Bangor council rejects Project HOPE funding, extends data center moratorium

[0:18] Angela Walker: All right, we are live, it's [0:24] David Szewczyk: 7 p.m. This is the regular meeting of the Bangor City Council. I'm David Sebchek, the city solicitor. Chair Hawes is unable to attend tonight, so at this time I would call for a motion to nominate a chair pro tem to, in the absence of the council chair, to exercise all the powers of the council chair during this meeting. I would like to nominate Councilor Carson. Second that. Any objection? Councilor Carson, you are the chair pro tem. All [1:13] Daniel Carson: right, welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Bangor City Council. It is September 28th, 2026 at 7 p.m. We begin all of our meetings with the Pledge of Allegiance. Director Gunderman, would you like to [1:27] Public commenter (Tyler): lead us this evening? This [1:32] Public commenter (Scott Pardee): is [1:51] Daniel Carson: the portion of the meeting set aside for general public comment directly related to city business, for matters that do not appear on this evening's agenda. If you are here for a specific agenda item that is under unfinished business or new business, please wait until we reach that item. Items under first reading and referral will be discussed when they return under unfinished business, and we will hear public comment at that time. Public comment requires a person to state their name and whether you are a resident of Bangor. The City Council has adopted a public comment policy that we will adhere to. Statements during public comment should respect the dignity and seriousness of the proceeding, and individuals will be restricted to speaking once. Obscene, truly threatening, or overly repetitive comments will be deemed out of order and will be interrupted and removed. Topics that are considered out of order also include matters that are in litigation, individual employees or employee group discussing matters for which complaint or grievance procedures are in place, personal disputes between the speaker and another resident not germane to city business, support for or opposition to any candidate for political office, and personnel complaints pertaining to individual City employees. There is a time limit of three minutes per speaker and the total time allowed For general public comment regarding City business will be limited to no more than one hour. The public comment period is for City Council members to listen and not to respond or debate with persons. If you do not live in Bangor or own property in Bangor please allow those who do to have the opportunity to speak first. If you'd like to offer comment on any item directly related to city business not appearing on the regular agenda, you may approach the podium. Individuals who have appropriately pre-registered to give public comment via remote means will be given the opportunity to participate remotely. Alternatively, counselors may be reached via email at counselors at bangormaine.gov and a link to the adopted public comment policy can be found on the city's website. site comment is open good [4:10] Public commenter (Scott Pardee): Evening everyone my name is Scott Party and I am a resident of Bangor and I'm going to have to stare at you Daniel because that's what I usually do and recently I was asked a direct question what are today's street drugs actually doing to the mental health of people living on our streets to answer that accurately I compiled and submitted to you today day on email and up-to-date summary of the devastating neurological impact of modern street drugs specifically synthetic stimulants like methamphetamine and high-potency opioids like fentanyl. What the medical science makes undeniably clear is that we are no longer dealing with the drugs of 20 years ago. Today's street drugs do not just alter mood, they inflict physical and structural brain damage. They down regulate dopamine receptors, shrink regions of the prefrontal cortex responsible for decision-making and self-regulation and produce drug induced psychosis and severe cognitive decline that mimic traumatic brain injury. Housing alone is not enough. Understanding this neurological reality is essential because it directly dictates whether our municipal policies will succeed or fail there is a prevalent belief that if we simply place roof and four walls over an individual active in severe addiction the homeless crisis will resolve itself but science and direct experience tell us otherwise when an individual's brain chemistry is hijacked by severe neuroticity and addiction placing them into housing with active without active structured recovery does not cure the addiction it simply moves active drug use, drug-induced psychosis, and severe behavioral crisis inside a building. It leads to unit destruction, safety hazards for staff and neighbors, and ultimately eviction back onto the street. Housing is a critical piece of long-term stability, but housing alone cannot cure brain damage or active chemical dependency. The solution? Recovery first is the catalyst. list. If we want to solve chronic homelessness in Bangor, we must address the primary engine driving it, addiction and the severe mental health decay it causes. When a person enters meaningful recovery, when they achieve sobriety, stabilize their brain chemistry, and receive structured peer and clinical support, their cognitive functions begins to repair. Their ability to manage daily life, hold employment, maintain personal relationships, respect lease agreements returns in short recovery must lead and everything else falls into place. We need to align our city strategy with this reality. We must strongly support low barrier access to detoxification, long-term residential treatment, and recovery housing options that emphasize peer accountability and sobriety. We need focused medical and mental interventions designed specifically to treat drug-induced psychosis and brain injury, brain injury alongside side addiction. We must ensure that housing programs in our city are directly paired with active recovery expectations and robust support services. Let's lead with compassion, but let that compassion be grounded in reality and science. Let's focus on healing the brain and recovering [7:38] Daniel Carson: the life first. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Party. [7:52] Public commenter (Jody McDonald): Jody McDonald, Bangor resident. I have a little bit of a laundry list. I understand that October is coming, that there is a moratorium that is going to be extended on the data center. It's not enough. We have an election coming up. We have somebody who's running for office who is saying that we need to have feds, that we need to have ICE, that we need to have people at all of our polling stations. That's un-American. We need to do something about many issues, including the fact that we are constantly surveilled we have flock cameras and we have different other types of cameras that are not breaking down the amount of crime that happens that are infracting upon our fourth amendment rights to freedoms. I would love to see some very easy steps being taken to protect all citizens of Bangor. All people who are coming into Bangor should not constantly be under surveillance. It's also been brought to my attention that a in Bangor you're not supposed to have family members or spouses on two different committees and my opinion is just that we need to start following laws. We need to start following our own rules if we're going to try to make if we're going to try to make Bangor a better place. Some of your times is are coming to an end and I'm very nervous about what is going to be in the new year. Please try to get some stuff done that will make this a safer place for everybody [9:39] Public commenter (Adam Baker): I'm a Baker Bangor resident. All my words are my own and do not reflect anybody. I am one good evening. I'm here to advocate for more investment into our public service services and our city staff. I think I thank you counselors for investing back into our public services and this year's budget. Public services are essential to any city or town and Bangor is no different. I've seen what cutting and underfunding services does right here in Bangor. Since 2024 Bangorians had lost their rights for public transportation and accessibility too. Residents have the right to have weekend service back with longer hours. People work past 4pm especially for essential workers like nurses and doctors. I believe in investing in our city workers with a higher and livable wage. We lose these workers for a variety of reasons, a lack of affordable housing, low wages, and unwillingness to make the investment. This past budget has good steps towards investing back into the community. I thank you for funding