Lewiston Council debates ethics policy overhaul; public presses mayor on shooting-fund ties

[0:53] Mayor Carl Sheline: hello and welcome to our— there we go. Hello and welcome to our Tuesday evening workshop. We're here to, discuss, the ethics policy, and, yeah, that's what we'll be doing. questions, comments from councillors? Councillor Longchamps, did you have something? Or, Administrator Kenrath, did you have something? [1:14] Bryan Kaenrath, City Administrator: Well, I was gonna ask Mr. Mayor, I don't know if you wanted me to start us off with just sort of a summary of what's before the council and the request from Councilor Longchamps, if that's helpful or not. [1:25] Mayor Carl Sheline: yeah, sure, take it away. [1:27] Bryan Kaenrath, City Administrator: Okay, so, Councilor Longchamps did request to us to take a look at the city's current ethics policy. She was really interested in modeling some new language after the recently enacted ordinance in Bangor. Just in our research, there are a number of Maine communities, particularly the larger cities, that do have an ethics policy ordinance and an ethics committee or board that reviews ethics complaints, including cities including Bangor, Portland, Brewer, Auburn, Waterville, and a number of others. And so there are a number of examples out there to look at, but this draft before us is largely mirrored After the recent Bangor ordinance that they enacted a couple of months ago, so with the policy in front of you, sections one to fifteen are really what's in existence now for the city. That's unchanged. Sections sixteen through twenty-one are new and really address standards of conduct. Sections twenty-two and twenty-three really get into referral and review of complaints, and then finally. Sections 23.7 and 20 through 23.9 really deal with the council resolution and accountability piece. And so this proposal, it was— Councilor Longchamps said a few particular points of interest, but this really does leave a lot of discretion still in the council's purview. For example, the ethics complaint, when it's filed, it doesn't go right to the ethics committee. It goes to the council, and the council can decide if they would like to refer that complaint to the ethics committee. Once the ethics committee takes it up, they have 90 days to basically adjudicate the complaint, and they provide back an advisory opinion. It is advisory back to the council, and then we have 30 days to put on a council agenda for the council to take it up and decide what they would like to do with it. So really, there's two major points. Of council action in there, whether to even refer it to the ethics committee as a council decision. And then once the advisory opinion comes back from the board, the ethics committee board, the council can then decide whether to take the recommendation, pursue a totally different course of action, or dismiss it. So it really leaves a lot of purview still with the council. Some other areas I've heard some just comments about, In this draft, the ethics board is appointed by the city council. There could be other ways, as you know, for appointing a board or committee. We have a couple of different examples there. So that's, I think, in a nutshell where it lies. You know, Councilor Longchamps can speak to more of her goals, but our task was to really take our existing ethics policy, which again is really sections 1 through 15, and then add on to it, really, actions and language that mirrored the recent Bangor ordinance put into effect. [4:33] Mayor Carl Sheline: Thank you, Administrator Ken Rath. Councilwoman Longchamps, did you want to, go second here? [4:40] Councilor Susan Longchamps: Yes, thank you, Mayor. Exactly as our city administrator has shared, I wanted to mirror as much as we could the Bangor ordinance that they have for their ethics Policy. Really tonight is just to get feedback from other councillors. I've already reviewed this. I like the way it's written. Thank you to our city administrator for doing a great job. But it's really just to hear what the council likes or dislikes. Thank you. [5:10] Mayor Carl Sheline: Questions, comments from councillors? Councillor Chittim, yes. [5:15] Councilor Michael Roy: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I yeah, I guess I'd like to have. an idea on why this is coming before the council, why policy changes are recommended or are being contemplated? I've got a number of questions, but that's the first and foremost one. [5:31] Mayor Carl Sheline: Would anyone like to speak to that? Councillor Longchamps? Yes. [5:36] Councilor Susan Longchamps: I just want to make sure I'm not answering something that— is your question why did this come about? Is that your question? [5:44] Councilor Michael Roy: Yes. What's the, what's the impetus for it? [5:46] Councilor Susan Longchamps: So the interest was basically we had 2 businesses that were— they had some real issues within amongst each other, and it was really bad where we had to have the police involved, and there were threats being made. It was just really unsafe for the 2 businesses. And then what was happening was Outsiders were getting involved, so it wasn't just the 2 businesses now, neighbors. And then we received emails and the police department received complaints regarding an individual that is a part of our— one of our committees and had just made some statements on social media that could be very harmful. So that's really where it came from. [6:44] Councilor Michael Roy: Thank you for that, Councilor. I would like to go through. I've reviewed this carefully as well. I reviewed it as well, and I'd like to make a couple of observations in general. If this council wants to pursue this, I'd like to make certain that there is no ambiguity or conflict with any other. ordinances, rules, or policies. For example, we have council rules that address many of the items in here that would have to be looked at because this addition expands the reach of the ethics policy from beyond the council, which is governed by the council rules. People on appointed and elected— other elected positions and appointed boards aren't covered by council rules. So I want to make certain that there wasn't any overlap or redundancy or ambiguity looking at the current ethics policy. And I do see some overlaps from apparently Bangor's to our existing ethics policy as well as to the council rules. [7:54] Councilor Susan Longchamps: Thank you, Councilor Chittim. I would refer this question to our council— our city administrator. [7:58] Bryan Kaenrath, City Administrator: Yeah, I just wanted to add, I neglected to mention this has already been reviewed by the city attorney, by legal. for these issues. I think it may be a good idea, actually, if the council has further interest, we could have the city attorney present and could kind of go piece by piece with some of these concerns. But it has been reviewed by legal, and so there, should be no issues as far as the ones you just brought up. But it— perhaps it's a good idea to have the attorney at a future session. [8:24] Mayor Carl Sheline: anything further, Councilor Chittim? [8:30] Councilor Michael Roy: I have lots, but I want to give everybody a chance to chime in. [8:34] Mayor Carl Sheline: Okay, Councilor Harmon, yes. [8:37] Councilor Scott Harriman: Thank you. I did have just a couple items in here. The first one is under, 16. I would take out the second paragraph there, the entire second paragraph. It says that if— that the individuals shall leave the council chambers or the meeting room during discussion and consideration of the matter and shall not return. I think it's reasonable to have the person leave the dais or leave the table, but they still have rights as a resident to, see what's happening, to comment as a resident. So I would take that, entire paragraph out. [9:12] Councilor Susan Longchamps: Councillor Longchamps, could we maybe get a, like, a thumbs up or thumbs down if we all agree to that, and then our city administrator could Take that. [9:24] Mayor Carl Sheline: I guess, how do we, how do we feel about that suggestion? Looks like we're okay with that. Anything further, Councillor Herman? [9:34] Councilor Scott Harriman: I did have just one other thing. It's not part of the new section, but reading through this made me realize that under 3.2, it looks like the policy applies also to school committee members. And I don't believe that we as a city council can create policy for the school committee because that's a separate independent elected body. So I realized that was in there before, but I would like to have our attorneys weigh in on that. I believe the charter says that the school committee is the judge of the qualifications of its members, and we can't we can't have a policy that. Supersedes them. [10:17] Mayor Carl Sheline: yeah, you were reading my mind, Councilor Herrmann. If we can just flag that for the attorney, that'd be great. Yeah. anything further? [10:26] Councilor Scott Harriman: That's it for now, thanks. [10:27] Mayor Carl Sheline: Councilor Martel, did I see your hand up? [10:29] Councilor Bret Martel: Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have a few concerns. I want to start out with 3.1, city employee, any individual working for and drawing an hourly wage, salary, or stipend from the city. on a permanent or temporary basis, differentiates. So 3 defines an elected official. Well, if an elected official, for example everyone sitting up here, gets a stipend, we get the big bucks actually, that's why we serve. But, so I, there it convolutes the definition. So technically, by the definition of city employee, it makes every elected official a city employee. So I'm not sure what the differentiation is for an elected official, and if one includes the other, I think the wording should be changed, or there should be some way to differentiate between a city employee or an elected official, especially if there's different standards held to each of those or different requirements. I think that can be remedied pretty easily with just a couple changes of verbiage, but My other concern off the top of my head is where we start getting into— so 23.5 is the powers and duties. The board shall make findings of fact. What I find difficult to come to findings of fact is a lot of this verbiage is subjective and ambiguous,, and is very open to interpretation or personal opinion. So an example I've highlighted is, in Section 20: While conducting city business, officials shall treat fellow elected officials, appointed members, city employees, volunteers, applicants, members of the public, and other persons appearing before the city council, boards, and committees with professionalism, courtesy, dignity, and respect. Those are all good ideas, and they're the way that we should conduct one another, but they're not objective, and it becomes an absolute matter of opinion and interpretation to define those. So when we're asking the committee to have findings of fact, we're using subjective terms and vague language. So if we're going to be rewriting this policy or crafting new policy around ethics, I think that the definition should be objective and measurable. [Councilor David Chittim (Council President): Thank you.] And finite. I guess we can pause there. I don't know who I was really posing that to for response. If the city administrator has something or Councilor Longchamps has suggestions, I'm open. [13:15] Mayor Carl Sheline: I'll just jump in. So, you know, if we're talking about professionalism, courtesy, dignity, and respect, I mean, these are all These words have definitions, and I would like to suggest we'll, we'll know when we see it. And, yeah, I mean, for instance, if I started yelling at councillors, one, could very reasonably claim and objectively claim that was not being professional. And, I, think we're— I think— I guess what I'm trying to say is I, think we're okay with these definitions. [13:45] Councilor Bret Martel: Well, I mean, I would disagree, Mr. Mayor, because just recently when we had, Spurwink up here, you hammered the gavel and said that we're going to treat our guests with respect, and I was treating them with respect. I asked them a difficult question that you may not have liked. There was no insult to my question. There was no rudeness or raising my voice. It was a perfectly reasonable question that you gavelled and hammered and reprimanded me in stating that we're going to treat our guests with respect. I, would argue that I was very respectful. So when you say we'll know it when we see it, you may have seen it. I didn't. I don't think that any of us is going to look at the same situation and see the same thing. So when we're making decisions on this, you know, this is a perfect example of it being subjective and you cutting off an elected official in a matter of questioning someone, which I was elected to do, and Me thinking that was a perfectly reasonable line of questioning. So that in itself is an example that I point out in real— that has happened recently, that leads to how this is going to get convoluted and what I fear is even weaponized at some point. So we're going to leave everything up to subjective opinion. And there are serious consequences at play here that are enumerated, later in the document. that I think, need more scrutiny than just, we'll, we'll, we'll know it when we see it. [15:13] Mayor Carl Sheline: thank you, Councillor Martel. I hear you. any,, anyone else want to weigh in on this? yes, Councillor Chisholm. [15:23] Councilor Michael Roy: Thank you. I agree with Councillor Martel because in the instance that he cited, he may have been comporting himself in his view as professional, courteous, with dignity and respect, but I saw an antagonistic approach which isn't covered. And the lack of specificity in some of the language here does leave this open to interpretation. So I agree with you. I think the example that you cited is a perfect example. The mayor apparently felt that you were out of bounds. I did as well. You legitimately felt that you were not, and you were asking a legitimate question. So it argues to the point of let's be very specific in what we define as behavior that's acceptable and behavior that's not. So I agree with you. [16:13] Councilor Bret Martel: I would also add that by nature— [16:17] Mayor Carl Sheline: Councilor Martel, would you like to be recognized? [16:19] Councilor Bret Martel: Oh yeah, I thought we were— I didn't realize— [Mayor Carl Sheline: Please continue, sir.] I thought we were still discussing what I brought up when I was recognized, but, now I've lost my train of thought. I will, I will put my hand up to be recognized when it comes back. [16:36] Mayor Carl Sheline: You're good. Thank you. Yes, Councillor Neji. [16:40] Speaker I (unidentified): Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think decorum within the council chambers is actually decided by the council body. We're we're basically the judges of ourselves and the police for ourselves. So therefore, if I mean it's tough. The instance that you're Particularly referring to, I don't think the questions were inappropriate in any way, shape, or form. I think that there were valid questions that most probably should be answered at some point. I do think that tone was harsh. [17:24] Mayor Carl Sheline: Can you hold on for one second? [17:26] Ronnie Parity, Ward 6 resident: I'm sorry. I'm trying to turn off the voice. Sorry, I'm trying, I'm just trying to get you guys. [17:33] Mayor Carl Sheline: Okay, do you mind just stepping into the hall while you handle that? That would be great so we can continue on with our workshop. [John Connor: Excuse me.] Thank you so much. I didn't do it on purpose. You were, you were good. We all deserve grace. Councillor Negin, please. [17:46] Speaker I (unidentified): I personally feel the tone was harsh and the line of questioning was, somewhat accusatory, but, what is— how do we, like, how do we define that? or decide that, right? I think when we talk about the quorum in the, in the council chambers, it's more about having the chair— showing respect for the chair, that's one. Showing respect for the other councilors, that's two. Showing respect for people, who are our constituents and our guests. And how we define that respect, I guess, is different depending on, who you are up here. So, — I think I'm not quite sure if we can come to a term on that, with the exception of the concept that if the majority of the body feels that an ethics violation may have occurred, that would be a reference. And then that speaks exactly to what you're saying about weaponization, because obviously the body can be and has been at certain times divided and— [Councilor Bret Martel: Divided.] So it's a good point. I'm not— I, 'm sorry, I don't have like a, like, big revelatory thing to say. I'm just going through some of the, some of the challenges with, how we would then refer something to the ethics committee to look into, and if it's going to be, you know, based on, the feelings of a majority of people on council, that isn't necessarily— that doesn't play well depending on who's on the council and what they're trying to do, right? [19:31] Mayor Carl Sheline: So, thank you. yeah, Councillor Martel. [19:36] Councilor Bret Martel: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. yeah, so by definition, the things that we deal with up here can be controversial, they can be emotionally charged. These are important issues that a lot of people have a vested interest in. So again, I, will defend the way that I asked those questions as, no, they weren't designed to have baby gloves on. We were talking about large amounts of money, and when you're asking for responsibility for those things, I don't think that it should require any level of pandering or, you know, you know, to,, to make it easy. Our job isn't to make it easy. We're quite literally elected to ask difficult questions, have difficult conversations, and to make the best decisions we can based on what we believe is right for our constituents. So, to police tone, for example, for example, is very difficult. And I think that those are the waters that we're wading into here. And, You know, it's just, it just feels a little bit in conflict to me for, statements like to find findings of fact. Well, it's very difficult to have a finding of fact over, subjective, subjective feelings or opinions, and that is just, what I'm trying to point out. And if we're going to put these— it literally says powers and duties— if we're going to be defining the powers, I think that it should protect or, be objective again, that I'll say, so that, it's very clear to everyone 's playing by the same rules regardless the makeup of the council. Anybody's— this could get political very quickly, and for a body that is designed by intent to be nonpartisan, I just think that having it clearly defined is the best path forward. And If it can't be that, then we shouldn't be trying to police it. [21:35] Mayor Carl Sheline: And if I and if I may, Councilor Martel, and I realize that you and I have a difference of opinion about this, and that was a while ago. I'd have to review the tape. But you know, my recollection of that evening, there was nothing. I do remember. Stopping you in your line of questioning. But at no point did I ever think that rose to an ethics violation. And so I would argue that,, like, what happened that evening would not, like, come under— like, there'd be nothing. It just did not rise to that level, if that makes sense. [22:16] Councilor Bret Martel: Well, it interrupted an elected official from asking a line of questioning. So it rose to some level. [22:24] Mayor Carl Sheline: I understand, but rising to a level where we refer behavior to, the ethics board, it was not that. [22:34] Councilor Bret Martel: Oh, and another place where I think needs some definition is we all wear different hats up here. where, is it defined? So when are we private citizens and when are we wearing our elected