000. This item was received and recommended for passage by the Business and Economic Development Committee at the December 15th 2025 meeting. Okay. [37:19] Susan Hawes: Resolve 26-059 has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Are there any objections? Seeing none, resolve 26-059 has passage. New. [37:43] Lisa Goodwin: Business. Madam Clerk, public hearing application for special amusement license of 471 Stillwater Water Avenue, LLC, doing business as Smoke and Steel, 471 Stillwater Avenue. Councilor Beck. [37:55] Michael Beck: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Madam Chair, I move that we open the public hearing for the application for a special amusement license of 471 Stillwater, LLC, doing business as Smoke and Steel, 471 Stillwater. [38:06] Susan Hawes: Avenue. Second. It's been moved and seconded. The public hearing is open. [38:19] Michael Beck: Seeing no one approach, I move that we close the public hearing. Second. [38:26] Susan Hawes: Seeing no objection, the public hearing is closed. [38:28] Michael Beck: Closed. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I move that we approve the application for a special amusement license of 471 Stillwater LLC doing business as Smoke and Steel, 471 Stillwater Avenue. [38:42] Angela Walker: Second and. [38:46] Susan Hawes: Moved and seconded that the application for Smoke and Steel is approved. Is there any further discussion or objections? Seeing none, the application has passage. [39:02] Lisa Goodwin: Madam Clerk. 26-066, order authorizing an update to the Community Connector fair structure, Councilor Beck. [39:11] Michael Beck: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Madam Chair, I move passage of order number 26066. Second. This order will authorize an update to the existing fair structure for the Community Connector, Community Connector, to include an increase per ride of $0.50 from $1.50 to $2, replace traditional monthly passes with fare capping, eliminate the need for paper transfer tickets, and create mobile fare options. The Community Connector, in conjunction with the Bangor Area Comprehensive Transportation System, recently completed a fare study that included public outreach. Outreach. The Community Connector has not increased fare in over a decade despite increasing costs and value added via new vehicles, brand new transit center, and technology improvements. The recommended fare structure and payment modernization strategy will improve equity, operational efficiency, and financial sustainability while aligning Community Connector's fare policy with current service investments and rider expectations. It is anticipated that the update to the fair structure will take approximately a year to implement. This item was reviewed and recommended for approval at the Government Operations Committee meeting on January 5th, 2026. [40:32] Susan Hawes: Order 26-066 was moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Madam [40:45] Michael Beck: Chair, I just want to point that when we had the discussion about it was pointing out that the cost for the technology was covered by grants. So for those watching from home, that was not a tax expenditure, it was taken care of by a grant. [41:02] Susan Hawes: Any other discussion? Any objections? Seeing none. Order 26-066 has passage. Wow. That brings us to the end of the agenda for this evening. [41:27] Susan Faloon: Councilor Flew. Well, that happened so much more quickly that I wasn't prepared to say anything, so I'll just say thank you everyone for coming out tonight and have a great night. Good night, Bangor. I [41:48] Angela Walker: just want to say I'm glad that our Zoom public comment section is back and I'm hoping that we can get back to regular business. I also am sending condolences out to the Community Connectors, the bus driver that we lost, Jim, and his family, and I will see you guys next time. Thanks, Councilman. [42:20] Carolyn Fish: Good night, Council Fish. Good night, Bangor. [42:28] Susan Hawes: Also Carson, good night Bangor. Also Beck, just want to say, you know, much was made tonight [42:36] Michael Beck: during public comment about free speech, and to that end I wanted to point out that there was two protests in Bangor this week where a lot of free speech was taking place. And one of the things that I remark about it is people came from all over the state to participate, and I'm proud to live in a community where we are seen as welcoming to free speech, that people would want to come here to express their opinions and in this case their displeasures. So I just wanted to reiterate the fact that you know free speech is alive and well in Bangor, and I'm a happy participant in it. So thank you for the opportunity and good night Bangor. [43:22] Susan Hawes: Also Dean, good evening Bangor, and to those of you still in the audience, I just want to thank you for your respectful and insightful comments, and with that I will say good night Bangor. Okay, thank you all for attending and participating, and no big news.