five, or excuse me, thank you for funding eight firefighters and investing over $800,000 into new positions for the city. When we invest in our services for our community, It saves us money. I urge you to please to continue to invest in our city staff and our public services. Thank you. [11:12] Public commenter (Jackie Smallwood): Anybody else? Is Yellen Pines going to have his arm? Yeah. [11:31] Public commenter (James Gallagher): Good evening. James Gallagher, a Bangor resident and downtown basis owner. Hey Bangor, we have a problem. And I'm not talking about just one department, nonprofit, neighborhood, or one group of people. I'm talking about the broken system. For years I've been trying to understand where, when, how, and who is responsible for what. And what I keep finding is the same thing. A hot potato. One department or organization points to another. The city points somewhere else and somewhere else points right back. Meanwhile the person who needs help is still standing there. The business owner is still calling, residents are still waiting, and the first responders are still showing up. And we keep acting as if everyone doing their individual job means a system is working. And it's not. Here's the part we need to own. We are the system. I believe in accountability, but accountability cannot apply to the individual, just to the individual relying on the system. If we expect someone struggling with addiction to be accountable, we need to be accountable for whether treatment is accessible. If we expect someone experiencing homelessness to take the steps forward to stability, we need to be accountable for whether there's a clear path for them to follow. If we expect our police officers, health care workers, businesses, non-profits, and residents to keep dealing with the consequences, then we need to be accountable for whether the system we're asking them to rely on works, because we built it, fund it, and oversee it. And when it's not working, we have a responsibility to fix it. Bangor has the resources we have the people, the funding, and the organizations. We have health care providers, public safety, and the transportation. What we don't have is one coordinated entrance. Somebody should be able to walk through the door and be told, start here. Not five phone numbers, three referrals, and not being passed from one department to another. Start here. And then we need to ask whether the system worked. Did the resident get an answer, the business a solution, or did the person asking for help get the help? Did one department work with the next, or did we just pass along the problem? And when something didn't work, did anybody stop and ask why? Because spending money or having a program isn't a measurement of success, and passing someone from one organization to another clearly isn't a measurement of success. Compassion and accountability can exist at the same time, but that accountability must go both ways we cannot keep demanding that people do better while refusing to ask ourselves, can we do better? The people, struggling residents and businesses, have waited long enough. And to the people working inside the system, thank you, but they have carried the broken system for far too long. It's time to stop playing hot potato because, Bangor, we do have a problem, and we are the system responsible for fixing it. Thank you. [14:37] Public commenter (Mike Burrow/Mike Ferrell): Anybody else? Mike Burrow, Bangor resident. One thing I want to make the council aware of, we have a heating oil crisis that's going to hit us. At this point, we know heating oil is approximately six bucks a gallon, and it's just probably going to keep going up. I mean, who knows? I can't speculate on that, but I can tell you what it costs right now. We have an elderly population in the city of Bangor, and I just want to make you aware that we need to make sure that funds are available for the elderly. Just remember, they've made the right decisions their whole life. They're now on a fixed income. Heating oil is very expensive. If you fill up a tank, it's approximately 1500 bucks. Okay, 250 gallons. We just gotta take that into consideration. They're on a fixed income, their groceries are going up, transportation's going up, medical costs are going up, and their property taxes are going up. We just all need to be cautious of the fact that we need to put political stuff aside and make sure that these individuals are taken care of because the heating oil is one of the things that's going to drive people out of their homes. And we want to make sure that we protect the elderly. Thank you very much. Anybody [15:57] Daniel Carson: else here in the chamber? [16:06] Public commenter (Jackie Smallwood): Good evening. My name is [16:07] Public commenter (Anthony Cody): Anthony Cody. I'm a Bangor resident taxpayer. First off, thank you guys for serving. I know it can be a thankless job and I appreciate you stepping up. Then I want to talk about the double standard people see or perceive when laws and ordinances are not enforced in Bangor. A video along the Kuduska Extreme showed that people being intimidated, blocked from public areas. Soon after, the city made arrests, cleaned up the trash and needles. This past weekend there was multiple arrests and cleanup at Davenport Park. Thank you to the city employees who responded. Those actions show the city can make a huge difference in a relatively short period of time. Just by enforcing laws, I believe the double standard, or even perception of one, is behind a lot of the negative things happening in Bangor today. A lack of enforcement makes people from other towns more comfortable coming here to do things that probably wouldn't be tolerated where they live. It discourages businesses from investing here when they see theft, property damage, and public spaces being taken over with seemingly nothing being done about it. I don't believe being homeless is a crime, but if someone commits a crime, there should be consequences, whether they're housed or unhoused. The people of Bangor have sympathy for those who are struggling. We can offer help, we can, but we shouldn't accept law breaking and open air drug use. I understand it's frustrating when jails seem full, cases aren't prosecuted, or people are quickly bailed out, but we still have to enforce the laws. My nine-year-old son plays hockey. He carries the puck down the wall, he draws the defenders over there, and they back hands in front of the net to a teammate who usually puts it in the goal. He gets very discouraged that teammates not there, but putting it in the goal is not his job. His job is to get to the goal for them to do it. Sorry, officers should be allowed to put the puck in front of the net by enforcing the laws. What happens next shouldn't decide whether they do their job or not. Let's let them enforce the laws. The homeless crisis protocol says it must be renewed at least every two years. It's been over two years. Has that review even happened? If so, what did it find? Were there public comments? Were the public even considered? If not, I'm asking the City to review it, have public comments, and tell the public what changes need to be made. I want to offer a sincere thank you to the citizens of Bangor, from the citizens of Bangor, for addressing these areas that were cleaned up, and hope to see the same attention every day, not just after public outcry or viral videos. Thank you. [18:42] Public commenter (Daryl McLeod): Good evening. I'm Daryl McLeod, Bangor resident. I have to give all the Carson disclaimers now. I am not speaking for anyone who I work for. I am not speaking for any organization that I may be long to or affiliated with. I hope that did not take my three minutes. I am speaking as an elderly, and I am also, I'm speaking, I guess it could be construed what I'm saying, also as a candidate. I am very happy to live in Bangor. It's rare to live in a place where, when you feel like going outside and reading, there's all these wonderful parks that I can sit and read and I can see people walking their dogs and children playing. You know, I have the privilege of having a job where I go all over Bangor and I talk to people in their houses and I always hear people say how dangerous it is in Bangor, how dangerous is Maine, and I walk up to houses all the time that have open garages and the screen doors shut, the screen doors shut, but the front door is open and there's nobody home. So, I mean, I walk everywhere, I take the bus everywhere, the community connector, and I'm very happy to hear that the union and the latest collective bargaining agreement got a 13.1 raise. I'm a former shop steward of Negotiate Against Companies, but we got a 2% raise. That also calls for celebration. 