official staff member of a committee hats. And I think that with the prevalence of social media and the, volume of communication that goes on there, I, think that if we're gonna have this code, I think there should be a section that defines behavior on social media and what role an individual is under or what hat they're wearing at any given time. [23:13] Mayor Carl Sheline: Councillor Longchamps. [23:17] Councilor Susan Longchamps: A couple of things. one, I would say that, you know, from the moment that we're sworn in, as an elected official, that is, you have to be mindful and careful of what you do 24 hours a day. Because you're representing a lot of people, your city, your state. So I would say that, in my opinion, if you are an elected official or a board member or a committee member or a school board member, you're at a level that, you know, everyone is watching you, and it is important to conduct yourself professionally. the other thing I just wanted to mention was I would have to agree with, Mayor Chalene as far as— and I hate even going back to that situation, but you guys have been discussing it, when we had our meeting here with Spurwink. I don't think that was at a level of where you could, or you should be recommended because of your tone or your seriousness or your compassion or your beliefs. And I don't see anywhere in here where, you would be held accountable for that. And, if there is a place, I'd like you to please share that with me. [24:51] Mayor Carl Sheline: Thank you. [24:55] Speaker I (unidentified): Thank you, Mr. Mayor. One thing to point out is that, the chair of the meetings is responsible for maintaining order. And so ultimately, if we do not, respond to the mayor's attempt to maintain order, then we're, we're undermining that role as chair. So it's one of those things that, I, have been told before that I've been off topic where I felt like I wasn't. I but I shut up because I'm not running the meeting and I'm not trying to maintain order. and, so, you know, it's, it's— we're trying to avoid, I think, bickering, fighting, looking professional, you know, all of those things. And I think that as far as this ethics policy is concerned, the vast majority of this refers to what we do on the dais. the, — what we do in our private lives as private citizens, how we comport ourselves, I do think is very, important. But at the same time, you know, if I go to a Bob Seger concert, I don't know, is that, you know, I'm just saying, like, you know, there's, there's a, there's a level of, like, what we do in our private lives is not necessarily, the business of the council. The business of the council is the business of the council. [26:22] Mayor Carl Sheline: Councillor Chittim. [26:25] Councilor Michael Roy: Thank you. Yes, I, think Section 20 talks about, what Councillor Longchamps was referring to, and that is behavior, above reproach at all times. The way I read it, city-elected officials and appointed members of the city boards and committees shall conduct themselves in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the city. To me, that's a 24/7 charge that, People who are in that position have to conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times. That goes with the territory. I think what we're talking about here is good to talk about because it points out the difficulty in trying to legislate morality. And that's really what we're trying to do here. We're trying to create a policy that encourages all to be civil to one another, to observe decorum, quorum at all times and in all dealings. And as Councillor Martel has pointed out, that's often in the, in the eye of the beholder. so I, think it's difficult to, to have an ethics policy, particularly in, light of Councillor Martel's remarks, that the, specificity in here is lacking as to what is and what is not. There is no concrete guideline as to what is decorous behavior. With your permission, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to, go into some other areas of the— [Ronnie Parity: Yes.] Thank you. I would ask the attorney to check again on the new proposed Section 17 and compare and contrast that with our council rules Section 5 and with our existing ethics policy Section 10. C, I believe it is. No, there's no 10C. That's my hand scratching. Policy, our existing ethics policy 10, and our rules chapter 5. Section 18 talks about the appearance of impropriety, and here again we start walking down that slippery slope. The appearance of impropriety in whose eyes? ethics board, if such a thing were to be created, is going to be comprised of 7 individuals who have perhaps different perspectives among themselves, and that may well be different from the perspective of the council. I would also like to talk about the creation of this board of ethics. Apparently Bangor seems to think that this was a workable solution. I view this as an expansion of bureaucracy. I think the council currently has the authority to do all of the things that the Board of Ethics would be charged with doing here. In fact, the Board of Ethics cannot operate without a charge from the council. It then issues an advisory opinion to the council, which under this policy would be free to completely reject it, ignore it, embrace it, do whatever they want. We can do that already. So I see the creation of a board of ethics whose function merely is to offload some work from the council as unnecessarily bureaucratic. And I think we have the authority to do the things that we're asking this board to do in and of ourselves. And in fact, we have done it, sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly. But we have acted as a board of ethics on several occasions during our tenure. Thank you. [Andrew Jones: here.] Sometimes we get it right, sometimes we get it wrong, and that's, that's the way undefined morality legislation will work, and it will depend very much on who is sitting here. So again, I, find myself in the strange position of agreeing with Councillor Martel that, there is not enough concrete specificity in this in this policy. [30:28] Mayor Carl Sheline: Councilor Martel, did I see you have your hand up before? [30:30] Councilor Bret Martel: Not right this second, no. [30:31] Mayor Carl Sheline: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Okay, I guess further— did you, Administrator Keenrath, did you keep notes as to what we're asking, legal counsel about? [30:42] Bryan Kaenrath, City Administrator: Yeah, I have that. And also, just really quickly, in response to what Councilor Chittim just said, I think, the statement you just made makes sense and that you can already do that. I think the one difference— I don't want to speak for Councilor Longchamps— is, as far as ability to deal with board-appointed board and committee members, I don't think the council currently has a mechanism, to take up those potential complaints. So I think that was Councilor Longchamps' one other goal with this. [31:09] Mayor Carl Sheline: Councilor, Chinnam, did you have something? [31:17] Councilor Michael Roy: And then, yes, and I think That is really the impetus for this whole policy, and I think that can be done very easily by some wordsmithing in our current ethics policy. I'm not in favor, as you suggested, as you may infer, with this Board of Ethics. I think the council can do that, and I think if we want to expand the ethics policy to cover more than simply the 8 members sitting up here, We can relatively easily do that, although I would take note of Councilor Harriman's concerns about the council dictating how the school committee may and may not behave. There may be a charter issue there. [32:01] Mayor Carl Sheline: Councilor Nagine. [32:03] Speaker I (unidentified): Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would just say that I do personally support an expanded ethics policy. I,, I don't have much of a problem with most of what's in here. I do think there are some challenges around, for instance, what Councillor Harriman brought up. I do agree with Councillor Martel that I am not an employee of the city. I am an employee of the constituency, and I work with the city. I was not hired by the city administrator or by a department head. Thank you. I was hired by the people I represent. So at the end of the day, it's a— I'm not a city employee. And so the— which opens up a whole can of worms because the city employees have certain rules and restrictions that they have to follow. And then if I decide to speak about something that I think is relevant to my position, within, to, the community? am I in violation of, of a city employee rule? I could be. and so, you know, I also agree with Councilor Herrmann that we, that we should never have to step out of a meeting when we're a member of the city. I agree that removing yourself from the dais is appropriate if there's a conflict of interest, 100%. But we're also residents. [Speaker O (unidentified): The—] I think the challenge here with the concept of not having a separate review board is that if we're investigating ourselves or investigating an ethics complaint against ourselves, that becomes complex, I think. And then also, I like the idea of a somewhat impartial body. I would also say that some of the things that we're talking about here that we want to kind of corral within the ethics policy— and I'm not calling anybody out at all, we're all busy, we all do all kinds of things— but the MMA has a lot of classes available and, also videos online about, like, basically best practices for communication as city officials. as elected officials. And I think that, like, at some point, if we could encourage ourselves as a body to pay attention to some of these things, like, it's valuable. I, know it's an additional amount of time that we're, that we're putting in, but they're literally best practices established, by, all of the municipalities, in order to conduct the, city's business. And so— I, you know, I just wanted to bring that up there. [34:53] Mayor Carl Sheline: yes, Councilor Longshrimps. [34:55] Councilor Susan Longchamps: Thank you, Mayor. I would agree that— [34:58] Mayor Carl Sheline: can you just move the mic closer to you? [34:59] Amy Sussman, Bar Harbor resident/public commenter: Sure. [35:00] Councilor Susan Longchamps: I would agree that we should probably take out the, school, committee members as they are their own body. And I would also, — oh, I am losing train of thought. It's gone. I'll be back. [35:20] Mayor Carl Sheline: yes, perhaps— or sorry, yes, Councilor Martel. [35:24] Speaker Q (unidentified): Thank you. [35:26] Councilor Bret Martel: I think that the city administrator was on to something with the differentiation between, — so we already have council rules and they govern us, and there's very clearly defined objective things that say can cause a councillor to be removed or voted for removal. So if this policy is intended or does end up going forward, I think that we should be more focused on staff— maybe not staff, we have staff policy also— but boards and committees. And, you know, whether that comes down to the council or an independent body, we already have council rules. We, police ourselves. And while there is some, you know, conflicts there, I haven't seen any great examples where, we've run into trouble with that. I do think that there should be something in place though that allows for a review of the behaviors of committee and board seat members. That being said, I'm not sure that all of this is necessary, but I don't want to seem as though I have an issue with, an ethics policy because I do not. I just think it needs to be probably half this length and just very, clear. The, council rules are pretty clear. I would like to see this reflect that. I don't think we necessarily have to craft it other after another municipality. I think if we're going to go forward with this, then it really should be drafted in an original way that is unique to Lewiston and to the values or ethics that we want to enforce and see enforced. Yeah. That would be what I— my opinion on this for now. I had one other thing, but it seems contagious. The train of— losing train of thought seems to become contagious up here. So. That's what I've got for now. [37:28] Mayor Carl Sheline: councilors are— yes, Councilor Longchamps, then Councilor Najeeb, and I'm gonna chime in. [37:33] Councilor Susan Longchamps: Thank you. Just for clarification, the ordinance you didn't just like copy and paste to this, right? I hope you crafted, you know, and which I'm sure you did. [37:44] Bryan Kaenrath, City Administrator: Yeah, no, it's not totally copy and paste, but it's, it's mirrors, a lot of the intent and language of particularly Bangor. Like I said, there are a number of the larger cities around the state, Portland, Bangor, Waterville, Auburn that have similar ordinances. [37:57] Councilor Susan Longchamps: Thank you. [37:59] Mayor Carl Sheline: Councilor Nagy. [38:00] Speaker I (unidentified): Thank you, Mr. Mayor. one of the things that I like very much, in this ethics policy is that the appropriate actions when somebody is found, in violation of the ethics policy, pretty well spelled out. And I think that, you know, like, no penalty imposed Written, statement from the council for reasoning. Formal censure. Well, I mean, we can do that already. We cannot censure committee members. That is true. Committee removal. I think that is a tool that we do not have in front of us currently. Training requirement. Again, you know, referring back to the MMA. And then also just like And the values of clear communication and showing each other, and our constituency and staff respect, and, and,, professionalism, it is actually attainable, and it isn't necessarily, questionable all the time. it can be clear, what your intent is by the words you choose and the way you say them. And so, and that can be taught. [39:20] Mayor Carl Sheline: so, thank you, Councillor Negin. Councillor Jenham, did you have one last thing, or— [39:25] Councilor Michael Roy: No, I, may have several things. If you shut me off, it will be my last thing. [39:32] Mayor Carl Sheline: I,, I, you first, and then I'll chime in here. [39:35] Councilor Michael Roy: All right, thank you. to sum up, I would be opposed to the creation of a board because I think that this council has it. I like very much expanding the ethics to cover appointed and elected officials. I, — we've, we've talked a couple of times about an ordinance. This is not an ordinance, this is a policy, and I believe it should remain a policy. And then I do have 2 nits to pick, getting back to my old form. In the next to last page, subsection 3C, it talks about committee removal. The council may remove— may vote on whether to remove the official for a specific period not to exceed the remainder of the council term, which now is 1 year maximum. It cannot be any longer than 1 year. Or permanently. So you have a choice of up to 12 months or as short as 2 weeks if, the action comes at the end of the council term, and then there's nothing other than permanent removal. And I assume that means that the person could never be reappointed to that position. So there's some language that needs to be worked there. On the last page in 23.8D, It refers to this section, and I puzzled for a while trying to figure out what this section referred to. So if we could have a specific reference to this section, I couldn't find out how that language worked. And then finally, backtracking to 26.3, which is the at the top of page 10. It refers to deliberations in executive sessions provided in 1 MRSA 405, Section 6A. I would argue that 6E would also apply there too, and that should be included. Thank you. [41:39] Mayor Carl Sheline: Thank you. Did you catch all that, Administrator Kainerath? Okay. yes, Councilor Harriman. [41:45] Councilor Scott Harriman: Thank you. one of Councilor Chittim's comments Made me think of this. I feel like under three, let's see, it's section twenty-three point eight three C. I guess it is. It's the part about the punishments that can be imposed. The committee removal. I feel like allowing a council, a current council to remove. someone from a committee for the rest of their life isn't really— may not be legal. And I don't feel like that's, fair really for a council to be able to make that determination. They could do it for the rest of the year, the, council term or council year, but I feel like removing someone permanently for decades into the future doesn't seem fair. [42:39] Mayor Carl Sheline: Administrator Kainerath, did you note that? [42:46] Bryan Kaenrath, City Administrator: Well, so just so I'm clear on process here, are we doing sort of consensus, thumbs up, thumbs down on some of these potential changes, or are we— how are we— [42:56] Mayor Carl Sheline: Well, for that specific item that Councilor Herrmann, I mean, we already have a, you know, kind of a list going, to ask the council about, and so I would like to add that to— [43:05] Bryan Kaenrath, City Administrator: So the attorney, like I said, the attorney has already reviewed all this for legality, but we're going to go back and ask some of these questions. [43:11] Mayor Carl Sheline: Right, but we've taken a list. [43:13] Bryan Kaenrath, City Administrator: Sure, but as far as how we're proceeding, we're coming close to the end of the hour. I think we need to decide what's in, what's out, how is this coming back, and where the process goes. [43:24] Mayor Carl Sheline: Yeah, I mean, we've all, we've all chimed in at this point, and then, I think that, one second. [43:31] Bryan Kaenrath, City Administrator: But there's only been one item where there's been thumbs up, thumbs down consensus on removing something. [43:36] Mayor Carl Sheline: Well, there's been a number of items,, that have, that we've added to the list to ask the council about, or no? [43:43] Councilor David Chittim (Council President): No. [43:44] Bryan Kaenrath, City Administrator: Correct, there are a couple of items to ask legal counsel about, but I'm talking about consensus as far as removing specific items or language here and what we're bringing back next time. [43:54] Mayor Carl Sheline: I, was going to say, if we're already asking the council about some items, we can also You know, include all of those to the council, get their feedback, and then we can. [44:02] Bryan Kaenrath, City Administrator: Yeah, I think we're talking about two separate things. I understand the legal questions. We'll review some of those with them again. But as far as, for example, the one that Councilor Herman noted in Section 16 to remove, there was a thumbs up to remove that. So we got that. But some of the other items mentioned, for example, the concerns brought by Councilor Chittenden Martell, there wasn't council consensus to remove that language. At least not that I saw yet. [44:25] Mayor Carl Sheline: I understand what you're saying. I guess I would like feedback from council about whether that would be, appropriate or not. [44:32] Bryan Kaenrath, City Administrator: Again, they've reviewed this and they're good with it as is. Legal counsel. [44:35] Mayor Carl Sheline: All right, thoughts and comments from councilors? Councilor Longchamps. [44:39] Councilor Susan Longchamps: We established this at the beginning of our meeting that we were going to do a thumbs up or thumbs down, and I think we should proceed in that manner. if, council is okay with that, because we have to give some sort of direction. We can't just all throw out what we'd like and what we don't want to remain there and, expect that we're going to get a good ethics policy, because that's just ridiculous. So I'd ask the questions. Councillor Harriman asked his question, which I think is very valid, in regards to Remind me, Councilor Hermitage, what was it? Yes, the permanent removal. I think we could do a thumbs up or thumbs down if you're okay with that, Mayor. [45:24] Mayor Carl Sheline: Yeah, well, at this point, do you have the list, Councilor— I'm sorry, Administrator Kainrath? [45:31] Bryan Kaenrath, City Administrator: I have my notes on this. I don't have a list of everything that's been said, but I mean, so, the grammar— the more grammatical things that aren't substantive that you know, Councilor Chittim mentioned, we can certainly, I think, tweak those. But if we're talking about removing certain, you know, major sections of this, for example, the Board of Ethics, I think that's going to require some consensus from the council for us to make that change and bring it back. [45:56] Mayor Carl Sheline: Right. Okay. [Councilor Bret Martel: All right.] Councilor Nagy, and then we'll proceed to a series of thumbs ups and thumbs downs. [46:02] Speaker I (unidentified): Yeah, I had mentioned the city employee piece and 3.1, and in retrospect, when we're referring to definitions within a document, we're referring to city employees. I just want to make sure that there's no communication— there's no— a city employee is not an elected official, as we understand this, correct? So 3.2 is elected officials, 3.1 is people employed by the city. We receive a stipend, so I think What I'm saying is having like a specification that is clear that says elected officials are not city employees. [46:40] Bryan Kaenrath, City Administrator: And just so we're clear, that's our, that's our current policy. So our attorney did not review, I think, in depth the current policy. He really looked at more of the new language. So, the items mentioned in our current policy, we can go back and get attorney review on. For example, the school committee members, we'll go back and get those opinions from him, but that's our current policy as it exists now. [47:01] Mayor Carl Sheline: Yes, and just because we receive remuneration does not mean that we're employees. [Matthew Agron: Correct.] Councillor Harriman, do you, do you have thoughts on what the removal term should be? [47:14] Councilor Scott Harriman: Yes, I just thought that I, 'm not sure that it is— I mean, maybe it is, we, can create policies, but It would— it seems unusual that an elected body that serves for a fixed period of time could ban people forever from serving on city committees. I just— I question the legality of that, and I certainly don't think it's fair. [47:44] Mayor Carl Sheline: Would perhaps just removing them for the rest of their current term be acceptable? [47:52] Councilor Scott Harriman: Yes, I think that's fine. [47:53] Mayor Carl Sheline: Okay, so if we're talking about removing a committee member for the rest of their current term, how do we feel about that, councilors? Administrator Kenrath, are you taking notes? [Bryan Kaenrath: Yes.] Okay. All right, what less— what else was there to adjudicate, Councilor Chisholm? [48:09] Councilor Michael Roy: Yeah, the big one is this creation of a board of ethics. I am asking for a thumbs up, thumbs down consensus on that. [48:17] Mayor Carl Sheline: Do we? So a thumbs up. Do we want to create a board of ethics? What does it looks like we have? We have consensus to create. [48:30] Bryan Kaenrath, City Administrator: I see four three. Is that correct? [48:32] Councilor Michael Roy: I wouldn't call that consensus, but was that just a view? [48:36] Mayor Carl Sheline: Yeah, there was at least four councillors. Yes, Councillor Martel. [48:44] Councilor Bret Martel: Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a workshop and we're not holding formal votes, and that seemed relatively contested to me. I'm not sure we just move forward as a 4-3 thumbs up, thumbs down as governmental policy. That needs to be refined at some level, I believe. [48:57] Mayor Carl Sheline: No, I understand, Councillor Martel. We are not voting, but we are providing direction to our administrator, and a majority of the council did provide direction. Certainly, we're able to vote as we choose once this becomes an agenda item. Anything else we need to? Yes, Councilor Chittim. [49:20] Councilor Michael Roy: One final red line. [49:21] Mayor Carl Sheline: Sorry, one second. Did you have something else, Councilor Martel? [49:24] Councilor Bret Martel: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I mean, that just opens another can of worms. Is if we are going to move forward with this board or the committee, I have a lot of questions about how it's formed. Is it is it appointed— are you making the, nominations and then it's appointed by the council, or is the council doing, voting up and down on who to consider? Like, we run into a lot of problems with committees and boards where you nominate someone, the council may not want that to happen, but with the rules that are in place, we say no. You nominate the same person, we say no, until a certain amount of time lapses. Excuse me, and then it ultimately becomes your decision. So a lot of times we just rubber stamp your nominations in the sake of saving time and headaches. So I think it's important that we define exactly how this board will be created if we're going to vote to create it. [50:17] Mayor Carl Sheline: Councillor, thank you, Councillor Martel. Councillor Chittim, what did you have? [50:23] Councilor Michael Roy: yes, Section 23.6, any city councillor, board member, or commission member. Could we define board member or commission member. They're used interchangeably and throughout the document. At this particular reference, it's unclear to me what that means. [50:40] Mayor Carl Sheline: If we can just add that to the list to refine, Administrator Kean. [50:47] Bryan Kaenrath, City Administrator: So we'd like to have it either one or the other, just board member? [50:50] Councilor Michael Roy: Well, I'm not passing judgment. I just wanted the term clarified so that we know what we're talking about. Is this a member of the ethics board, or is it any board member, a member of any board? That's the lack of clarity that I have. [51:08] Bryan Kaenrath, City Administrator: I think it's meant to cover all of the city's boards and/or commissions. Okay, then go with the polls. [51:12] Councilor Michael Roy: If we say that clearly and succinctly, that would that would satisfy me. [51:17] Mayor Carl Sheline: If we can just tighten up the language, Councilor Negin. Yes. [51:21] Speaker I (unidentified): Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So referring back to Councilor Chidams., point. If we look at definitions 3.3, appointed member of a city board or committee, if we just use that language throughout the document anywhere else that we refer to something else, then that makes it cohesive. I would also say that the mayor has the ability to appoint anyone, but to nominate anyone, but, we appoint would be the process I think that we would want to follow. And I believe that this would be another committee that we would want to see if we want to— like, if there's a process which, like you're describing, after 60 days the council actually has the ability to nominate. So, But it sounds like Councilor Chittim may have a comment back for that. [52:21] Mayor Carl Sheline: Councilor Chittim, I'm just saying that we want to wrap up this workshop. [52:26] Councilor Michael Roy: Yeah, Section 23.1 says that it should consist of 7 members to be appointed by the City Council. It's silent on any nominations. It's simply a City Council appointment, and I would suspect that the city clerk would take applications and the city council would appoint. [52:47] Mayor Carl Sheline: further comments before— Councilor Longstroms? [52:49] Councilor Susan Longchamps: Yes, I would just ask our city administrator to clarify that, please. Is it going to be our city clerk, or— [52:57] Bryan Kaenrath, City Administrator: Yeah, so it would operate similar to how other appointments work currently, where the council appoints. The city clerk would, solicit interested parties, bring those forward, and the council would appoint. But as you know, we have a different procedure for a number of our different boards, and you could, as I said at the outset, you could choose another route there, certainly. [53:19] Mayor Carl Sheline: I— Councilor Nagine, yes, final thoughts? [53:23] Speaker I (unidentified): relevant to what you just mentioned, I've received a couple of comments from people who have submitted applications for boards and not received any response at all. And so I think it would be helpful in the future if we institute some policy somewhere, whether it's staff doing it or council members or whatever, just in order to acknowledge that we've received those, responses or those requests for, committees. I think it's hard to get people to be involved in committees in the city, and it's been when people apply, I think it's worthwhile to reach back out and say, you know, thank you for the application. [54:04] Mayor Carl Sheline: I can speak to that. Yes, the clerk, the clerk gets back to people who have applied. And sometimes it takes a while depending on when that position was selected, but the clerk does get back to people. And at this point, I think we have enough. I guess if there's anything else, councillors can email the administrator. And you anticipate sending out the email to, council, sometime here soon, Administrator Kainrath? [54:38] Bryan Kaenrath, City Administrator: Which email is that? [54:41] Mayor Carl Sheline: the email, asking council to review the items. There's a few questions. [54:47] Bryan Kaenrath, City Administrator: It'll be a meeting or a phone conversation. [Mayor Carl Sheline: Okay, perfect.] Yeah. [54:50] Mayor Carl Sheline: Okay, thank you, councilors. we have our 7 PM meeting, starting here, as quickly as we can get back. Thank you. Hello and welcome to our Tuesday evening, council meeting. Appreciate you all being here. We are joined here by the Honorable Jonathan Labonte, who will lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. [1:00:58] Councilor Bret Martel: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [1:01:19] Mayor Carl Sheline: Thank you very much, sir. Madam Clerk, I believe we're ready to begin. [1:01:25] Councilor David Chittim (Council President): Thank you, Mr. Mayor. All roll call votes for this meeting will begin with the councilor of Ward 3. [1:01:29] Mayor Carl Sheline: I understand we have minutes. [1:01:31] Councilor David Chittim (Council President): You do. 3 sets of minutes: August 18th, August 25th, and August 26th. [1:01:35] Mayor Carl Sheline: May I have a motion to accept the minutes? [Councilor Bret Martel: So moved.] Councilor Martel. Second by Councilor Najee. Madam Clerk, please call the vote. [1:01:42] Councilor David Chittim (Council President): Councilor from Ward 3? [Councilor Scott Harriman: Yes.] Ward 4? [1:01:45] Speaker I (unidentified): Yes. [1:01:45] Speaker E (unidentified): Yes. [1:01:47] Councilor David Chittim (Council President): Yes. [Councilor Michael Roy: Yes.] Yes. Yes. [Speaker I (unidentified): Yes.] Yes. [1:01:50] Matthew Agron, Ward 4 resident: Yes. [1:01:50] Councilor Susan Longchamps: Yes. [1:01:51] Councilor David Chittim (Council President): Motion passed by a vote of 7 to 0. [1:01:52] Mayor Carl Sheline: Thank you very much, Madam Clerk. We are now up to the public comment period. Any member of the public may make comments regarding issues pertaining to Lewiston city government. This period is reserved for non-agenda items. Public comment is also allowed during individual agenda items. Public comment is limited to 3 minutes per person. Please state your name for the record and please indicate if you're a Lewiston resident. Per our council rules, this period is reserved for Lewiston residents only. Because this is the business meeting of the city council, all questions should be directed to the mayor, who will ask staff to follow up at a future time. It is illegal for the city council to allow comments related to personnel matters. All personnel complaints should be made directly to the city administration office. Public comment? Yes, please come forward. [1:02:31] Amy Sussman, Bar Harbor resident/public commenter: Amy Sussman from Bar Harbor. My nephew was killed in the mass shooting. Destiny, Ben, Jennifer, Keith, Sherry, Bobby— these are the names of the victims' families and survivors of the mass shooting who stood here and asked for accountability. What happened to the money that was promised to them by the Maine Community Foundation? Why haven't you done anything? I guess you're satisfied the city's nonprofits made out really well at the expense of the victims and survivors of the shooting. You had $1.9 million sprinkled into your city. Why would we think you would fight for us? Your idea of addressing this issue was to learn the needs of the victims and survivors by a survey. Instead, the survey is prioritizing the community. There are 15 categories of eligibility to fill out the survey, and only 2 are for the victims' families and survivors. Not one person from the community stood here and asked for help for the community. Not one. So once again, the victims' families and survivors are not the priority. The community is. You've done exactly what the Maine Community Foundation did. How else will you revictimize the families of the men, women and child who were murdered that day, and those who survived their attempted murder. What's your next move? One of your nonprofits received the $65,000, the Maine Mill. They recently had a grand reopening of the museum. There was a white attire soiree and a ribbon cutting. The mill has provided a new home for the Healing Shooting exhibit. While people from the shooting, the actual people, have lost their homes. The mill doesn't honor the people, didn't honor the people of the shooting, didn't invite them to the swanky party or the ribbon-cutting. A survivor of the shooting went to the museum that weekend, unaware that there was a shooting exhibit. He turned the corner and saw the doors of the bowling alley and immediately had an anxiety attack. [Councilor David Chittim (Council President): Oh, my God.] He saved the lives of 2 women and 4 children at the shooting. 2 of the children had been shot. He is unable to go to the bowling alley. Do you think he finds the Mills exhibit healing? What do you think, Mr. Mayor? You're on the board of directors for the Mills. Don't you think you should have disclosed that? I think you should have disclosed that. that you sit on the board of directors of one of the 29 nonprofits that got money from the shooting that was promised to the people of the shooting? No wonder you're not helping us. That's just one of the nonprofits. You don't see us. You're not even looking at us. [1:05:33] Mayor Carl Sheline: That's time. Thank you. [Amy Sussman: We see you.] Please continue with public comment. [1:05:56] Speaker E (unidentified): Good evening, I'm Amy Smith. I live at 122 Bartlett Street, and tonight I'm speaking on behalf of Healthy neighborhoods. We want to take a moment to thank city staff, the mayor, and city council for our ongoing partnership on the bulky waste removal program. This in-kind collaboration with Public Works started in 2019, and we're pleased to report that as of June 2026, we've removed over 102 tons of mattresses, broken furniture, and other bulky waste from the downtown. Our next event is Friday, September 11th, and we're excited to announce that this existing partnership allowed us to offer a new and much-needed service related to the Cart to Curb program. Many residents received new trash and recycling carts and have old carts that they no longer want or need. In order to keep the carts out of the landfill, we encourage Lewiston residents to bring unwanted carts to 114 Pine Street, where the Healthy Neighborhoods team of volunteers will power wash them and make them available free of charge to other residents who might need them. We'll be posting more details later this week, and of course, are always looking for volunteers to help out, so you're all welcome to sign up if you like. And we're really proud of this powerful example of how collaboration between the city and nonprofit organizations can benefit our community, and we hope it serves as a model for future projects. Thank you. [1:07:23] Mayor Carl Sheline: All right. [1:07:31] Joe Philippon, Ward 1 resident: Joe Philippon, Ward 1 resident. I'm here to talk about something that happened last Friday at Art Walk. On its face, it may seem small. A band was setting up in the plaza, and when plugging their equipment into the plaza's electrical outlets, a city employee intervened and told them they can't use them, saying it was against policy and that Public Works would have a fit. Ultimately, we found a generator, the band played, and the event went on. So why am I here tonight to talk about an electrical outlet? Because sometimes small moments like this tell us about bigger problems. Art Walk is a city-supported event. These same outlets have been used by other events. I know this because I've been there and I've been part of them. My wife organized chamber events that use them, and the Art Walk organizers told me they had never encountered this problem before. So there's a legitimate question about consistency, but there's a bigger question about culture. We hear frequently from the city that they can't do everything, that they need businesses, organizations, residents, and volunteers willing to step forward to create things for this community. And that's true— government can't do it all alone. But the city can't ask people to step forward and then make every step forward harder. There are only so many people willing to do the work to organize these things, and eventually, if we make it too difficult, people will stop asking how they can help and start asking why bother. And you don't have to take my word for it. Ask people. Ask the Downtown Lewiston Association. Ask those involved with activities surrounding the 1-year anniversary of, the mass shooting. Ask the owners of Obscura or Luigi's Or ask developers who have tried to invest here. Don't ask them whether they agree with me; that's irrelevant. Ask them about their experiences when trying to get things done here in the city, because I genuinely wish Friday was an isolated incident. It's not the electrical outlet that concerns me; it's the mindset that the outlet represents. Friday night, hundreds of people were downtown supporting businesses. listening to music, and enjoying their community. They are doing exactly what the city says it wants people to do. We don't need the government to create every good thing that happens here, but when our community creates something good, government should help it succeed. The city's first instinct should be, how can we make this work? Not, no, you can't do that. Sometimes there may be a legitimate reason why something can't be done as proposed, But that conversation shouldn't end with no. The next question should be, okay, how can we accomplish what they're trying to do? That's the culture we should be building from the top down. Fortunately, there are a few employees here working for the city who understand that, but unfortunately, we have also seen that some of those tend to have shelf life. And maybe that's the part of the culture we need to be willing to examine. Because if we're going to ask this community to step for Lewiston, step up for Lewiston, that's time. Then Lewiston has an obligation to step up for them. Thank you. [1:10:43] Mayor Carl Sheline: Further public comment? [1:10:46] Ronnie Parity, Ward 6 resident: Ronnie Parity, Ward 6. I, I don't know if anybody saw the paper, Sunday, paper, and there was an article from Fort Kent, Maine, the top of thing, about a public school for recovering teenagers on substance abuse, and they use the opiate product money. Why can't we do something down here? Fort Kent, Maine has a public school for kids that are addicts. Okay, that's when we need to get the kids, at that time of thing, not a van going around the city, giving out syringes and stuff like that. I'm sorry, we have that already at Spurwick indoors. My other thing is we need a public health person at the top, and I know money is