13.1 is fantastic. I'm hoping we're going to see extended service with that in the evenings and also on weekends because a lot of people who work during the day who don't have transportation may need to shop on weekends. It is well known to the room and to the Zoom audience and nationally and internationally that a certain much maligned council has been ordered to undergo some type of training that's been referred over to the ACRE committee. I would like to encourage in the spirit of community and solidarity the entire council to partake in such training as well. as well. I also volunteer, win or lose, partake in such training as well. I would even go so far as to sit alongside a much maligned counselor to do that training. Thank you very much. [20:54] Public commenter (Jeff McLean): Good evening. My name is Jeff McLean. I'm from Blow Hill, Maine. I am not currently a resident of Bangor, but I was born and raised in this city. I was born right up the street at St. Joe's. When I was a kid, I ran these streets by myself as a youngster. I hitchhiked from k-pop to the airport mall into downtown to play pinball at the bni game room next to perry's restaurant i ran up and down the railroad tracks where the waterfront pavilion is at the time right now and to see what is going on in the past few years in the city is disgraceful it is a clown show look at the city of brewer beautiful city families walking down through the parks and having a good time there's there's none of this mayhem you know and i want to thank all the rest of The speakers that spoke before me, you know, beautiful, you know, I couldn't put it into better words. But to see what is going on in this city, you know, and to be the laughingstock all over the globe. Bangor, Maine, what a clown show. Oh well, we're going to set up committees for this and this, we're working on it, we're working on it. People can't even feel safe walking downtown, going to work, or going to the park, or you know, it is a disgrace. It's a disgrace, and it is sickening. But that's just what I wanted to say, and I'm glad to be here. Thank you. [22:28] Daniel Carson: Do we have online Mr. Lance? Can you hear us? Yes, can you hear me? You can hear you. [22:49] Public commenter: Oh, how much time do I have today? Three minutes? All right, thanks very much. And of course I'm from Bangor, Maine, and thanks everybody else for having me here. Always enjoy seeing what everybody's talking about, reminding you guys. Well, first there's a lot of latitude given to everybody else, so it stands out when you guys are intolerant of my viewpoint. I don't think you're disguising it very well. So everybody gets to speak what I'm speaking about tonight, which is absolutely within your purview, is I'm asking for a special week of white survival and white rights, and I want during that week I would like to talk about interest to European white survival and defensively only, no aggression, no hate coming from us. But I could see from the leather jacket we got a crinkled eyebrow, we're very suspicious of whites being proud of themselves. Let's do a white rights week where we talk about whites not having a very good time and surviving and replacing themselves in this country. There are interests to whites that would like to be celebrated on that week, and I would like to consider several of these ones, one being that Jewish supremacy and what whites feel about that is a valid political perspective that is protected by the First Amendment. You can't disagree with it and call it hate. I know your sugar daddies at the ADL would love to find a way to outsmart anyone who wants to criticize the Jews, but you're allowed to do that. And so I was like to say on the White Survival Week that we would talk about what happened to this freedom of speech and expression that we fought for as we invited everyone from everywhere else and built this big sort of union here. Or what happened to our rights and why are they eroding? And is a civility is what's being called a new kind of policy to civility, or we won't hurt anyone's feelings. And these overlays to free speech that are being done in the week of white survival, I would like there to be a bullet point of discussion on whether or not these rules are being done on a double standard way to promote the extinction of the white race. It's something that whites think about, and that is absolutely within your purview to do a week like this. I think a lot of people would enjoy it. Whites have been kicked around for a long time, is what a lot of white people think. And it seems to be fair game to pick on Nazis and white supremacists and throw away their rights and call them offensive and hateful, when I'm not hateful or offensive right now. I have an opinion and a political viewpoint, just like the guy in the leather jacket that throws pens at people, or the woman who killed a man by stuffing sand in his mouth, I believe [25:43] Daniel Carson: that crossed the line, Mr. Lance, please keep it to city business, thank you, okay [25:52] Public commenter: cool, that city business, can you hear me okay, hello, yeah, city business, city business would include the fitness for office of a manslaughter, a woman who committed manslaughter with a partner, so that is something that is city, but you [26:06] Daniel Carson: have 10 more seconds, oh sorry, we interrupted him, yeah, you want 10 more seconds, you said yeah [26:13] Public commenter: because we interrupted, cool, hello, well, you're very kind, and I do appreciate your time here today, and you guys be well, thank you, all right, thank you, anybody else, all [26:27] Daniel Carson: right, baton clerk [26:32] Lisa Goodwin: minutes of Angler City Council regular meeting of September 14th, 2026, business and economic development committee meetings of February 2nd, 2026, July 20th, 2026, and September 9th, 2026. 26-275 order authorizing the execution of a municipal quit claim deed for real estate located at 37 Nelson Street. 26-276 order directing the city manager to take possession of the property located at 290 Pearl Street. 26-277 order authorizing the renaming of Lilac Avenue to Virginia Lane. 26-278, order authorizing the renaming of Pleasant View Street to Pleasant View Avenue. 27-279, order authorizing execution of an agreement renewal between Lyft Inc. doing business as Lyft and the City of Bangor for providing service to the Bangor International Airport. 27-280, order authorizing the execution of an agreement renewal between Razor LLC doing business as Uber in the city of Bangor for providing service to the Bangor International Airport. [27:41] Public commenter (Mike Burrow/Mike Ferrell): Move the item to be referred. [27:45] Daniel Carson: We have a motion. Second. And a second. Is there any doubt? [27:52] Michael Beck: Just a clarification, the motion was to refer or the motion was to pass? [27:56] Joseph Leonard: No, thank you for that correction. No, I make a motion for passage of the consent agenda. [28:04] Daniel Carson: Second. All right, motion is second. And any doubt 26 [28:15] Lisa Goodwin: -253 resolve accepting and appropriating up to three hundred thousand dollars for main housing with a hundred and twenty six thousand dollar match from bangor opioid settlement unspent funds to support project hope councillor leonard thank you [28:30] Joseph Leonard: Madam Clerk, this order would accept and appropriate up to three hundred thousand dollars from Main Housing and authorize a 126,000 match from Bangor opioid settlement unspent funds to support Project Hope. Project Hope is a collaborative initiative between Maine Housing and the City of Bangor, designed to assist individuals living in places not meant for human habitation in obtaining and maintaining stable housing. The program provides comprehensive housing navigation services, including locating housing, completing the rental process, and supporting participants for a minimum of six months after they move into housing. Participants will also be referred and connected to additional supportive services based on their individual needs. Funding will support up to three housing navigators employed by the City of Bangor and the Bangor Area Emergency Shelter and Housing Assistance Program, as well as a program coordinator, operational expenses, and flexible housing assistance. Assistance eligible housing assistance includes but is not limited to security deposits, landlord incentives, move-in expenses, transportation, and other client related costs necessary to secure and maintain housing during the pilot year. Project Hope aims to serve 90 individuals and households in the Bangor area and successfully place at least 45 into stable housing. The program builds on a proven model that has demonstrated success in Portland and is now entering its third year. Main Housing will provide 70 of the project's funding with the City of Bangor contributing