a thing. Do you know what one of the most thing— problem of public health in the United States is? And if you haven't read any articles on it, are seeing it is loneliness. How many people in the United States are really lonely? I'm not talking about alone, I'm talking about loneliness. There's a big difference. And we're not connected in Lewiston, and we should be connected in Lewiston. And that's why we need to help people out. There's so many seniors that are lonely, and all we do is fight, fight over things, and it takes a year to get something passed like this past, moratorium that you are working on. Give that to housing. Craig Sadalaya is one of the experts on the housing. He should be helping you do that and get it ready when it needs to be ready. Why are you going to take the next city council to do it. You are not helping people. Where's the connection? People are lonely. Our kids are lonely. And look up the difference between loneliness and alone. There's difference, like I said, between alone. And that's the public health number one problem in the United States and across the world. We are not connecting. We are not connecting. We are not communicating. All we do is fight for our own ideas and stuff. Why can't we come together anymore? And I'm sorry to say what I saw on Facebook this past week was not connecting. And again, when looking at opiates, let's look at our teenagers. Let's look at our teenagers. That's where we need to get. [Councilor David Chittim (Council President): Thank you.] Public school in Fort Kent, Maine, and we can't do anything in Lewiston, Maine, with the opiate things. Thank you. [1:13:50] Matthew Agron, Ward 4 resident: Matthew Agron, Ward Four. Councilor, I will not say I was happy with the limited public notice about the special meeting last Wednesday, which was basically round two of Tuesday's meeting. With the same uncorrected packet that your councilors asked to be corrected for the record. My email from the city told me at 12:14 there would be a 6 o'clock meeting. That is not being accountable and transparent to the public. This is why people question things being done by this council as shady. It's almost like you didn't want the public to be informed so they could be here. Then I will say it shocked me that the majority of this council chose, after hearing from members of the— our own housing committee that there were issues with this that weren't being brought forward, to move into what I'd call an anti-business nature. Yes, affordable housing is very important, and I hope this council is currently working on what happens next year when the 39-year Now delayed revaluation hits our tax base and all our people living on fixed incomes that own their own homes and will own them for 30 years. If this needed to be rushed through using special meetings after the council had already voted it down in a regular meeting because our legal counsel said so, they should have been brought before us so the public who you serve could hear them explain why the extension to the moratorium was needed. Same thing would have been nice to have the Housing Committee sitting up at that table answering questions in public. Instead, most of you were like, we know best because of the executive sessions we've had and we can't really tell you about, and we're going to tell a business what they can charge for their product. Maybe it was not, in your view, a bad idea, but let me tell you how business owners and people who work for businesses saw it. Lewiston has now set a precedent. that the council could be involved in setting prices. Will this or a future council look at this decision and say all gas stations in Lewiston should now charge $2.50, all hamburgers sold are 94 cents, or even scarier as far as I'm concerned, all M&M packages are $10? We just became business unfriendly because no one knows what will be the next business price regulated because of possible council opinion. Do you know what happens when you price counsel— price control businesses? You end up driving out small businesses. And the only ones left are the major corporations who love it because they can afford to take it, and then they come before you and say, hey, change this rule or we leave too and you have nothing. Also, please do not continue to use the emergency rules to pass things based on a statement from Kathy on 11/19/24. You guys have now used the emergency rule three times in her memory. This is now becoming a standard, especially for this council who's used it most of this council who used it twice. [1:16:52] Mayor Carl Sheline: That's time. Thank you. [1:16:56] Andrew Jones, Ward 2 resident: Before I begin, I just want to say I can get on board with ninety-four cent hamburgers. Andrew Jones, Ward Two. First and foremost, I choose to hold myself accountable. I was at the last City Council meeting. I owe an apology to Josh, Scott, Carl, and David. I made an unprofessional gesture when I left the room at the adjournment of that meeting, so I apologize for my behavior. That was unbecoming of me. That being said, my sentiment about how I felt about that meeting still exists. The lack of transparency, despite the city council president claiming that it's been nothing but transparent, is— it's appalling. you, said in the last meeting, Josh, that the council could choose to make the, attorney-client privilege, public if a supermajority were to pass that. And it's not on the agenda. You're the city council president. Why are we not hearing about that today? It lacks transparency. You are the city council president, and kudos for you because you went from censured for violating FOIA to being city council president. So the other thing I wanted to complain about was our housing committee. Craig Seidelmeyer was here, and he said that they did not recommend the language that went into the moratorium, and yet it remained in the language for those meetings. He is also accused by other committee members of withholding information from their committee, filtering what they can and cannot see and who speaks to them regarding their issues. So the moratorium is tainted. It should be thrown out. [Councilor David Chittim (Council President): Start over.] The lack of transparency, the lack of integrity, it's just appalling. You guys really, need to do better. Thank you. [1:19:05] Speaker E (unidentified): I didn't intend to speak tonight, but I'm going to piggyback. My name is Lisa Jones and I live in Ward 2. I've been wanting to piggyback since Amy Sussman's extremely powerful comment. Because Carl's not the only one in this room who took mass shooting funds for his own nonprofit. For some strange reason, Lewiston Housing got $65,000, and so did the aforementioned Craig Sattlemire. I have done a few FOIAs lately to get the information that is quite literally not transparent, and there are huge concerns with those housing committee members about his behavior. 2 of them have resigned. There's also no vote that this council ever took to direct a housing committee to create an ordinance, despite how desperate some of you are to pass it. I think you need to take a few steps back. The mass shooting money belongs to the mass shooting victims and survivors, not the people with their hands out that run nonprofits and make tons of money off the poor. [1:20:16] Mayor Carl Sheline: Further public comment. [1:20:17] Jay Roderick, Ward 6 resident: My name is Jay Roderick and I'm from Ward 6. And this, city was complaining a while back about not having businesses in the city. Now you go out and you're picking on, the landlords to make them control— you want to control their prices. Can you control their expenses? Can't be done. You know, the city's got more serious and more important problems to deal with than dealing with trying to control the landlords. They don't need to control them. The landlords we got here are very fair. They're not overcharging people. You don't even have one single complaint against the landlords, but you're trying to Go after them. We've lost too many businesses because of you, know, and this city has got no businesses left. And, you know, all we're doing is driving them all away. We're not going to have any more pretty soon. Then you wonder why the taxes are so high. We can't do anything about the taxes because we have nobody to pay them anymore. You know, the tax increase you have there, we're wasting money all throughout the city, and then you're increasing the taxes. It's not your money. You know, you were saying you're not a city employee. No, you are all employed by us, the people. We are, we are your boss. You're not the boss. How would you like it if we came up and said, you know, you can't raise the taxes? You're doing the same thing to the landlords, and that's not right, and that shouldn't be directed that way. You know, we've got to stop being fair to people. We need to get businesses back in here. You know, that, 's going to be when I'm running for mayor, and that's going to be my first priority. [1:22:03] Mayor Carl Sheline: We're not, we're not campaigning here. [1:22:05] Jay Roderick, Ward 6 resident: I'm not campaigning. I'm telling you what— I'm telling you the truth about the city, about where you guys are making it— where you guys are making it wrong. You guys are hurting the city. You're destroying the city. In a nutshell, you're wasting money all over the city. You're throwing money away. You know, and then you're not telling the people about anything until the things are done. No matter what we say up there, you guys go in that room there and you make the decision before any of these people have a say in the matter, which is wrong. You know, you shouldn't have a decision made before. You should have the decision made after we've all had a chance to speak. Thank you. [1:22:50] Mayor Carl Sheline: Further public comment. Public comment is now closed. Administrator Cainrath, I understand you have a report. [1:22:57] Bryan Kaenrath, City Administrator: All right, thank you. Starting off with a couple of events, I want to invite everyone to, this year's September 11th ceremony at the Lewiston Fire Department, on Friday, September 11th at 8:30 in the morning. This does mark the 25th anniversary of 9/11. We'll also be hearing from A member from the family of Robert L. Gelber, one of six Mainers who died on that day and who was also raised in Lewiston. So please join us, 8:30 on September 11th at Central Station. Also this Friday, Lewiston High School will open its varsity football season against Portland on September 4th at Don Rue Field. This also marks the first regular season game, and I want to give a shout out for the head coach. Justin Beeson, 1997 Lewis and Issel graduate and also our Public Works paving manager here at Lewis and Public Works. So good luck to them. I also want to thank everyone involved in putting on the 32nd Annual Lewis and Auburn Balloon Festival this year. Another great success. We did get 3 of 6 balloon launches off the ground. Organizers are already thinking about next year. I want to thank all the volunteers, city staff, and many others for making this year's event a great success, and we'll see you back next August. The Central Avenue project between Campus Avenue and Russell Street is progressing nicely, should be completed by the end of September. The work does include removing and replacing existing storm drain infrastructure and installing new ductile iron water mains. The project spans about half a mile and will be completed with new curbing, paved sidewalks, and adding raised crosswalks with rectangular rapid flashing beacons. As previously mentioned, we are working on a new marketing rebranding effort for the city. We are hoping to hear from residents and from those around the state, not just in the city but outside, also on their perceptions of Lewiston. This community-wide brand discovery process to better understand how people experience and perceive our city. The survey is, going to be launching. It's going to be available on the city's website, lewistonmaine.gov. It will also be available at a few places with paper copies: the second floor of City Hall, the Lewiston Public Library, and the Lewiston Armory. The survey will take about 7 to 9 minutes to complete, so we are— all responses are confidential. Also, we're encouraging everyone to please complete the survey. All of this input, all of this work will go into, in the future, crafting a larger branding and marketing effort for the city, taking in all this feedback. So please do participate. Again, lewistonmaine.gov, it's available online, or it will be available shortly again paper copies, second floor of City Hall where you register your car, pay your taxes, Lewiston Public Library, and at the Armory. An update on the pickleball courts. Lewiston Public Works have a small update on this that came in just the end of today. Sound barriers were to be installed today. There was a slight delay, so they will be installed very soon. But we are installing sound barriers to dampen some of the noise issues that we've received there. They are anticipated to reduce noise levels by an estimated about 10 decibels. The barriers will also block vehicle headlights from being illuminated after court hours. And again, this is the pickleball courts at North Temple. So more work to come on that. Lewiston Maniacs— want to welcome Lewiston Maniacs back to the Coliseum, September 13th, 11 AM. Fans will also be able to see the Coliseum with some improvements. The Maniacs tradition began in 2003, bringing renewed excitement to the Coliseum and a proud new chapter to the city's storied hockey history. So again, please join them September 13th, 11:00 a.m. Economic Development has some new funding available for small businesses. We've announced our Business Opportunity Loan and Grant Program designed to provide up to $50,000 in loan financing or as much as $40,000 in grant funding to help new Lewiston businesses launch and existing businesses grow. Loans carry a 5% interest rate with a 10-year term. Because funding will be highly competitive. The city will be offering an application training session Tuesday, September 29th, 5 PM at the Lewiston Public Library, and again on Tuesday, October 13th at 8 AM at the LA Metro Chamber of Commerce. Additional sessions may also be announced on the city's website, so please check those out. Also, if you have any questions, please obviously contact Economic Development here at City Hall. Just a note on fall rec programming. Director Welch and the recreation team are kicking off a packed fall programming schedule for all ages, from tennis to archery. And for the first time, we'll be doing salsa dancing classes with our own Deputy Director of Planning, Shelley Norton, teaching the class. That should be pretty interesting. Starting September 19th, please visit, please visit lewistonrecreation.com for more information and to register. Lastly, I just want to announce publicly. This went out in the building internally today, what the plan is as far as reorganization of the Economic and Community Development Department following the elimination of the director position for the FY27 budget. So after considering numerous scenarios for reorganizing the department to cover this gap, a great amount of research went into really looking at similar organizational structures, what some of our peers do out there, and really an across-the-board look of every option out there. Obviously conversations in City Hall, outside of City Hall, lots of feedback with an array of people. With all of that feedback, we are going to be moving forward with moving Economic Development to be a division under Administration, similar to how Marketing and Communication operates as a division under Administration. The community development piece That staff will be split off into a separate department, rebranded under a new name with an expanded scope for that department, and we'll be coming back to the council for that sign-off at our next meeting in September. We hope for this new structure will serve the city well. Obviously, the goal is to bring investment into this community and to serve our community well and to improve the quality of life. So we will be moving forward with this new structure. Again, this is to cover. The gap of the elimination of the director position. We will obviously monitor it closely. We'll see how it goes. We'll tweak if necessary, and we'll report back on results. Thank you. [1:29:28] Mayor Carl Sheline: Thank you, Administrator Kainrath. We appreciate your service to our city. Madam Clerk, I understand we have a consent agenda. [1:29:36] Councilor David Chittim (Council President): We do. There are 3 items for the consent agenda this evening. Item number 1, adoption of meeting schedule for the month of November. Item 2, order approving the disposition of 12 Fair Street, and number 3, order calling for a public hearing for the proposed city charter amendments. [1:29:50] Mayor Carl Sheline: I may have a motion, please. [1:29:52] Councilor Michael Roy: Move consent agenda for all 3 items. [1:29:55] Mayor Carl Sheline: Councilor Chittim. [Councilor Bret Martel: Second.] Second by Councilor Martel. Madam Clerk, please call the vote. [1:29:59] Councilor David Chittim (Council President): Councilor from Ward 3? [Councilor Scott Harriman: Yes.] Ward 4? [Joe Philippon: Yes.] Ward 5? [1:30:02] Councilor Michael Roy: Yes. [Speaker E (unidentified): Ward 6?] Yes. [1:30:04] Amy Sussman, Bar Harbor resident/public commenter: Ward 7? [1:30:04] Councilor Bret Martel: Yes. [1:30:05] Councilor David Chittim (Council President): Ward 1? [Speaker I (unidentified): Yes.] Ward 2? [Councilor Susan Longchamps: Yes.] Motion passed by a vote of we're making quick work here. [Mayor Carl Sheline: Item number 4.] Item number 4, resolution approving an easement agreement with TPAIX LLC for a cell tower site at 532 East Avenue. Requested action, to approve the resolution approving an easement agreement with TPAIX LLC for a cell tower site at 532 East Avenue. [1:30:32] Mayor Carl Sheline: May I have a motion, please? please. [Councilor Bret Martel: So moved.] Councillor Chittim— I'm sorry, Councillor Martel. [Councilor Michael Roy: I'll second.] Second by Councillor Chittim. Administrator— yes, Deputy Administrator O'Malley, do you want to kick us off, please? [1:30:46] Speaker Q (unidentified): Yes, Mr. Mayor. for those of you that don't know, the city owns a cell tower at 532 East Avenue. We currently have T-Mobile and Verizon, leasing space from us. That's been done since approximately 2009. The city receives a little over $3,000 from this lease a month. We were contacted by TowerPoint, which is this TPA Roman numeral IX LLC, in requesting that they receive an easement so they would take over the, the lease agreements with Verizon. They have no interest in T-Mobile due to the fact that it's merged— US Cellular and T-Mobile have merged— and they don't expect that to remain. TowerPoint has offered the city $450,000 to take over that lease. We will still maintain ownership of it. They will just basically be the landlord handling the lease with Verizon. The city will still be able to maintain the infrastructure we have on there. Currently we have the water division's radio and United Ambulance Services on there. We will have no fees associated with that. I did some research the prior with SBA Towers is who we currently have the lease through. Started in 2009, we got a little over $1,000 a month, and over the course, you know, it's gone from a little over $1,000 to just over $3,000. This will give the city an infusion of cash of $450,000. They are asking that this lease be good for 99 years, but if there's a 3-year period, 3 consecutive years that it is not utilized, we would then to take the lease back over. We will also still receive just under $900 that T-Mobile is still paying, or US Cellular is still paying to lease that. So we'll get that monthly payment plus the $450,000. This easement has been reviewed by our attorney, their