the required 30 local match. The city's 126,000 match will be provided through unspent Bangor opioid settlement funds previously allocated to the intensive case management program. Homelessness is both a contributing factor and a consequence of opioid use disorder, other substance use disorders, and mental health conditions. Project HOPE's activities are consistent with Maine's memorandum of agreement governing the use of opioid settlement funds by providing comprehensive wraparound services that include housing stabilization. The program advances one of the approved core strategies for addressing the impacts of the opioid epidemic and supporting long-term recovery. This item was reviewed at the August 17th Special Government Operations Committee. Four of five committee members supported the project. However, those four committee members disagreed on the appropriate source of funding, with two members supporting use of unassigned fund balance and two supporting the use of unspent opioid settlement funds. As a result, a vote to recommend passage with funding from unassigned fund balance failed two to three, and a vote recommended a vote to recommend passage with the funding from unspent opioid funds failed two to three. Therefore, this item is coming back to the full council without a committee recommendation. Council has since voted twice to postpone this item to receive additional funding. Chair, I would move to postpone Resolve 26-253 accepting and appropriating up to three hundred thousand dollars from Main Housing with a hundred and twenty six thousand dollar match from Bangor opioid settlement unspent funds to support Project HOPE to be discussed on the October 5th committee calendar work workshop meeting and then to deliberate at the full council again on October 14th. [31:56] Daniel Carson: Okay, there is a motion to postpone Council Resolve 26-253 for discussion on October 5th at committees, just making sure I'm getting it right, and for Council to vote on the 14th. [32:14] Michael Beck: Mr. Chairman, just a point of clarification. You said the 14th. Do we not have a meeting on the 12th? Oh, the holiday. Okay. [32:24] Daniel Carson: Second. A motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Mr. Pardee? [32:34] Public commenter (Scott Pardee): We can discuss this. Come discuss. My name is Scott Pardee and I think you guys should figure this out and just vote on it tonight and put this to bed. You've labored on it long enough. My name is Scott Pardee. I'm here tonight to speak in opposition of Project HOPE. When addressing substance use disorder and the crisis facing our community, we must return to the fundamental truth. Recovery first is the most essential foundation. Without active structured recovery, individuals cannot gain or sustain stability in any other area of their lives, whether this is long-term housing, employment, health, or family reunification. Housing or programs without a firm emphasis on recovery do not solve the problem. They simply manage the symptoms while leaving people trapped in their addiction. By failing to prioritize true recovery, this council is effectively condemning people to continue living in misery. Offering options that do not center on real paths to recovery sends a message that we have given up on the people actually getting well. Furthermore, if this council moves forward and approves Project Hope despite these concerned, under no circumstances should opioid settlement funds be used to pay for it. The city has already commandeered the majority of those settlement dollars. Those funds were intended to directly support treatment, recovery infrastructure, meaningful abatement of the addiction crisis in our city, not to backstop experimental municipal projects. I urge you to listen to the people you represent. Many of your citizens have come forward, spoken out, express serious up to opposition to Project Hope. As elected officials, your primary duty is to is to represent the voice and will of the residents of Bangor, not to push forward a personal or administrative agenda. Finally, we have to take a look at the long-term financial reality. What happens next year when the initial funding stream runs out? How this project be sustained? The reality is that once these short-term funds are gone, the ongoing cost will almost certainly fall squarely on the shoulders of Bangor taxpayers. We need policies that focus on true recovery, Project, excuse me, protect public funds, and respect the voice of the community. I urge you to actually vote on this tonight and to vote against Project. Your talk tonight, thank you. Can [35:15] Public commenter (James Gallagher): i answer your question before my three minute start? Because wasn't this supposed to go to the homeless committee first and come back to here? It's a great, it did, it did, and they suggested CDBG money, correct? No, it came back that way because that's what I'm going to respond to is how the homeless committee responded. So James Gallagher, resident and downtown business owner. The last time this was presented, it was opioid settlement money and undesignated funds. Then at the Homeless Response Committee, Jen Gunderman presented CDBG money and opioid settlement funding. When and where did that change happen? I've worked directly with CDBG funding projects for more than 20 years across the state. So I know firsthand what this money can do and the difference it can make. There are elderly people in Bangor who need roofs on their home. There are people who can't afford their oil bill, lights, or their mortgage. And we're heading into what could be an incredibly expensive winter. For someone facing an emergency, CDBG isn't just another government program, it's a lifeline. Yet most Bangor residents I talked to have no idea this help is even there. Why aren't we advertising that help is available? Instead we're talking about splitting the money, 63 out of one pot, 63 out of another, and CDBG funding was discussed for two years in a row. Who gets to make that decision, not only for this year's limited funding but also next year? Could Project Hope? Does help people, absolutely. But we must be honest about the other side of that decision. Every time we say yes to something, we're also saying no to something else. If an opioid settlement money is being used, I have another concern. Is there a condition that these people being housed with those dollars have been affected by the opioid crisis? Because if we're using opioid settlement money, we need to be able to show the connection between those dollars and the crisis they were intended to address. What bothered me at the Homelessness Response Committee is how easily all of this happened. There was no real discussion about what else the CDBG money could do. Nobody asked what else Bangor might need or what we wouldn't be able to fund. It became a simple yes or no vote. That's not how we should be making decisions about limited resources. These funding sources shouldn't be become the easiest place to pull money from for somebody's pet project. And I have one question about the vouchers. A member of that committee who works on Bangor housing voted yes on the funding. Will any of these vouchers be used in Bangor housing properties? Because if they will, I think that relationship needs to be addressed publicly. This goes right back to what I said earlier. We are the system. Declare the emergency. Get everyone around the table. Figure out what's working, what's failing, and where the gaps are. Then fund the solution. Accountability doesn't apply to the people asking us for help. It applies to us too. And before we take desperately needed money from one group of vulnerable Bangor residents to potentially help another, we better be damn sure we're making the right decision. Thank you. [38:11] Public commenter: I live on the Wall Street resident Bangor, good evening counselors. I stand for you tonight to address how we allocate bangles opiate settlement funds, specifically regarding the proposed project. Hope. Let me be clear, housing initiatives and supportive programs serve a purpose, but opioid settlement dollars were born out of tragedy. They represent lives lost, family shattered in a community deeply wounded by the opioid crisis. Crisis. Because of that, every single dollar carries a non-negotiable principle. Recovery is not just a secondary goal. It's the absolute highest priority. Project HOPE is structured primarily as a housing initiative. While housing stability is important, housing does not alone treat addiction. If you place a person struggling with an active addiction into housing without first providing accessible, comprehensive recovery care, you are treating the symptom while ignoring the disease. Recovery must come first because without recovery, stability is impossible. When someone in Bangor reaches their breaking point and asks for help, they aren't looking for a housing waiting list. They need immediate medical detox, peer recovery support, long-term residential treatment, and harm reduction interventions that keep them alive. Recovery gives people their lives, their dignity, and their health back. It is the core engine that enables someone to keep a job, repair relationships, and sustain housing over the long haul. Housing is an outcome of stability. Recovery is the root that creates it. Furthermore, housing programs like Project HOPE have access to alternative funding pools, including state and federal housing grants, Maine Housing Resources, and CBGB funds. Opioid settlement dollars, however, are a rare, dedicated resource meant specifically to reverse the path of addiction. Using them to using them as a generic match for funding for housing dilutes the power and diverts money away from the direct life-saving recovery infrastructure that it's intended for. Bangor's recovery community is stretched to its absolute limit at this point. Treatment centers are full, recovery centers need support, and people in crisis are facing delays within hours, not Minutes we cannot afford to confuse our priorities. Let us secure housing Through housing grants, let us reserve our opioid sentiment dollars to direct immediate and accessible recovery services, recovery 1st, because recovery saves lives. Thank you. [40:37] Public commenter (Adam Baker): And Baker bingo resident, all my words are my own and do not reflect any committee. I am on. I just wanted to start out that I completely support project hope and what it is. I do. It pains me to say this as a moral and just a human right and how I operate but I do agree that opioid settlement funds should not be funding this I feel like if we can somehow find a different funding source for this project I think a lot of people are in agreeance that this project is good and that we need it and I just wish you have one more at least one more discussion if you do make that the final discussion whatever that is and just go with that funding and that decision so please support Project hope though it is vital for our community and I just hope you take that into consideration thank you [41:41] Public commenter (Jackie Smallwood): Jackie Smallwood Bengal resident on September 14th this council voted to send project tote back to the Advisory Committee on Homelessness for more work and for their input. Jen Gunderman began the summary to the committee. The committee did not even have a quorum due to the low attendance of the meeting. Five minutes in, Dr. Tony joined remotely and then they could act. Nothing presented was new. Project HOPE's proposal has gone back before different subcommittees and workshops multiple times now, and every time it returns with the same open question. We still don't know where the 45 to 90 people will be housed, who are the landlords, which towns have agreed to participate, or whether these outlying towns will even agree to pay the 30% GA that will be required of them. Committee members, Dr. Tony in particular, asked great questions about Portland's pilot program in regard to retention rates, criteria to qualify the homeless tenants, eviction data, and success rates. Jen Gunderman had no answers to those questions. With each question, she responded by saying that she would get them that information. The money to fund this project and the projected financing for the coming years is still questionable. They are now proposing 126 be split between CBDG funds and opioid settlement funds, 63 split. These opioid funds were originally approved for the HIV outbreak case management program. So how is allocated allocating money earmarked for HIV case management a good idea with HIV case currently surging in this area? Nine days before this meeting, Penobscot County Cares wrote directly to this committee. Their subject line said it all, please make information a top priority. Your time is wasted by lack of information. Answers to your questions exist exactly despite every one of the committee's questions still open. A motion was made and passed regardless recommending Project Hope back to the full council for your vote tonight. Teal Vest Vasquez joined the meeting remotely during the final two minutes and cast his yay vote. Anyways, before you vote tonight, tell us where is the city strategics plan and how does Project Hope fit into this plan in the long term. This advisory board's actions to advance this project to full council for a vote tonight with unanswered questions and with no new information fueled the concerns that many citizens have regarding these advisory committees seated with unelected non-residents riddled with conflicts of interest that have gone unaddressed. What trust and hope they may have been trying to establish within this committee with thoughtful detailed work was completely discredited by that vote. I respectfully ask the council to vote no tonight and to not waste more tax dollars on a pilot program that is not ready to be adopted and not ready to be administered. Thank you Larry [44:46] Public commenter (Hillary Simmons): Simmons resident Bangor. Resolved 26 253 is asking Bangor to commit 126,000 and local resources to Project Hope including 63,000 of opioid settlement funds. Before this council takes action, there are serious questions that should be answered publicly and clearly first. Opioid settlement money is not simply another general purpose funding source. These dollars exist because communities were harmed by an opioid epidemic. If 63 000 of these funds are going into Project Hope, then the city should be able To tell taxpayers exactly how many participants will have a documented connection to opioid use disorder, substance disorder, and recovery. The proposed proposal says Project Hope will serve 90 individuals or households and hopes to place at least 45 into stable housing. That means only half are expected to reach the stated housing placement goal, and what happens to the other half? And what does success actually mean? Is someone considering successful the day they are placed into our apartment are they still housed six months later, one year later? How many return turn to homelessness? Those numbers matter. Second, where's the detailed financial breakdown? We're talking about up to three housing navigators, a program coordinator, operational expenses, transportation, landlord incentives, security deposits, moving costs, and other client-related expenses. How much money is actually going towards housing people? How much is going towards salaries and benefits? How much is administrative overhead? And when this pilot ends, who pays for these employees and programs? The city of Bangor should Bangor not build permanence or Bangor should not build permanent expenses around temporary money without knowing the long-term costs. Third, this proposal has already raised enough concerns that the government operations committee could not recommend either funding option. We voted, what, it was voted two to three, moves on. And finally, we keep hearing that this is based on a successful Portland model. Then provide the evidence. How many people entered the Portland program? How many remained housed? And what was the cost per successful placement? How many returned to homelessness? And how comparable is Portland's housing market to Bangor's? Calling something a proven model is not the same as showing proof. This council should demand measurable outcome, transparent financial reporting, clear eligibility requirements, in a direct explanation of why opioid settlement money is being used instead of other funding sources. Bangor residents deserve more than good intentions. They deserve accountability, measurable results, and clear answers before another public program is funded. Thank you, I [47:48] Public commenter (Trisha Quirk): Just want to speak about something that is clear to me. Oh, what's your name? Trisha Quirk. I'm a Bangor resident and a business owner. We continue to have multiple meetings where we have we're talking about the same topics. We send it to committees, the committees don't move it forward. And we continue to talk about it. We have our city solicitor who I have sat in this council chamber where he has said in plain speak that things that we're talking about could cause issues to the city, but we keep talking about it. We waste countless hours on things that our professionals, our committee members, our city solicitor has talked has told us that we should not move forward with these things and we're still talking about it. I just I don't understand how we can waste the precious time of you council members and also the precious time of our city staff and our committee members. So we'll move, we'll