attorneys. This has gone back and forth several times. And TowerPoint has agreed to that where they will get insurance, they will be able to do— they'll do the maintenance on it. The city really does not have any, expenses associated with this at all. [1:32:48] Mayor Carl Sheline: Thank you very much. Councillor Chisholm. [1:32:51] Councilor Michael Roy: Thank you. Quick question. The $900 is a monthly payment. There's no inflation factored into that. 99 years from now, $900 will buy you a sandwich, if that. Is there going to be any escalator clause in this? [1:33:07] Speaker Q (unidentified): They're expecting that 's going to no longer be— US Cellular and T-Mobile are not going to be active on that tower going forward. [1:33:16] Councilor Michael Roy: Which means then that the rent would be dropped to zero? [1:33:20] Speaker Q (unidentified): Well, they will have the rent from Verizon, and they will no doubt rework that rental agreement, because what they do is— and they've done it up in Eastport— is they get a group of towers and they're trying to get into New England, and they offer it in terms of payments to their investors that they can package a whole bunch across the United States, and they're just entering into New England right now. So the only other place in Maine that I found was Eastport. [1:33:45] Councilor Michael Roy: My question is, this $900 a month, there's no escalator in that, and it could dry up? [1:33:54] Speaker Q (unidentified): Well, that would— we have a— with SBA, that would stay the same, but yes, that could dry up. expecting that to dry up, at least according to TowerPoint, that they don't think that they'll still be doing business any further. So we get the $450,000 and they'll be dealing themselves directly with Verizon. [1:34:11] Councilor Michael Roy: It says here the grantee agrees to remit to the grantor $899.52 each month from the telecom tenant rent that the grantee actually receives. [1:34:24] Speaker Q (unidentified): Yes. As long as they're still On that tower, they'll— will— they'll still be paying the rent, but they're not going to negotiate with Cellular— US Cellular/T-Mobile because they don't feel it's a viable company that's going to continue to be on there. [1:34:38] Councilor Michael Roy: I understand that. The, $900 comes from Verizon? [1:34:42] Speaker Q (unidentified): No, it comes from US Cellular/T-Mobile. So as long as they're paying that rent, that's— that's going to pay it to TowerPoint, and TowerPoint will then give it to us. That's what that section you just read. [Councilor Michael Roy: Okay.] But they're thinking their big money they're going to get is by dealing with Verizon. [1:34:57] Councilor Michael Roy: And there's no return to the city from that. In other words, we see a $450,000 cash windfall now. [Speaker Q (unidentified): That is correct.] And we've signed away our rights for basically a century. [1:35:08] Speaker Q (unidentified): That is correct. Right now we're getting $3,000, a little over $3,000 a month. [1:35:12] Councilor Michael Roy: Thank you. [1:35:13] Mayor Carl Sheline: We're heading to public comment for this agenda item. Back to the council. Madam Clerk, please call the vote. [1:35:23] Councilor David Chittim (Council President): Also from Ward 3? [Councilor Scott Harriman: Yes.] Ward 4? [Speaker Q (unidentified): Yes.] Ward 5? [1:35:26] Councilor Bret Martel: Yes. [1:35:27] Speaker E (unidentified): Ward 6? [1:35:28] Speaker O (unidentified): No. [1:35:28] Councilor David Chittim (Council President): Ward 7? [Matthew Agron: Yes.] Ward 1? [Speaker I (unidentified): No.] Ward 2? [Councilor Susan Longchamps: Yes.] Motion passed by vote of 5 to 2. [Mayor Carl Sheline: Item number 5.] Item number 5, order supporting implementation of the Auburn-Lewiston Municipal Airport Master Plan and 5-year 5-year sponsor commitment. Requested action: to approve the order supporting the implementation of the Auburn-Lewiston Municipal Airport Master Plan and 5-year sponsor commitment. [1:35:53] Mayor Carl Sheline: May I have a motion, please? [1:35:55] Councilor Michael Roy: So moved. [1:35:56] Councilor Bret Martel: Second. [1:35:56] Mayor Carl Sheline: Councilor Chittim, seconded by Councilor Martel. We are joined here by Director Labonte and Mark, correct? [Mark Blais: That's correct.] There we go. I guess if you two can, really introduce yourselves and then And Mr. Lavonte— Director Lavonte, if you can kick us off. [1:36:13] Mark Blais, airport board member/Ward 6 resident: So, Mark Blais, I am an airport board member, a resident of Lewiston. I represent Lewiston on the airport board. I live in Ward 6. [1:36:25] Jonathan Lavonte, Airport Director: Jonathan Lavonte, I serve as the airport director. [1:36:30] Mayor Carl Sheline: Is there anything you'd like to say before we start discussion here? Anything? [1:36:39] Jonathan Lavonte, Airport Director: I'm here as a resource at staff's request to be able to answer any questions if there's specific things that the council would like updates on as it considers the order. And certainly Mark can speak on behalf of the board, and he's also a tenant at the airport. He owns an aircraft and, one of the hangar condos as well, so he's familiar with sort of over time some of the evolution of the airport and its obligations. [1:37:02] Mayor Carl Sheline: I appreciate you both being here. Thank you so much. questions, comments from the council? Councillor Chittim. Yes. [1:37:09] Councilor Michael Roy: thank you. while I'm in favor of this, support of the agreement or the commitment, I am concerned that item number 4 in the order commits the city and future city funds to, to the airport. I don't know that the— this council has the authority to commit that, and perhaps Director Labonte, you could comment on that. [1:37:33] Councilor Bret Martel: Sure. [1:37:34] Jonathan Lavonte, Airport Director: both— [1:37:34] Mayor Carl Sheline: you both could just move your mics closer to you for our home audience. [1:37:38] John Connor, Director of Planning and Code Enforcement: Thank you. [1:37:38] Jonathan Lavonte, Airport Director: there, is no financial commitment in the order before you. it does reassert Lewiston's understanding as a municipal corporation that it is a sponsor of the airport, and sponsor has very specific meaning to the federal government. With respect to how the properties were transferred, the title was transferred to both cities, and the grants that actually come to the airport— while the airport board votes to accept that, the grants are actually awarded to the cities of Auburn and Lewiston. So each vote of the board is further obligating the 2 cities to very specific actions around pavement maintenance, management of obstructions and the approaches to the, to the 4 runways, wildlife management, etc. So we've just completed a new master plan that includes a new airport layout plan. So this is sort of where we're looking to go over the next 5, 10, 20 years. That has a capital program associated with that. But we also just came off of a compliance audit. So in 2022, the FAA came to inspect the airport because of concerns that the airport was not being managed in accordance with federal obligations, and it was not. There was a series of things that came up as part of that. A number of things also came up during the master plan. For example, there are now over 2,700 trees that are designated as obstructions to the 4 runway approaches. That did not happen over the last couple of years. That's, that's a symptom probably of 2 to 3 decades of no active obstruction management being funded. So what this order lays out is that, you know, the council supports the airport, supports the new airport layout plan, which had significant public involvement. A number of you were able to come to our, joint workshop in, January. And that you're asking the city administrator to sit with Auburn city manager, along with the airport board and myself as airport director to say, okay, we've got these obligations we need to meet or we're not going to get any more federal grants. We've got this 5-year capital program. How do we financially implement that? And to report back by November 30th. There are plenty of creative ways you could think about how do we make sure we can make a long-term investment and manage that airport without some of the, you know, ups and downs of capital cycles. The airport's in a local agreement does some of that. There's a floor for the operating subsidy. There's no floor and no ceiling on the capital side, which may be why we got to where we are. But at this point, it's just the support, and it's asking Administrator Cain Rath to sit and then come back with a robust multiyear plan that you could consider. No other obligation. Long answer, but I think that context is important just to be able to unwind that. [1:40:36] Mayor Carl Sheline: I appreciate that. Thank you. further questions, comments from the, from the council? We're heading to public comment for this agenda item. And we're back. more questions, comments from the council? Councillor Chinnam, back to you. [1:40:54] Councilor Michael Roy: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. as many of you know, I sit on the airport board as well. the airport is a resource for both Lewiston and Auburn and the surrounding communities. That has to be weighed against the dire financial straits that the City of Lewiston and the City of Auburn is finding itself in right now. While I fully support the— this plan and endorsing this concept, I am concerned that there be a way in the future, should the City of Lewiston decide that it no longer wants to become involved and be involved with the airport, that there be a way to do that. I would not like to sit here tonight and commit for 5 years to supporting the airport. While I do that tonight, we are going to be facing some severe financial constraints in this coming fiscal year. I think we all know that. So that's— that was the reason for my initial question. I appreciate Director Labonte's answer for that. I will be voting in support of this, but I do want to caution everybody that But we do not want to make commitments that we're not fully committed to honouring over the next 5 years or in the longer term. [1:42:02] Mayor Carl Sheline: Councillor Negin. [1:42:05] Speaker I (unidentified): Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm just wondering if we do pass this 5-year sponsor commitment request tonight, and work on our administrator, your city manager, and the airport manager, which I believe is you, sitting down having discussions about future funding. Is there also room to talk about how we actually unwind the City of Lewiston from the relationship with the airport, how that— what that looks like? Because ultimately, from what I understand, we are— We're not. We are obligated in the eyes of the FAA at this moment, and so I know that the joint economic development zone that we established—the funding for what we're seeing for returns expires in 2029. I can't don't have a crystal ball. I don't know which council members are going to be up here in a year from now, but I do think having an understanding of. what process we actually have to follow in order to actually no longer be a sponsor and still be in— for you to be in compliance with the FAA, obviously, should also be part of that conversation, right? My personal opinion. [1:43:27] Mayor Carl Sheline: Councillors, I do believe we're off topic at this point. Our interlocal agreement obligates, you know, it's my understanding that the our interlocal agreement obligates us to, pass this evening, and if councillors wish to engage in discussions about what, changing the interlocal agreement or what that looks like, I, suggest we make that a future agenda item. Councillor Nagy, back to you. [1:43:52] Speaker I (unidentified): I just want to point out, Mr. Mayor, that we're talking about funding the airport, and, so it's not actually off topic, but I, recognize what you're saying concerning the process, and I have no problem introducing another agenda item to do so. But I do think that, since we're talking about interlocal agreements and cooperation and city staff investing time, highlighting that is highlighting my view on that. I don't know where everybody else sits. So again, I guess we do have to introduce another agenda item for it. but it is relevant. [1:44:28] Mayor Carl Sheline: Further questions, comments from the council? Yes. [1:44:34] Mark Blais, airport board member/Ward 6 resident: Yeah, so I'd like to speak about the investment in the airport. I know there's a lot of people that come to the city for certain projects and grants or whatever. I'm very conservative financially. And I, also a taxpayer, which I just got my tax bill, not real happy about it, but it's, it's what it is. The airport is such a gift to this community. It's like, I, it's hard to believe that it's not realized by this council. It's an economic driver. I walked into the, to the terminal and I saw this couple standing there and they were kind of lost. It's like, can I help you? Well, we're trying to get an Uber to our hotel because we're here meeting our daughter from Bates College. So I said, oh, I'll put my plane away, I'll give you a ride. They asked me, oh, where's a good place to eat? Oh, right across the street, Fishbones. So there is economic, you know, benefit to having an airport. I'm sure that there's a lot of towns if they could have an airport, they would have an airport. It's such a great resource. You get PALS flights, which is Patient Airlift Service, which there's many pilots on the field right now that contribute. And this is all by donations. You know, people fly to Boston for treatment or whatever. I don't do as many flights as I'd like to, but it's very rewarding. I would say there's 10 people on the field that do these flights. You have Life Flight that is stationed there that basically goes out of the community, Brunswick, the islands, or whatever, and they come to the hospital here. So there is an economic impact. The families come over, whatever the situation is. There's— I, can't put it into dollars and cents because that's not what I do. I'm a contractor. But There is a lot of benefit for this community, and it would be really, sad if you guys didn't support it. It's not just for a bunch of rich guys that fly airplanes. There's contracts that go out, contractors that get paid for maintenance, and they're all local contractors. So I mean, it's like there is an economic engine. 3 years ago, it was in, shambles. They were— we were losing grant assurance with the FAA. It was mismanaged. I worked very hard on that board, and it was very stressful. Jonathan finally came on board. We started looking at things and the FAA. We're at a point now where this airport has grown more than in any time in my lifetime. It's like it's, you know, it's really growing. And to try to stifle it or slow it down, to me, is a real big mistake. There are people calling for hangars and space, and all of that generates money for both communities. It's not just Auburn. So it really, is a resource, and you should share it as a resource. [1:47:54] Mayor Carl Sheline: It's very important to the community. yes, Director. [1:47:59] Jonathan Lavonte, Airport Director: Yeah, I just want— certainly, you know, Mark, speaks passionately about aviation, and we need folks that, advocate in that way. wanted to react a little better, just kind of give some additional context to both Council President and Aegene and, what Councilor Chittim raised. So if, the airport took no more federal grants by being a sponsor Lewiston Hold as long as the airport is open. And given our place in the National Airspace System, we're, we're in a pecking order, we probably sit just after Bangor and Portland. So I, think the community may not always, see that because if you're not, you don't have a reason to be in Southwest Auburn, you may not understand that. But the FAA has us very high on their list of important airfields in the nation and in particular in the Northeast. Even if we took no more grants, Lewiston remains responsible, as does Auburn, for pavement management and obstruction management. And we have until 2030 to make those trees that are obstructions go away. That will be a multi-million dollar exercise on its own, let alone the other projects. So that's just a state of good repair. For what Mark just described, you know, we're the fastest growing general aviation airport in northern New England. We're at about 120 based aircraft now, second only to Sanford. We're 12th in New England, which is great. So it's creating demand. There's this. So the FAA has said, okay, well, you're far exceeding the projections in your plan. We want to program discretionary funding at the New England level to support your growth. If, we're not in a position where both sponsors can invest in the growth, we will lose that window. And, that window may or may not reappear. And, you know, this airport has waited a long time to reassert itself. We've got broader challenges with how the state acts with other airports, in particular Augusta and Brunswick. You know, we don't have the luxury of the state stepping in and propping up an airport and not expecting the local communities to invest. The aviation community has responded. They don't want to be at those airports despite what the state puts into them. But if we, if we lose this next 5-year window, I don't I think we will get it back. And I don't say that as a threat. I think, you know, the markets ebb and flow and they go where they feel welcome and they can get what they want to get done. And then the federal investment is coming with that. And I think those are some of the things if you pass the order, we'll be able to sit with Administrator Kaine Rath and anything that would come to you by November 30th, I can assure you it will not be a it's this or nothing. I think it has to be pathways and ideally both councils can get together and say, you know, here, are some options, and can we choose the best option? Because having that type of Main Street in this community is critical to any kind of economic development that you want to have flow through the administrator's office. Because I can assure you, investors that live here take advantage of that airport to go out and experience the world and find other investments and come home. But investors from away that want to be in Lewiston are using that to come into your community, and we don't want to lose that. So thank you. [1:50:59] Mayor Carl Sheline: thank you. I appreciate that, Director. And I recognize, you and the airport staff, you know, your efforts in helping our, airport turn around here, as well as Mark and the rest of the board members. So yeah, I recognize that we've had a, dramatic upswing in, at the airport, and it's, it's great. further questions, comments from the council? Madam Clerk, please call the vote. [1:51:24] Councilor David Chittim (Council President): Council from Ward 3? Yes. Ward 4? No. Ward 5? Yes. Ward 6? Yes. Ward 7? No. Ward 1? Yes. Ward 2? Yes. Motion passed by vote of 5 to 2. [1:51:38] Mayor Carl Sheline: Thank you both for joining us. Item number— [1:51:41] Jonathan Lavonte, Airport Director: I'm sorry, come out for a tour sometime if you want to come out. Happy to show you around. [1:51:45] Mayor Carl Sheline:, we appreciate that. Item number 6. [1:51:48] Councilor David Chittim (Council President): Item number 6, order authorizing the city administrator to execute a collective bargaining agreement with the Maine Service Employees Association. Requested action, to approve the order authorizing the city administrator to execute a collective bargaining agreement with the Maine Service Employees Association. [1:52:03] Mayor Carl Sheline: I have a motion, please. [Councilor Michael Roy: So moved.] Second. Second by Councilor Nagine. Deputy Administrator O'Malley, do you have something for us? [1:52:10] Speaker Q (unidentified): Yes, Mr. Mayor. The current agreement