wait for another meeting, we'll talk about it a little more and we'll go through this conversation all over again. But it seems to me that when we're beating a dead horse, then maybe we should stop. [49:34] Public commenter (Mike Burrow/Mike Ferrell): Mike Ferrell, Bangor Resin. So there is a motion on the floor. I move we vote on that motion, which is to postpone, boat it down then make another motion to take the boat and boat it down. It only takes four to boat it down, so just remember that, four to four to boat it down. They always use Portland when it's convenient. If I recall, Mayor Dion said they're kind of got a crisis going on in Portland, so I don't think Portland is a really good example to be using. Okay, this is Bangor Maine, half the size of Portland, okay, half the size, but yet look at the amount of homeless we have. I think it's it does everybody a disservice. Housing first is not going to work. We need to do treatment first, so whatever that entails, that's the goal we should be seeking. Now just remember we have Dorothy Dix. I don't know why that connection hasn't hasn't been made, but there means there needs to be an inroad into Dorothy Dicks where we can funnel money there to treat these people, because treatment first works. When the federal government comes out and says housing first does not Work, trust me, they've done research after research. They probably spent billions of dollars analyzing this, and they said, hey, it just doesn't work. So why are we doing housing first? Stop with the housing first, treatment first. That's what, that's the course we need to set forward. So stop the political activism. Vote on this tonight, get resolution voted down. It ought not to pass. Thank you very much, all. [51:18] Daniel Carson: Right, there is a motion to postpone council resolved 26-253 on the floor for discussion on October 5th and vote on October 14. Is there any doubt? I [51:39] Wayne Mallar: think we should take a roll call. I have doubt, so [51:43] Daniel Carson: so we will do a roll call vote. Adam Clark. Councilor Beck? No. Councilor Deane? Yes. Councilor Faloon? Yes. Councilor Fish? [51:57] Lisa Goodwin: No. Councilor Leonard? Yes. Councilor Malheur? No. Councilor Walker? No. Councilor Deane? I mean, excuse me, Councilor Kerrison? Yes. Or yes? [52:12] Daniel Carson: Yes, I'm sorry, no. Okay, three yes, five no, all [Susan Deane: right, motion] to postpone council resolve 26-253 has failed. Have another motion? [52:38] Joseph Leonard: I would make a motion for a result 26-253, a [52:49] Daniel Carson: motion for 26-253. Do we have a second? Just [52:58] David Szewczyk: clarification, it's the motion to pass. Yes, [53:05] Joseph Leonard: there's no second, dies. Right, [53:11] Daniel Carson: there is a second. One, all right, so we have a motion and a second. Two six dash two five three. Is there any discussions? [53:21] Michael Beck: Counselor back. Yeah, I, as much as I wanted to support this, It's one of those things where I just would have loved to have this amazing outpouring from the community to say, heck, yes, let's do this. And it's just one of those things where the source of the funding. I hope that we can go back and have a conversation about the opioid settlement funds that we reclaim from the HIV program. I think that needs to be a full and transparent open discussion. Discussion, but I just, I just not happy where anywhere the funding's lining up, and I just, I can't, I can't support this, and I think it is time to move on from this and look for something [54:03] Daniel Carson: else. Is there any other discussion? Counselor balloon, then counselor fish. I really like this [54:12] Susan Faloon: program, but I just, I guess I've got to agree that like we can't seem to wrap our brains around where that funding is going to come from. I think it's really unfortunate because we are saying no to $300,000 of state funding. And we keep saying we need the state to step in and help us. And now we're turning away state funding. And when are they going to stop asking? And, you know, all of this time, we just keep screaming for solutions. None of them are going to be perfect. We keep screaming for help from the state, and like, I just feel like it's really unfortunate that we can't move this forward. I [54:55] Carolyn Fish: just can't get on board with this at all. I think I'd like to see us focus more on recovery and rehab. We already know that housing first doesn't, hasn't worked, and I'm also worried about the funding for this. I don't agree with the proposed funding for it, and I'm also concerned about what happens after these pilot programs, that they become ingrained in part of our city, part of our budget. It's an ongoing expense for this, for the city to take up, and I'm just not in favor of it, and I never was on board with it. I would like to see more housing, but I really need to see that with more rehab and recovery policies around it. So I will not be voting to move this forward, and I think with Counselor Beck, I think we need to move on. [55:53] Susan Deane: Pastor Dean, thank you. I am saddened that we have to say no to 300 000 from the state, which I think would have helped this case quite a bit, but I'm hoping that perhaps Jen Gunderman and the powers that be could find another source to use some more funding for. I'm hoping that by saying no to 300,000 of the state doesn't mean they will not offer again in another way. And perhaps that could be more for recovery and services, which we've all talked about. So hopefully we have not said no for the last time. So hopefully we will see something come around. And unfortunately, I think we just cannot come to terms with this. So I believe it's not going to pass. [56:39] Daniel Carson: Any other discussion? There's a motion in a second on Council Resolve 26-253 to pass. In the comments I'm hearing doubt, so Madam Clerk. [56:52] Lisa Goodwin: councillor beck no councillor dean no councillor falloon no councillor fish no councillor lemon No. Councilor Malheur? No. Councilor Walker? No. Councilor Carson? No. 0 yes, 8 no. [57:14] Daniel Carson: Councilor Resolve 26-253 does not have passage. Madam Clerk. [57:21] Lisa Goodwin: 26-270 Ordinance Moratorium Extension Ordinance on Data Centers. Councilor Beck. Thank you, Madam Clerk. [57:29] Michael Beck: Clerk, the proposed ordinance would place an additional 180 day moratorium on the development of data centers in the city of Bangor. The city of Bangor continues to experience increased development pressure from data centers, which are a rapidly growing and evolving land use. That typically require substantial electricity and water usage for cooling and related operations, often generate air, water and noise pollution, and can take up a very large amount of land. Because this development pressure was unanticipated, existing ordinances and development standards do not adequately address the unique infrastructure demands, environmental impacts, to neighboring property owners, and operational characteristics of data centers. The city has made reasonable progress to address the issue. However, more time is needed to develop regulations. Therefore, the city council finds that an additional moratorium of 180 days is necessary to develop and implement the necessary amendments to the land development code to accommodate and mitigate negative impacts from this development pressure. This item was reviewed and unanimously recommended for approval at the September 9th to 2026 business economic development committee meeting. Mr. Chairman, I move passage of ordinance 2, 6, 2, 7, 0. [58:45] Daniel Carson: 2nd, right ordinance 2, 6, 2, 7, 0 has a motion and a 2nd. Is there any discussion as an ordinance? So we will roll call. [59:00] Lisa Goodwin: Councilor Beck? Yes. Councilor Deane? Yes. Councilor Faloon? Yes. Councilor Fish? Yes. Councilor Leonard? Yes. Councilor Malheur? Yes. Councilor Walker? Yes. Councilor Carson? Yes. 8 yes, 0 no. [59:18] Daniel Carson: Ordinance 26270 Moratorium Extension on Data Centers has passage. Madam Clerk? [59:25] Lisa Goodwin: 26-271 resolve accepting and appropriating an airport improvement grant under the bipartisan infrastructure law program in the amount of five million five hundred thirty four thousand seven hundred ninety five dollars from the faa one hundred and forty five thousand six hundred fifty two dollars and fifty cents from mdot and five hundred and seventy five thousand five hundred seventy eight dollars and fifty cents local match for the rehabilitation of taxiway a and Taxiway M at Bangor International Airport. Councilor Leonard. [59:54] Joseph Leonard: Thank you, Madam Clerk. This resolve will authorize accepting and appropriation of an airport improving grant under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Program in the amount of $5,534,795 from the FAA and $145,652.50 from the Maine Department of Transportation for the rehabilitation of taxiway a and taxiway m at bangor international airport the local match would be 575 578 dollars and 50 cents which has been improved in the airport's fy 2027 capital budget this item was reviewed and unanimously recommended for approval at the september 9th 2026 business and economic Development Committee meeting. Chair, I would move passage of Resolve 26-271. Second. [1:00:49] Daniel Carson: Resolve 26-271 has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Is there any doubt? [1:01:01] Michael Beck: We'll have passage. Mr. Chairman, I have a conflict of interest on the next item that Council has already voted in the affirmative. [1:01:17] Lisa Goodwin: Adam Clark. 