with MSCA Union ended this June. We've been meeting with them numerous times several months prior to the contract ending and today's date. What we have agreed upon, tentatively— excuse me— tentatively agreed upon was a 3-year contract from July 1st, 2026 to June of 2029. Due to some recent law changes, we have to have the paid Family Medical Leave Act, so they've agreed to pay the 50% of that premium. We've updated some bereavement language, and what the big numbers here are, the COLA adjustments, looking at areas and similar job descriptions. We felt that— the union felt that their pay was too low, so we're doing a $2 across-the-board raise effective July 1st. If it is approved tonight, it would be retroactive. retroactive to all the employees of the city who are in the MSA union. And then for the following 2 years, it would be a 3% COLA for each, year. [1:53:12] Mayor Carl Sheline: Thank you. Questions, comments from the council? [1:53:17] Councilor Michael Roy: Thank you. Thank you, Deputy Administrator. Do you have— for the public, do you have an estimate of the cost per fiscal year of the increases in these agreements? [1:53:29] Speaker Q (unidentified): believe the increase for this first year is a little over $300,000. [1:53:32] Councilor Michael Roy: Thank you. [1:53:33] Speaker I (unidentified): could you just speak to the current base pay for a step 1 employee and what the $2 bump does? [1:53:43] Speaker Q (unidentified): Well, these positions are covered, many of our employees at the library, our general assistance office, a lot of our entry-level positions. We have some of them in code enforcement planning. Some of the pay was $17, a little over $17 an hour for entry-level pay, and we did not— and I agree with the union that I didn't think that was sustainable. We tried to get all the entry-level pay at least up to close to $20 an hour to help provide a living wage to our employees. [1:54:11] Mayor Carl Sheline: Thank you. Public comment for this agenda item? Back to the council. Time clerk, please call the vote. [1:54:21] Councilor David Chittim (Council President): Council from Ward 3? [Councilor Scott Harriman: Yes.] Ward 4? [Mayor Carl Sheline: Yes.] Ward 5? [Councilor Bret Martel: Yes.] Ward 6? [Councilor Michael Roy: Yes.] Ward 7? [Councilor Bret Martel: Yes.] Ward 1? [Speaker Q (unidentified): Yes.] Ward 2? [Councilor Susan Longchamps: Yes.] Motion passed by a vote of 7 to 0. [Mayor Carl Sheline: Item number 7.] Item number 7, order accepting and approving the fiscal year 2025 Homeland Security grant award of $190,000. Requested action, to approve the order accepting and appropriating the fiscal year 2025 Homeland Security Grant Award of $190,000. [1:54:50] Mayor Carl Sheline: May I have a motion, please? So moved. Second, Councilor Chittim, seconded by Councilor Martel. Administrator Kane, or Chief, is that you? Chief, welcome. Chief Karen, the fire chief, please kick us off. [1:55:08] Speaker O (unidentified): So this is the 2025 Homeland Security Grant, award we get through the Maine Emergency Management Agency. We applied for this over a year ago. This normally would have been awarded in October of 2025, but due to some federal review, it got postponed for a year. So every year the city identifies projects that, qualify for this program, and for the 2025 grant year, we were awarded $190,000. the categories are $140,000 for the regional hazmat team that's administered by the City of Lewiston and $50,000 for surveillance equipment and licensing for the police department. [1:55:50] Mayor Carl Sheline: thank you, Chief. Questions, comments from the council? Public— or Councilor Chidum? Yes. [1:55:58] Councilor Michael Roy: Yes, Chief, can you explain, briefly the, WMD evidence collection? [1:56:06] Speaker O (unidentified): So that is essentially the, regional hazmat team. It's called the Cobra Team. It is a WMD evidence collection team. It was started more than 20 years ago by the Lewiston Police Department. as a regional team, there were police officers from numerous communities on the team. Over the 20 years, it has evolved. So it was police and fire, and now it's evolved to the point where it's predominantly firefighters. It's still regional. It's Lewiston-Auburn, Lisbon-Durham. But it's administered by Lewiston. And there's still a police presence on the team, but it is predominantly firefighters. [1:56:51] Councilor Michael Roy: What does WMD stand for? To me it means weapons of mass destruction. that correct? [1:56:59] Speaker O (unidentified): That is correct. So it is, it is a WMD evidence collection team. That's why it was predominantly police officers on the team when it was founded. it was the only one in the state that, really specializes in crime scene, hazardous material crime scenes. [1:57:19] Councilor Scott Harriman: Thank you. [1:57:23] Mayor Carl Sheline: Public comment for this agenda item? Back to the council. Councilor Harriman, yes. [1:57:29] Councilor Scott Harriman: Thank you. could you speak more to the surveillance equipment and licensing item? [1:57:34] Speaker O (unidentified): Yeah, so over the— since, I've been chief, that's been a project in, a few years where the police received monies for surveillance equipment. It might have been cameras at various locations around the city. The last time, I think they used the money to purchase a mobile trailer, and they— when we were doing the 2025 grant projects, the application, that was a pro— that was identified as a need that they would like additional mobile surveillance trailers. So we asked for a larger amount than what we were actually awarded, enough money to buy 2, and they awarded, $50,000, which will be enough to buy one with a small surplus. [1:58:25] Councilor Scott Harriman: Thank you. And so that would be in addition to the trailer that they currently have? [1:58:31] Mark Blais, airport board member/Ward 6 resident: It would be to buy— [1:58:32] Speaker O (unidentified): they will buy whatever they want with it, but one or more surveillance trailers. [1:58:37] Councilor Scott Harriman: It's $50,000 to use towards that item, and do you know what the licensing is for and what sort of cameras these are? [1:58:46] Speaker O (unidentified): I don't know what they are. [1:58:49] Speaker Q (unidentified): Mr. Mayor? [Mayor Carl Sheline: Yes.] Yeah, I can answer that question, Councilor Harmon. That's the Exact Vision. We have to have licensing. So those are the cameras that have been up for well over 20 years, and what we've done with the technology as it changes, we've upgraded those cameras. But we also have to pay licensing for those cameras. So, and I know that I think, it's about $40,000 for one of those portable trailers. Unfortunately, the one that we have, someone struck it with a car, so it's not really able— easy to move. And we're concerned— I know the police department's concerned that it, you know, it may roll, so they have to really secure it. So this would be to get a portable trailer but also the licensing for the existing cameras that we've had throughout the city for probably 20 years. [1:59:28] Councilor Scott Harriman: Okay, thank you for that. So this is— these are surveillance cameras. Are they license plate readers or surveillance cameras? Those capabilities These are— [1:59:38] Speaker Q (unidentified): no, they're surveillance cameras that, you know, basically they have to go look at them after the fact that something happens. That is what we have the majority of the cameras that are up throughout the city. [1:59:46] Councilor Scott Harriman: Okay, thanks. [1:59:48] Mayor Carl Sheline: And for the public's benefit, Exact Vision is the, is the software that just runs the camera that allows you to, view it and extract footage and so forth. And that footage is available, you know, many businesses have that exact same software. It is not law enforcement specific. Further questions, comments from the council? Anything, more, Chief? No, I'm good. Madam Clerk, please call the vote. Council from Ward 3? [2:00:21] Councilor David Chittim (Council President): Yes. Ward 4? Yes. Ward 5? Yes. Ward 6? Yes. Ward 7? Yes. Ward 1? Yes. Ward 2? Yes. Motion passed by a vote of 7 to 0. [Mayor Carl Sheline: Item number 8.] Item number 8, update regarding proposed amendments to the solid waste ordinance. [2:00:36] Mayor Carl Sheline: We have, 2, directors here. Please introduce yourselves and kick us off. [2:00:46] Kevin Gagne, Director of Public Works: Kevin Gagne, Director of Public Works. [2:00:49] John Connor, Director of Planning and Code Enforcement: And I'm John Connor, Director of Planning and Code Enforcement. thank you all very much for allowing us to be here tonight. What we'd like to do tonight is just give you a quick recap of what's led us to where we are, give you a quick rundown of where we're currently at, and then give you some of the staff's ideas and thought processes of where we're trying to go with the new ordinance. Well, that's got a lot of feedback. I apologize. And so with that, I'll turn it over to Director Gagne, as he is the subject matter expert for all things solid waste. Waste. [2:01:23] Kevin Gagne, Director of Public Works: thank you. Good evening. how we got here— so Casella had our contract for the last 23 years. It was a lump sum bid, and I can— I want to give them credit because they went over and above. Anybody put, trash or recycling at the curb, they picked it up. So, we had as part of that program, pay service for multi-unit apartment buildings. So if somebody didn't pay up, we would mark that trash and put it on a do not collect list for that week until they paid up and evened up with the city. So really, we weren't exactly sure, either Casella or the city, of who was getting picked up or not. So when we went to the, new bid, which is an itemized per pickup for the new containers, we use 2025 assessing information on each of the parcels. So that information helped us start kind of the audit, right, of what was really in the field. As part of Casella's bid, they looked at it and they were ground-truthing with each of those, residential units and finding out, you know, what was there. Was there a type of business associated with it? And we haven't changed the ordinance as far as eligibility to be on the program or have trash collection since early 2000. So it's been about 23 years. So over the last year and then through implementation, we realized that Casella was picking up locations at residents and multi-unit apartment buildings that they probably shouldn't have. And that's where we're at today. So we have heard from probably a couple dozen property owners that are like, I was getting my trash picked up, what's going on? And if they have a small office, if there's a daycare, other types of mixed use, there's no allowance in the ordinance to say the Public Works director or the code director or the administrator, anybody can waive it. So we've been looking at that gap of who's getting collected, who isn't. We're still gathering information now, But that's what we're seeing. So in addition to the actual rollout and people having confusion of, is my container large enough, do I have enough, do I not have enough, we're also dealing with those people that we're just trying to understand, you know, were they getting collected, why weren't they getting connected— collected and communicating that. So that's kind of where we're at and where we're looking to go. is something that we're still collecting data, but I'll let Director Connor brief on some of that. [2:04:05] John Connor, Director of Planning and Code Enforcement: Yeah, so we've met, myself and, Director Gagne, him and his staff, we've met several times just trying to find out, get a true assessment of what, 's going on out there. you know, the, audit that, Casella has done is, start of the process, but there's so much data out there that we're still trying to collect. what we're trying to do is get to a point where we can bring something forward to you that, allows some sort of universal access base for pickup. you know, updating the ordinance to maximize trash pickup for the, maximum number of residential units that we can. We're also looking at a full, a full cost pass-through. You know, they've been operating at kind of a loss you know, what they charge. So require, you know, the non-standard or multi-unit properties to put— to pay for the full pass-through cost, whatever that cost is. And that's some of the data that we're collecting is what is, what is the true cost of picking up per unit, per location, and the true cost of, this, the disposal. And then working on firm commercial classification. So we've got a lot of mixed use. We've got, you know, Kevin said the assessing data. So there's there's mixed use primarily commercial. There's mixed use primarily residential. There's cemeteries. There's there's a lot of different property classifications that may have a residential unit on it that may not be producing a whole lot of commercial trash. But as it stands, they don't have an option right now. It's either it's either the city will pick it up or you get it picked up yourself. And so with a with a few caveats. there of folks that can pay. you know, we're looking at reopening the markets so that we're not pricing out, you know, small companies or small businesses that may want to come in and, set up a trash collection business. If, the city's doing it at such a, you know, such a low rate that nobody can, touch it, that really only gives folks one option— the city or the city's contractor. So those are some of the things that we're trying to look at doing in the ordinance, really look at seeing, who, needs to be picked up, who needs trash picked up, and what does that cost look like, and then bring something forward to you guys as a council to, review it, look at it, and see if it's something that we— that you all want to go forward with as a city. [2:06:23] Kevin Gagne, Director of Public Works: I would add that, you know, we have about 10,000, almost 11,000 units, to be collected. Our primary goal is collection of trash and recyclables at residential units. So we're not looking to do, you know, commercial, we're not looking to do the industrial, we're not looking to do, you know, hospitals and those types. So really we're trying to better define that. One thing that was grandfathered in was if you were a multi-unit in the program for collection since before 2003, and that's kind of our guideline for that. at this point, we need to get some of those statistics. We don't— we're giving you this orally tonight because we're trying to finalize some numbers, trying to understand what's our contractual amount, are we going to be within budget, and then also look at that number. We are seeing where other communities you know, they're, they're going through this as well with some gaps. We've heard about other ones that are trying to deal with this, so we just want to be fair and consistent and bring up some ideas back to you. [2:07:34] Mayor Carl Sheline: Thank you both very much. questions, comments from the council? Councillor Nagy. [2:07:40] Speaker I (unidentified): Thank you, Mr. Mayor. thank you both. I've had obviously residents reach out who primarily live in residential buildings who have home offices and that's deemed as commercial for some odd and unexplainable reason. but, you know, I just want to bring up a few points that I've had for a long time. one, the taxpayer subsidizes, the single-family homeowner for trash removal. That is a fact. We pay from our budget, from the tax budget, to remove trash. Every time we put a restriction in, everybody pays the same tax. So we're putting restrictions in for trash hauling that some people— you're subsidizing it for, again, the single-family homes and duplexes. That's one piece. The second piece that I have some concerns about is figuring out a way to actually encourage competition as opposed to just giving pass-through to Casella. Casella is the trash king in all of northern New England. They— whatever cost they're going to pass on, how do we encourage a local trash hauler to actually want to come in and underbid what Casella is bidding so that we're actually encouraging that business. And then at the end of the day, we have tipping fees that are associated with the, landfill that actually help to offset the cost of our landfill. And so, you know, we don't have anything in place right now that licenses trash hauling or requires them to use our tipping facility. And when I say licensing trash hauling, I'm talking about maybe like a $5 fee where they have to follow the same rules as everybody else. So we don't get into arguments about what trash day, what trash hauler is collecting on, which does happen currently. I want a system where everything is outlined clearly. where we're not being punitive, where we're actually encouraging competition, knowing that the other option is just to pass that, charge on to Casella, and they can charge whatever they want. So, that's my feedback. But the 150 or so currently residential buildings that have home offices in them that have been receiving trash services for 50 years, we need to figure out how to accommodate for that, in my opinion. [2:10:28] Mayor Carl Sheline: Councillor Longchamps, did you have your hand up? [2:10:32] Councilor Susan Longchamps: Yes, thank you, Mayor. So if I heard you correctly, are you saying that you don't want to— [2:10:38] Mayor Carl Sheline: you just move the mic a little— [2:10:39] Councilor Susan Longchamps: you don't want to, pick up commercial, right, trash? [2:10:43] Kevin Gagne, Director of Public Works: Correct. That is currently on our ordinance right now. We're not looking to change to pick up any additional, which would be burdensome. [2:10:52] Councilor Susan Longchamps: Yep. Thank you. That was it. [2:10:54] Mayor Carl Sheline: Councillor Chittim, did you have your hand raised? [2:10:57] Councilor Michael Roy: Yes, thank you both. I'm excited, as you might imagine, to learn that this is going to be a data-driven process. I'm glad that you're collecting all this information. I too have had a number of constituents who have received trash collection, have a home office or a small office, and now have been disqualified. So I'm eager to see a resolution this. I'm excited about the data, -driven. I wanted to express my appreciation for that, and I'm looking forward to having you back again as soon as possible. [2:11:31] Councilor Scott Harriman: Thank you. So I agree that I think we should— we need to start collecting the residential units again, the mixed-use residential essential ones. Councillor Neogene also alluded to this a little bit, but I feel like there's not a lot of uniformity around trash collection. You know, some people are on the, city's program, some people have other haulers come get their trash, some have a dumpster, and I just wonder where, all that trash goes and where it actually ends up. And I, like, I don't know, do they, do they take it to Auburn to the incinerator? Do they go to Lisbon to their landfill? Do we have any sort of any way to know that or any way to compel them to, take it to a certain facility? I feel like we should, we should tighten that up a little bit. [2:12:29] Kevin Gagne, Director of Public Works: We can get some and try to get some information on that. I will say that Landfills in the state of Maine are reducing in number. They're harder to permit, they're harder to site. So the ones that are open right now, Lewiston-Auburn is in a really excellent situation that we've been leveraging for over a decade and hopefully will continue more. The ash-to-trash deal, so going to MWAC is actually creating power, reducing volume, and, then goes to Lewiston for disposal. disposal of ash. So I, 'm going to go out there, but generally price of fuel and hauling cost, those private haulers are trying to keep costs low. So wherever they can bring it. So chances are they're not going to Norwich Walk, they're not going out of town, they're probably going there. But we will confirm and try to get some information to be data-driven. [2:13:25] Mayor Carl Sheline: Yep. [2:13:25] Speaker I (unidentified): And just to reiterate, there's 14 member communities within the MWAC agreement, correct? And if somebody is collecting trash in Lewiston but they're bringing it to Green, the tipping fees are being paid in Green, but the ash still ends up in the Lewiston landfill. Is that correct? [2:13:41] Kevin Gagne, Director of Public Works: All of the ash leaving MWAC comes to the City of Lewiston, right, solid waste facility. [2:13:45] Speaker I (unidentified): And so that's the— I guess that's the closed gap that I'm talking about. There's revenue that we can generate if people are collecting trash in Lewiston, if we require that they use our tipping facility. that was the point. but, we can talk about that after we figure out all those other pieces. Thank you. [2:14:02] Mayor Carl Sheline: anything further? [2:14:07] John Connor, Director of Planning and Code Enforcement: If I may just address a couple of comments. I can, I can wait for after the council. [2:14:12] Mayor Carl Sheline: Okay, well, you first, then we're back to Councilor Herrmann. [2:14:17] John Connor, Director of Planning and Code Enforcement: I just wanted to get some clarification from Councilor Nagy. You had, you had talked about this subsidization. I was just curious as to which way you were saying the subsidized— subsidization goes. Are you saying that the, single-family homes paying the taxes are subsidizing the multi-families, or the multi-families are subsidizing the single families? [2:14:35] Speaker I (unidentified): I'm saying every business, every, person who pays property tax in the city is paying into the general coffer, and yet some of these structures don't get trash service. So it is sub— we are subsidizing single-family homes, duplexes, and the people who already receive services based on the commercial model, right? That, 's all I'm saying. So the multi-units that currently don't get collection, they pay— they still pay tax, right? Right. And that's for a trash system that collects curb to, you know, curb-to-curb collection. The reason why I'm pointing that out is because it is a burden by the taxpayer and not the ratepayer, right? And so when we're talking about having something that is competitive for these other folks to actually engage in, it's something that I want to see encouraged from the city so that we do have competition in trash hauling in the city and you're not simply passing through to Casella, who already— who are already paying $2.5 million a year to collect trash from. And if they become the only, the only game in town, I think that is, detrimental to some of the businesses that— and other folks that we don't supply trash service for but collect their taxes and spend it for trash collection. So thank you. [2:15:57] John Connor, Director of Planning and Code Enforcement: And then, Councilor Longchamps mentioned the commercial. So one of the things that we found, and I think Director Ghani can speak to this better than I can, is In the past, Casella was, like he said, picking up everything at the side of the road. If you were a commercial business and you put something out there and you had no residential, it was getting picked up. With the new cart-to-curb, that's eliminated now. So we're relooking at it. If you have a residential unit in your commercial building, your commercial trash is limited to the bins. The totes are the limiting factor. So that's what's kind of brought us back to look at this to say, why are we not picking up residential trash from a building that may be primarily commercial? The commercial trash is not going to be— I wouldn't say not going to be in the bin, but it's limited by the bins. You can no longer just put stuff on the side of the road and have it picked up. So it makes sense to, look at it and, you know, try to, try to be fair and equitable across the board and, not have any one entity subsidizing the other. So just wanted to speak to those 2 points that were brought up. Thank you. [2:16:57] Mayor Carl Sheline: Thank you. Councillor Harriman, back to you. [2:17:00] Councilor Scott Harriman: Yeah, my, other point I was going to bring up was about composting, and maybe it's aspirational. I don't know if we're there as a city, but a big— a fairly big proportion of our trash is food waste, which could be composted. It's typically— food waste is typically wet, so it's— it adds to the tonnage that we're sending, and it's harder to burn as well. So if we— I think we tried something out a few years ago, some kind of program, but I don't know if we're, if we're there as a city. But I think that's something to sort of keep in the back of our minds, to try to set up some kind of way to incentivize composting. [2:17:40] Mayor Carl Sheline: Okay. yeah, I can't— Director Gagné. Oh, sorry, did you say— yeah, Director Gagné. [2:17:49] Kevin Gagne, Director of Public Works: So related to composting, It is difficult right now in Lewiston. We love to see our recycling numbers up. We have single stream, zero sort, so we just need your recycling to be clean. You're not peeling labels off, you know, just put it in the container. The food waste, I know that Deputy Director Bates has been looking at that and, trying to— as a, as a solid waste statewide, that's an issue. And I believe that the— we'll look into it more and bring back more information, but my understanding is they're trying to do more piloting at the schools. So all of our schools with that food waste and getting that out of the waste stream is much easier. You have buy-in there and it's one pickup versus curbside. There are some communities that do it, so I love the optimism. And I know that, you know, at some point hopefully that could be available. And it's a much smaller container, it's a different hall and it'd be added in, but it's something to consider. [2:18:45] Councilor Michael Roy: Yes, a question. As I drive around with this new cart-to-curb, -to-cart, whatever it is, I noticed some carts are overflowing. What is Casella's policy on these carts that are bulging over the top with waste? [2:19:04] Kevin Gagne, Director of Public Works: So our overall goal for this has been to help clean up consistency of containers, clean up the city, and part of that is keeping lids closed. So if, you're allowed to put your trash and recycling out there the night before, we want all the different animals staying out of the trash and spreading it— birds and those type of things. So right now, the conversations we've had with Casella is there's a— there's kind of a phase-in period right now where trying to help coach people, but it takes a month for people to establish new habits. So we really want to emphasize people are putting it in the container. If it's not on— if it's on the container, if it's bags and boxes next to the container, it will not be picked up, and then it becomes, Director Connor's issue. [2:19:52] John Connor, Director of Planning and Code Enforcement: So, and I think that's why I'm at this table now. so I can tell you that we, are trying to educate folks As I drove downtown this morning as well, I saw the same thing. Our code officers, if it's really, bad, they're trying to use their best judgment. If it's clearly, you know, they're taking advantage of it, they're issuing citations on the spot. But they're also reaching out to the landowners and the property owners and saying, or the property managers, and letting them know, hey, this is the new rule. You know, Casella is not going to be picking it up. We've had an instance on a couple streets where people put bulky waste out thinking it was going to get picked up. It didn't get picked up. They got a citation for it, and we educated them, you can't do this anymore. So we're giving them, like, Kevin said, about a month, about 4 pickup cycles, and by that time, it's, it's time to, get on board, and, we'll use the enforcement mechanism to, get them. [2:20:46] Mayor Carl Sheline: Thank you. while we're not voting here, we will go to public Comment for this agenda item, should there be any. Now we're back to us. Anything further, councillors? And then anything further from you two? Thank you for your time. We appreciate you both being here. Yes, Lewiston House, or I'm sorry, Madam Clerk, I'm trying to do your job. [2:21:17] Councilor David Chittim (Council President): Item number nine. Item number 9, update from the Lewiston Housing Authority. [2:21:28] Mayor Carl Sheline: Sir, please introduce yourself and kick us off. [2:21:30] Chris Killary, Executive Director of Lewiston Housing Authority: Good evening, thank you for having me. Chris Killary, I'm the executive director of the Lewiston Housing Authority. just want to give updates on where we are and a bunch of projects that we've been working on throughout the city. first off, Choice. Wedgwood, as I told you last time, fully leased, operating, great property. DeWitt, right across the street, we're getting insanely close to that being open. It's hard to believe how quickly that's gone up. The Bates Building is estimated to be completed at the end of October, so we're going to start leasing shortly. We have well over 200 applications right now, and we're still taking additional applications. The Park Street building has to begin leasing at the end of December, so the property will be fully leased in the first quarter of 2027. Commercial on the first floor, we have 2 leases in place and 2 others that are currently being negotiated. I feel like those will be done in the next month or so, and the commercial tenants will be able to start fitting out in each one of those buildings. buildings on the same timelines, October and December. Martell 1, under construction. Foundations are going in right now. Again, that will be 44 units of senior housing. Construction is in progress and estimated completion is in July of 2027. We will begin leasing that property 3 months prior. There is a— I don't have the number. There is a significant amount of people on the interest list right now. And those will— that will continue to grow over time. Martel 2, 90% plans are complete, and we're working towards our 100% set with Maine State Housing Authority right now. We're actually doing a little bit of work on that site right now. We're doing some pre-foundation work on the Martel 2 site just to get that in place and give ourselves a jump so when we finish up— so there's overlap on the 2 projects, we can get going on that one and not have to remobilize. Martell 3— I'm sorry, construction financing closing is targeted for early '27 on that project with a 12-month construction timeline. So it will be opening in early 2028. Martell 3, the preapplication was submitted to the 9% tax credit program in July. We were invited to submit a full application. The full app is due mid-September and awards will be announced Likely in November and December, but there's no hard timeline on that. It is an extremely competitive program. The 9% program is often well overprescribed. They typically fund between 5 to 7 applications in that, and there are 21 applicants in the program right now. Our project looks to score well, but obviously with 21 others in there, it's not a not a done deal. We will resubmit if we don't. score well enough in that program to the 4% program, which comes out in usually April of the following year. Soleil 1 and 2, which are funded on the location of 60 Ash Street, where 90% plans are complete and we're working towards the 100% submission to Misha. That will be 72 new units of family housing. Construction financing closing is targeted for late Q1, early Q2 of 2027. The construction duration on that building, because it's significantly larger, will be roughly 18 months, estimated completion in late Q3, early Q4 of 2028. Moving on to our direct rental assistance program, just to remind you that we were the first housing authority in the country to be allowed to implement this program by HUD. Where we provide, rather than having contracts with the landlords, we will give the residents the payments on debit cards directly to them so they can operate more like a market-rate renter in the community. Really will help people get on common ground and equal footing to everyone else who is competing for apartments out there right now, which we all know with less than 1% vacancy, that's incredibly important to give people options We're going to be doing 60 people a year for 5 years. We've issued 3 already, 3 more people in orientation, and 3 more in progress. And we'll have the remainder of them chugging along pretty quickly now. We have 158 applicants on the waitlist right now, and that continues to grow. We'll get those 60 out before the end of the year and continue with the 60 every year thereafter for the next 5 years. And we're working with debates on the evaluation of the program for HUD. Older adult home modification program is also continuing. As you recall, that is a program where we help income-eligible seniors be able to get modifications in their home that they need to be able to remain in place and not have to, you know, like grab bars or ramps in their house. To be eligible for the program, you have to be 62 and own your home or live with a relative that owns the home. Income guidelines, you can be up to 80% of AMI for one person, is $52,600, and 2 persons this year would be $60,160 in Androscoggin County. We do represent 5 counties with this, with this plan, but a majority are from Androscoggin County. But we do Androscoggin, Cumberland, Oxford, Kennebec, Franklin. And, for the income obligation part of it, we don't count any assets, obviously, because people own their home. That would throw everybody off. We only account actual income in there, so we're not imputing, assets that people have as part of their income calculation. demolition— we have a couple, properties that are slated for demolition, in the coming months. Lafayette Terrace, that has been completely vacated and most of the residents were moved into Wedgewood or took vouchers and found other housing accommodations. We're looking to demo that property likely before the end of this year. And then Maple Knoll, with DeWitt coming to a construction closing here, the remainder of the residents who are there will be moved over into DeWitt or some people have found other accommodations. elsewhere using housing choice vouchers, and we'll look to demolish that property in the first half of next year. 163-165 Bates, the SRO property that we bought recently, I hope you all noticed that we made it look a lot better and put new siding up on the property. Demand is high for the property. It's going well. It was our first foray into this type of property. Took a little while for us to gain traction in the community with it. It's a little bit different with an SRO property. It wasn't something we had done traditionally, but I think we've gained the trust of the people that are looking for that type of accommodation, and people are starting to show up, and there's a good level of demand there now, which is really nice to see. And then lastly, the Hillview after-school program continued success. We're getting a significant amount of kids coming. in there, 75 a day, you know, well over 500 a month that are coming in. They get access to food, programming, and just a safe place to,, you know, spend time and learn after school hours. [2:28:46] Mayor Carl Sheline: thank you so much, Director. Great work all around. it's amazing how fast these 2 buildings went out here, and exciting to see, the commercial spaces take shape. It will transform our immediate downtown here. So thank you all so much. yes, Councilor Nagy, and then Councilor Longchamps. Thank you, Mr. [2:29:09] Speaker I (unidentified): Mayor. thank you, Director. I want to check just a couple of things really quickly with you. One, the Senior Assistance Improvement Program— where can we find information on that? How are you advertising it? Is it something that— [2:29:24] Chris Killary, Executive Director of Lewiston Housing Authority: it's on our website, and then we also work with a lot of the, senior service community members out there. So they refer people to us who, when they go out and, you know, do OT services or whatever with people out there where they're transitioning from a hospital, they know to reach out to us and to help them be able to get back into their home and stay there with the modifications. [2:29:44] Speaker I (unidentified): Okay, that's great. Thank you. And then just as a point of clarity for those at home who may not be familiar the jargon. What is an SRO? [2:29:55] Chris Killary, Executive Director of Lewiston Housing Authority: Single room occupancy. Sorry, too many acronyms in our industry. [2:30:01] Speaker I (unidentified): So basically, similar to a boarding house is the concept? [Mark Blais: Yep.] Okay, thank you so much. [2:30:07] Councilor Susan Longchamps: Thank you for being here. I just had a couple of questions. The apartments over near Bates College, do you guys own those? [Speaker Q (unidentified): Which one?] So it's a complex I had called— [2:30:21] Speaker Q (unidentified): She's referring to Lafayette Street. [2:30:23] Chris Killary, Executive Director of Lewiston Housing Authority: Yes. [2:30:24] Councilor Susan Longchamps: Did you just talk about that one? [2:30:26] Chris Killary, Executive Director of Lewiston Housing Authority: We're going to be demolishing it. [2:30:27] Councilor Susan Longchamps: That's the one you're demolishing before the Maple? [Chris Killary: Yes.] And then what are you putting up there? [2:30:32] Chris Killary, Executive Director of Lewiston Housing Authority: We have not decided yet. It's not zoned appropriately yet for anything. It's actually not zoned for what's sitting there right now. So we'll have to come back and talk with you guys about that. But obviously we should think of some more senior housing. Yeah, I think that would be a really nice location. for senior housing. We've talked about it quite a bit, but got to go through the public process. [2:30:49] Councilor Susan Longchamps: That's right. And then my second question, Wedgwood. I love the buildings, but as you know, we've had some pretty serious issues going on over there with tenants and visitors and stuff. I had heard from Councilor Nagy that you were possibly going to put some sort of security office on that site, is that correct? [2:31:14] Chris Killary, Executive Director of Lewiston Housing Authority: We have a security company that's over there. [2:31:16] Councilor Susan Longchamps: So how often are they there? [2:31:23] Chris Killary, Executive Director of Lewiston Housing Authority: I can get you exact hours that they're there. I don't have that with me right now, but I'm happy to update you. I'd be shooting from the hip saying that, but they're, they're there regularly, but I cannot say more than that and be accurate. [2:31:38] Councilor Susan Longchamps: I think it would be really beneficial if you guys could look into some sort of security office. I don't know what that would look like, particularly in that— on that site. I think they're beautiful buildings, right? And you have some really great people living there. [Speaker E (unidentified): Mm-hmm.] But you have some really bad people visiting. and you have a few really bad tenants, there are some folks that just don't feel secure there. And I feel like if the security folks were more visible, because what I'm hearing is they're not, I just think it would, it would make some residents really want to stay there, because I'm hearing a lot of people saying they want to leave. [2:32:25] Chris Killary, Executive Director of Lewiston Housing Authority: Well, I can't speak to what you have heard, so I am not going to push back on your specific assessment of it. I will say that we got a significant amount of calls from the residents who are actually almost scared by the fact that security was there knocking on doors and coming into the hallways and whatnot. So a lot of people reached out like, who are these people that are here right now? Because they have been going around and doing a lot of patrols in the area. I would also like to push back a little bit on the connotation of it being residents and specifically people there. There, you know, there have been some instances of people being there, but I'd say a vast majority of the activity that happens in that area is people who are not in the area and are not connected to the apartment. So I'd like to move the connotation of it being that property in specific of drawing that in. There have been a couple instances of people having guests there that cause problems, but the vast majority have been people who are just in the area passing through or doing things in the area, from what we've gathered thus far. So, and we do have a, very,, very sophisticated camera system there that the police have full access to and can see everything that's happening in there. And we work with them regularly on those. You know, as far as I've been told, since the security's been up and running, they've been extremely present and people are quite pleased. We've got a lot of thank used for them after they— their initial shock of people entering the buildings and not understanding who they were. so, I, hope the feelings and the things that you're hearing will be tamped down over time with their presence in the area. [2:33:58] Councilor Susan Longchamps: Yes, so do I. Thank you. [2:34:01] Mayor Carl Sheline: Councilor Harmon. Thank you. [2:34:04] Councilor Scott Harriman: I just had a couple questions, similar to what Councilor Longchamps said about the 2 sites that are being demoed. so you don't really have a plan yet for those? [Chris Killary: Correct.] Okay, I, figured it's probably too far ahead in the game right now. [Chris Killary: Yeah.] And then the other thing was with the Martell site. If you're— I'm— I see the progress happening as I go by, so if you're standing on East Ave looking at the site, is it basically going from left to right, phase 1, 2, 3? [Councilor Bret Martel: Yep.] Okay, all right, thanks. [2:34:33] Councilor David Chittim (Council President): Yeah. [2:34:33] Mayor Carl Sheline: Councillor Chittim. [2:34:35] Councilor Michael Roy: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Director Kilmorey, thank you. If you mentioned this, I missed it. Do you have a date when applications will be starting for Martell 1? [2:34:46] Chris Killary, Executive Director of Lewiston Housing Authority: We typically start 3 months before occupancy on the property. So that property will be done— just make sure I get this right— Martell is July of '27, so we'll probably start sometime around March. [2:35:05] Councilor Michael Roy: March or April, so 6 months out roughly, right? Okay. Yep, good to know. Thank you. [2:35:10] Chris Killary, Executive Director of Lewiston Housing Authority: And just for everybody who's interested, right now we have an interest list. When we get closer to that time, we will send out applications to everybody. When applications come back, they are time and date stamped, so it's not what number you are on the interest list right now, it's what number you are when the application gets back to us and is date stamped. And those are the people who will— that's how we'll order who gets their applications that we go through. And it likely will not be the first 44. There are a lot of— a lot of people will end up not qualifying for different reasons. So don't let that dissuade you from putting in your application and getting it in. And then there will also be Phase 2 and Phase 3. [2:35:46] Councilor Michael Roy: All right, thank you. That's good information. I appreciate it. [2:35:50] Mayor Carl Sheline: Public comment for this agenda item? Back to the council? Anything further, Director? [2:35:58] Chris Killary, Executive Director of Lewiston Housing Authority: No, thank you very much. I appreciate it. [2:35:59] Mayor Carl Sheline: We are honored by your service. Thank you very much. [2:36:02] Chris Killary, Executive Director of Lewiston Housing Authority: Have a good evening. [2:36:02] Mayor Carl Sheline: okay, we are now up to the second public comment period for people who did not speak at the first public comment period. Public comment is now closed. We are now up to reports and updates from councilors, should there be any. Councilor Martel? Yes. [2:36:21] Councilor Bret Martel: Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to bring up— I've received several phone calls. Bates students are back. I believe classes have started or start soon. how do we look into the accountability for the school for the behavior of their students? There is reports of partying that is falling out into the streets, chaos, 2, 3, 4 in the morning with loud music. I got one specific phone call about a senior who left their own home and went to go stay with a family member. I know there have been report repeated calls to our police department, and they are responding, and that's great, and I thank them for that. But all of these calls pull them away from other responsibilities and other things that are going on in the city. I would just like to explore what the responsibility is for. For the school for the behavior of their students. The landlords that rent to the students and are pretty much permissive of some of this behavior, as long as the rent keeps getting paid, they really don't seem to have any other concerns. And, you know, this is keeping people up all night. We've got people who live there, they're property owners, they pay rent. I get that the landlords pay their property tax, But Bates doesn't, as a nonprofit, doesn't contribute to our tax rolls. And when the police are responding to these calls, again, those are resources that are being paid for by our property owners and those who pay taxes and live there year-round. You shouldn't have to leave their homes and go stay with family because, you know, parties can't be controlled to be kept even in a house, or that music can't be controlled at 2, 3, o'clock in the morning, open containers in public, yelling and dancing and, loud music in the streets at all hours of the night, fights and arguments on porches. It is a legitimate problem, and it's not even in my ward, but I've received multiple concerned complaints about it. I think we would do well to at least ask Bates what we can do for them to be accountable for their students. [Councilor Michael Roy: Thank you.] And also the landlords. I don't know what code enforcement might be able to do, but this shouldn't just land on our police department, especially when Bates as an entity isn't contributing to, you know, the tax base in a way that, funds the, response from our police department. So I would just like to look into that. I'll follow up with the city administrator and see if there's anything that we can do, but it's a concern that I think is valid and needed to be raised. [2:39:02] Speaker I (unidentified): I would just like to extend a public apology to you, Councillor Martel. you pointed out, specific policy issues, that you didn't get an answer to, and I think that at some point in time, we need to publicly discuss, when we hand, an assignment to a committee whether or not voting on it. I think that 's logical that we would do so and then would put in writing what we're looking for that committee to do so that there is no confusion, there is no loss of, information. It's not based on consensus. It's a charge that the body is giving a committee. So that's one piece. I also have some concerns about the language on, the original, request for the moratorium extension and then the special meeting request. And I've talked to the administrator today about that to try to determine where exactly that language came from and why. and, and, again, I don't think that my communication back to you, was, was civil or professional. And, and, I apologize, for reacting, after I felt that, you know, my, for reacting poorly, basically. and so I just want to put that out there. [2:40:36] Mayor Carl Sheline: yeah, it comes from Councillor Martel, then Councillor Herman. [2:40:42] Councilor Bret Martel: yeah, I would just like to respond to that, and I, thank you for that, Councillor Nagy. But as well, any confusion that you may have had about my criticism or critique was as your role as city council president. It was not personal, it wasn't directed at you. And I, hope that, with what you're going on, what you have going on with your family— I don't want to elaborate into your own things, just stuff that you shared with me that, that led to additional stress that, was not intended. So if that happened, then I also extend an apology to you. [2:41:19] Mayor Carl Sheline:, Councillor Herman, yes. [2:41:23] Councilor Scott Harriman: I don't have an update myself. I was just wondering if we could get an update at some point about the Public Safety Committee. I saw one set of minutes, but I haven't seen, haven't seen additional meetings. So I just wondered. [2:41:35] Mayor Carl Sheline: And here we have Councillor Longchamps. [2:41:38] Councilor Susan Longchamps: Thank you. yes, today we had our 3rd meeting. It went really well. We have some really great dedicated committee members. We're talking about— our, priority is what everybody else is talking about, right? The, youth gun violence that's spreading throughout our city. So we're coming up with different solutions, different reasonings, and just really trying to put our heads and thoughts together as to different ideas that we can start approaching and coming up with some real solutions. We do— one thing that continues to come up is we need laws to change, right? So maybe this committee can, make some recommendations for, the legislative folks in Augusta. Those are facts. Those are things that have to happen. So, yes, our 3rd meeting happened today. One thing that I was not aware of was that Lewiston has a Boys and Girls Club, and I'm embarrassed to say that, but I did not know that. I guess it's It's been, active for 3 years now. It's really not talked about much, and I think that's pretty sad, especially where our city— we have a lot of youth raising a lot of havoc throughout our city. I would like our city administrator— I'd like to have a meeting with him and maybe Director Walsh. Well, yes, in fact, the director of the Armory, to see— I'd like to learn more about that program, and I'd like to see how we might be able to expand that program. I know that the Armory needs a lot of work down, done to the downstairs to really expand that program, but I would like to look into that. Maybe we could have, yeah, I will have that discussion regarding that. But, that's it. Thank you. [2:43:54] Mayor Carl Sheline: so it's my understanding that, Lewiston Rec rents to the Boys and Girls Club and they have a director and so on and so forth. So yeah, it is not a program run by Lewiston Rec. Councillor Harriman, back to you. [2:44:11] Councilor Scott Harriman: Yeah, I just wanted to mention the Boys and Girls Club is a great program, but they are out of space and they've had a waiting list for a very long time. So whatever we could do to expand that, would be— I think that would be in the best interest of the city. [2:44:25] Mayor Carl Sheline: All right, to you, Councillor Langjam. [2:44:28] Councilor Susan Longchamps: Sorry, really quick, I guess I'm just going to put it out there. I would love to maybe have a conversation with some folks over at Bates College. Perhaps they could maybe financially help us with something like that. Thank you. [2:44:44] Mayor Carl Sheline: Further reports and updates? Sorry, Councillor Roy, did you have your hand up? [2:44:50] Speaker I (unidentified): Not really an update, but, I just wanted to, point out like something that was brought up tonight when we had the art walk and we don't allow use of outlets. That just baffles me. [2:45:04] Speaker Q (unidentified): That's incorrect, Councilor Roy. We allow use of, outlets. There was some miscommunication. LA Arts did not make the city aware that they were going to have a band down at Dufresne Plaza, and they were trying to climb up a ladder and plug into outlets that are up on the posts. There was a city staff member that did respond, and There was some discussion that over the liability for the city to just have someone not a city employee to climb up. And they also have to activate, power those things. So that was what the concern was. Unfortunately, there was an oversight on LA Arts not contacting the city that they were going to have a band at the artwork. Because we meet with them quite a bit. And we had the artwork where the city street was blocked off. And they have their sound amplification permits for, you know,, every last Friday of the month. So there was some miscommunication between LA Arts and the city in terms of what they were doing for an event. They never reached out to us until, I believe 4:30, quarter of 5 on Friday. [2:46:01] Mayor Carl Sheline: I really appreciate that. [2:46:02] Speaker Q (unidentified): It's not as if there was a plug on the wall and we said no, don't plug into that wall. It's climbing up a ladder and going on to the post, the decorative post. [2:46:10] Mayor Carl Sheline: I really appreciate that explanation because I was sitting here going, we got bands and we're not allowing them to plug anything in. [2:46:18] Speaker Q (unidentified): I just, I had to get clarification on that. All right, thank you. [2:46:22] Mayor Carl Sheline: we're now up to new business, and, we were all, I don't want to use the term stuck here, but we were all here in a meeting when Isaac Atkins was on America's Got Talent tonight. hopefully we're gonna, all of us up here can watch it later. I encourage Lewiston residents to go vote for Further new business from councillors? Councillor Nagy. [2:46:47] Speaker I (unidentified): I'd like to ask administration, and probably actually the deputy administrator, to perhaps provide some resources concerning email etiquette for open meeting laws as well as FOIA issues. I think we're trying to make your life easy. [2:47:10] Speaker Q (unidentified): And when you say email etiquette, is that on the city councillors' etiquette or— [2:47:17] Speaker I (unidentified): Yeah,, us. Can you teach us a little bit? [2:47:19] Speaker Q (unidentified): I think you had the discussion earlier about your ethics policy, so I think that would cover it. [2:47:24] Speaker I (unidentified): I'm just talking about conversation, like when a group of councillors emails a group of councillors, right? We're having discussions back and forth. Open meeting law. So basically, I don't know if there's a resource available out there that you can just make available to us. [2:47:42] Speaker Q (unidentified): I can forward you some training on that as well—what you can discuss and what you can't discuss over email. [2:47:48] Speaker I (unidentified): Okay, perfect. Thank you so very much. [2:47:52] Mayor Carl Sheline: Anything else before we move to executive session, councillors? Madam Clerk, item number thirteen. [2:47:58] Councilor David Chittim (Council President): Item number thirteen: Executive session regarding consultation with the city attorney. Requested action to enter. To an executive session pursuant to Maine Revised Statutes Annotated Title 1, Section 405, 6A and E, to discuss a legal matter with the city attorney. [2:48:11] Mayor Carl Sheline: May I have a motion, please? So moved. Councilor Chittim. [Speaker I (unidentified): Second.] Seconded by Councilor Nagy. Madam Clerk, please call the vote. [2:48:18] Councilor Bret Martel: Point of order. I would like to open a discussion before we vote. This is a normal motion. There should be able to be council discussion under my understanding. Please. I would like it defined exactly what We need to go into executive session for. I understand that, you know, I have real serious concerns with what happened in the last couple of weeks, and I feel like just in general this body has gotten far too comfortable using executive session to shield us from conversations that I believe should be held in front of the public. We've gotten far too comfortable moving difficult. Help conversations behind closed doors. The public elected us to make decisions in front of them, and unless there's a legitimate reason for this discussion that needs to be confidential, this discussion belongs in the public. I can tell you that at least once during my relatively short tenure on this council that I've observed at least one occasion where, in my opinion, we went into executive session under admittedly false pretenses by the city council president at the time. it should be used for confidentiality when normal, not to, cover for conversations that really belong in the public. For example, twice during the slate of special meetings that was called recently, I specifically reached out to you, Mr. Mayor, and to the council and everyone in general, if we could get the city attorney in open meeting in either of those special sessions. I didn't even get a response. I don't think that's appropriate. and then, you know, we, were warned about the legal exposure. We moved forward anyway, and now the taxpayers are left dealing with the fallout. I don't believe the answer to that is to close the doors again and go back in and continue to discuss what should have been held in public back behind closed doors. I think Councillor Nagy brought up a point at one of the special sessions that the executive session content could have been made public with a supermajority vote. I don't think that should have to be the case. Again, that would rely upon our recollection and our interpretations of what was discussed in there. I think having the city attorney in front of us as well as the chair of the housing committee would have provided a lot of clarity. It would have provided the transparency that this body is responsible for providing to our constituents. And I have a serious problem with running back to the back room to continue to discuss the things that I believe should have been discussed out here in the first place. So if there are truly confidentiality issues to what we're going to be discussing, I think that should be outlined rather than we're just going to head to executive session, and that much more of these conversations should be held in public, for public consumption, because they are in the end the ones that are going to end up footing the bill for these legal fees for our actions. And, you know, they should be privy to the conversations to the extent that it isn't required to be confidential. [2:51:31] Mayor Carl Sheline: Further comments from councilors? or, since we normally— we would not have, a public comment here, but since we had a councilor speak, open this up to public comment for this agenda item. And now back to us. Madam Clerk, please call the vote. [2:51:54] Councilor David Chittim (Council President): Councilor from Ward 3? [Councilor Scott Harriman: Yes.] Ward 4? [John Connor: No.] Ward 5? [Amy Sussman: Yes.] Ward 6? [Councilor Michael Roy: Yes.] Ward 7? [Councilor Scott Harriman: No.] Ward 1? [Speaker Q (unidentified): Yes.] Ward 2? [Councilor Susan Longchamps: No.] the vote is 4 to 3, and by state law, a vote of 5 is required to go into executive session. So the vote is 4 to 3. [2:52:19] Mayor Carl Sheline: so the vote has failed and we're, done for the evening. Is out. All right, may I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second by Councilor, Longchamps. Madam Clerk, please call the vote. [2:52:34] Councilor David Chittim (Council President): Councilor from Ward 3? Yes. Ward 4? Yes. Ward 5? Yes. Ward 6? Yes. Ward 7? Yes. Ward 1? Yes. Ward 2? Yes. Motion passes 7 to 0. [2:52:46] Mayor Carl Sheline: yeah, well, good night, Lewiston. Thank you to everyone who came to the meeting. have a wonderful Have a wonderful evening, and good luck to Isaac Atkins. Thank you.