26-272, Resolve, appropriating $7,000 from Bangor Opioid Settlement unspent funds to the Together Place. Councilor Leonard. [1:01:28] Joseph Leonard: Thank you, Madam Clerk. This resolve would appropriate $7,000 from the Opioid Settlement unspent funds to support the Together Place. In late July, the Together Place announced the sudden impending termination of certain programs, including peer recovery support services and the Second Street Diner, due to a funding gap at the organization. That funding gap was initially estimated at over $200,000, but due to substantial fundraising efforts, only $7,000 remains needed to restart these services. Over the course of several meetings, City Council has discussed the possibility of providing funding to the Together Place, including the review of a formal proposal and plan submitted by the Together Place. This item was reviewed and recommended for approval at the Government Operations Committee meeting on September 9th, 2026, by a vote of 3 to 1. Mr. Chair, I would move passage of Resolve 26-272. Second. [1:02:31] Daniel Carson: Resolve 26-272 has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Councillor Mellor? [1:02:41] Wayne Mallar: I have an issue with, and not just this particular group, but with people coming to us after the fact. We allow a time in the beginning of the budget process for third parties to come to us and ask for funding. Obviously, these people didn't understand that they were having problems. And I don't remember them presenting us with very specific information on how they were going to resolve the issues to give them money now that we don't have i don't agree with i think if you're a third party you come to us before the budget and we'll decide then we don't go back during the year and don't want money so i'm the one who voted against it in committee [1:03:29] Daniel Carson: And I'll be the one that votes against it today. Right, thank you. Discussion, Counselor Fish. [1:03:39] Carolyn Fish: Originally I voted against this and in workshop I was accused of being rather tough on them, but I don't think I was any tougher than I would be any of my clients or how banks are with me when I want to borrow money. And I said that I thought that, you know, they should have been more responsible about the grants that they should be applying for in their fiscal help, and that I wanted to see better accountability. And since that time, I have had discussions with these people, and they have taken some accountability. They have hired a financial advisor, and they've engaged that financial advisor. They originally came to us with a need of 63,000. They're now only asking for 7,000. And in fact, the Together Place is a resource for certain people in our community that depend on this place, and they have a place to go during the day, and they've been around for 45 years, servicing a part of our community that needs a place to go and socialize. So, because of the efforts that they've made in the need in our community, I will be voting in favor of this tonight. [1:04:53] Daniel Carson: Discussion council. Council, [1:05:02] Public commenter (Hillary Simmons): Hillary Simmons, resident of Bangor. I want to speak tonight regarding resolved 26272 in the proposed appropriation of 7004 Bangor from Bangor's opioid settlement funds to the Together Place. My concern tonight is not whether the Together Place provide services that some people value. My concern is whether we apply applying the same rules standards and accountability to everyone who asks for opioid settlement money earlier this year. Bangor established a formal opioid settlement funding process. Organizations were required to submit applications. Those applications were reviewed using established criteria. 32 organizations applied, and only 16 received funding. So I think that the public deserves some very straightforward answers. Did the Together Place apply for this particular funding through the same opioid settlement application process? Was this 7,000 request scored using the same rubric that the other applicants were required to meet? Was it reviewed by the opioid settlement fund advisory committee? And if not, why are we now considering awarding opioid settlement money outside the process that other organizations were required to follow? The council agenda tells us that the Together Place submitted a formal proposal and plan to the council, but submitting a formal proposal directly to the council is not necessarily the same thing as competing through the established opioid settlement grant process. That distinct with distinction matters. We also need a lot to look at the organizational organizations, financial history. And 25 the Together Place lost approximately 300,000 in state funding, and its former director acknowledged that mistake and a grant application contributed to that loss. Then approximately a year later, the organization again experienced a funding sorted shortage significant enough that it suspended its daytime recovery center and meal program. Another point, Bangor previously provided the Together Place $154,765 in ARPA funding in 23 to hire a grant writer development manager, specifically with the intent of increasing the number of people it could serve. The city also authorized up to 50,026 through a state funded overdose response subcontract involving the Together Place. These are relevant facts that are concerning to the citizens of Bangor and the transparency. It depends on who and what nonprofit you are and what gets approved. [1:07:55] Daniel Carson: Councilor resolved 26272, removed and seconded. I did hear doubt from Councilor Malheur. So, do a roll call, Madam Clerk. Councilor Deane? Yes. Councilor Faloon? [1:08:09] Lisa Goodwin: Yes. Councilor Fish? Yes. Councilor Leonard? Yes. Yes. Councilor Malheur? No. Councilor Walker? Yes. Councilor Carson? Yes. Six yes, one no. [1:08:22] Daniel Carson: Council resolved 26-272 as passage. [1:08:28] Lisa Goodwin: As sort. 26-273, resolve. Amending council resolve 26-195, making an appropriation for the total school budget for the Bangor School Department is required by 20-a MRSA section 156904A councillor Maller thank you madam clerk [1:08:48] Wayne Mallar: This resolve will amend council resolve 26-195 to correct the fiscal year from year end 2026 to year end 2027. On August 28 2026 it was discovered that the fiscal year listed in the resolve 26-195 was for the year ending 2026 and should have been for the year ending 2027. The error on the Resolve 26-195 was administrative only and had no impact on the school's total budget or the approved tax mill rate. The school's total budget Resolve 26-195 authorized by the City Council on June 8th, 2026 included all changes to the school budget. [1:09:38] Daniel Carson: I move approval of resolve 26-273 second resolve 26-273 has been moved and seconded is there any discussion there any doubt resolve 26-273 has passage public [1:10:07] Lisa Goodwin: hearing 26-274 order authorizing issuance of up to one million four hundred thousand dollars of the city's bonds to purchase land and improvements located at 103 main avenue and [1:10:20] Joseph Leonard: A tax levy. Therefore, Councillor Leonard. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I'm just going to read the submarine, then open up the public comment. This order would authorize the issuance of up to 1 million 400 000 of the city's general obligation bonds to purchase land and improvements located at 103 Main Avenue. Mr. Chair, I would move to open the public hearing. Second. [1:10:48] Daniel Carson: Motion to open the public hearing on Council Order 26-274. Been moved and seconded. Any doubt? Public hearing is open. [1:11:07] Joseph Leonard: Mr. Chair, seeing no one approach, I would move that we close the public hearing. Second. [1:11:15] Daniel Carson: 2nd, motion to close the public hearing on council order 26 dash 2, 7, 4 has been moved and seconded. Any doubt about hearing has closed. [1:11:27] Joseph Leonard: Mr Chair, I would make a motion in the affirmative to pass order 26 dash 2, 7, 4. [1:11:38] Daniel Carson: 2nd, also order 26 dash 2, 7, 4 has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion. [1:11:44] Wayne Mallar: Discussion counselor Maller I have concerns about issuing a bond when we don't have an audit finished. I can't imagine many bonding agents will approve us if we don't have our audit done, and I'm not sure what the completion date of last year's audit is. I think we need some more information about the audit before we can approve this. Be wasting our time and the bonding bank's time to do it. [1:12:16] Joseph Leonard: This has been one of the most difficult decisions I've had to make because there is a lot of potential good that can come with this property that would do a lot of good work for public health. And, we need to expand public health at the city level. That's just that needs to happen. And it's absolutely essential. And I had a discussion with a friend of mine who's worked in the medical field for many, decades, does not live in the state. And I didn't get into specifics with them, but we really got to talking about the maneuvering of different facilities, people's plans for medical health and I worry that doing this is going to cause more shake-up than it is going to be more helpful for the city in the long run. I do honestly believe if we went forward with this would be a very good thing for the city. I have no doubts about that whatsoever. I and this is why it's difficult. I don't think I can actually support this going forward I worry that we're going to have too much chaos in people's medical lives if we go forward with this. I do think if being passed this will still do a lot of good, I want to be very clear on that. I'll be happy if it is passed, but at this point in time I think I personally cannot vote in favor of this at this point. Sorry. Any other discussion, counselor Fish? [1:14:17] Carolyn Fish: It never feels good to make a tough decision, but at the end of the day I have to look at what's best for the city of Bangor and the majority of the residents of Bangor and the future of Bangor. I was in a similar situation probably 20, 30 years ago when I had a little business that I invested in on 500 Main Street and opened up doors only to find out within a year Hollywood Slots wanted to come to town. And I was forced to have to make, shift gears and purchase a building and move my group. And I was a very young business at the time. And as it all ended up, it was the best decision. It wasn't it wasn't easy at the time, but our health department needs to expand where they are at. It needs a lot of work. It could cost us a lot more than this. We're leasing there now and it feels good to displace people. And there was another offer on the table that I know another company had depended on going there. but our job I feel as council is to look out for the residents of Bangor. We had the first option on this, it's a good value and it allows us in the future to take the community health department off from the budget that we have been looking at for the rec facility because we also need a rec facility so that will help bring that budget down and it doesn't feel good but at the end of the day I feel I have to do what's right for Bangor and Bangor's future and I feel voting for this is the [1:15:50] Susan Faloon: right decision. Absolutely. Thank you. I agree pretty much with what councillor Fish says and I like I we've spent a lot of time talking about this and unfortunately a lot of it has been an executive session so we can't really talk about the details of that but it was never the intention attention to, you know, to do anything that was going to hurt PCHC or the business that wanted to move in there. I think that the timing and perhaps the communication around some of this hasn't been the best. But again, we ultimately have to look at what is going to be best for the city of Bangor and the taxpayers. And ultimately, this is going to save some money. And this is also a health facility and they are not public health right now is not in a facility that's working well for them. We just have to look at the city business. So at the end of the day, I mean, I would like to be able to do something that's going to make everybody happy. But unfortunately, we can't do that. And that's what happens. Every decision that we make up here is that half of the people are not going to be happy with us. And it's just a really tough decision, but I just have to go with what is best for the city and the taxpayers of Bangor. Any other discussion there [1:17:15] Daniel Carson: is a motion to pass 26-274. Her doubt in the comments. [1:17:23] Lisa Goodwin: Councillor Beck? Yes. Councillor Deane? Yes. Councillor Faloon? Yes. Councillor Fish? Yes. Councilor Leonard? No. Councilor Malheur? Yes. Councilor Walker? Yes. Councilor Carson? Yes. 7 yes, 1 no. [1:17:42] Daniel Carson: Council Order 26-274 has passage. [1:17:46] Michael Beck: Mr. Chairman, I need to disclose a conflict of interest on this next item. They are a client, and this is not an issue that's been brought up before Council. So I'd like to let Council know that they are a client, and if someone believes I have a conflict, to make that motion now. [1:18:02] Daniel Carson: Thank you, Councillor Beck. Does somebody like to? Councillor Leonard? [1:18:06] Joseph Leonard: I also have a conflict that's already established with this, so I'm going to leave. All right. [1:18:11] Daniel Carson: Councillor Leonard, go. Does somebody like to make a motion about Councillor Beck? [1:18:15] Susan Deane: I would move that Council Beck does have a conflict on this item. Second. [1:18:21] Daniel Carson: Motion and a second. But Councillor Beck has a conflict with the next item, 26-ish, oh wait, excuse me, the application for the special amusement permanently Ross. Is there any doubt? Goodbye public [1:18:46] Lisa Goodwin: hearing application for special amusement permanent of Evan Roads doing business as Evan Rose, 25 Broad Street. Castle of Dean. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I would move [1:18:56] Susan Deane: to open the public hearing for the application for special amusement permit of Even Roots doing business as Even Roots, 25 Broad Street. Second. Motion to open the public hearing seconded. Any [1:19:09] Daniel Carson: doubt? Public hearing is open. Seeing [1:19:17] Susan Deane: No one approach. I would move to close the application for a special amusement permit of Evenrudes doing business as Evenrudes 25 Broad Street. Second, I would move passage of the application for a special amusement permit of Evenrudes doing business as Evenrudes 25 Broad Street. Second moved and seconded special amusement permit any. [1:19:48] Daniel Carson: Any discussion, any doubt about passage? [1:20:13] Lisa Goodwin: 26-281 order appointing nominees to various boards, commissions and committees, Councilor Deane. Thank you, Madam Clerk. [1:20:20] Susan Deane: This order will authorize the appointments to various boards, commissions and committees contained in the report of the personnel committee. Vacancies were advertised in a variety of ways and the applicants were interviewed by the council's personnel committee on September 5th, 2026 and September 16th, 2026. The committee has completed the process of interviewing applicants for these positions and has developed the attached recommendations for full council consideration. I move passage of Council Order 26-281. [1:20:50] Daniel Carson: Second. Council Order 26-281 has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? [1:20:57] Michael Beck: Councilor Beck? As always, thank you to everyone who has stepped up to serve their community, And I would be remiss if I didn't point out there are still a number of vacancies on our various boards and committees. So if you haven't already got your plate full and have a little time to serve, we sure would appreciate all of you to step forward and apply. You can do so through our city's website. Thank you. any. [1:21:24] Daniel Carson: Further discussion is there any doubt passage 26. [1:21:39] Lisa Goodwin: -282 order approving the Yellen Pines affordable housing tax increment financing application development program and credit enhancement. [1:21:48] Michael Beck: Agreement council back thank you madam clerk this order authorizes approval of the final application development program and credit enhancement agreement for the Yellen Pines affordable housing tax increment financing district and submission to Maine Housing for their review and approval. The City Council previously took action to establish the proposed district encompassing the 5.013 acre parcel located at 205 Corporate Drive and reviewed the proposed credit enhancement agreement which includes conditions agreed upon by council. The development program provides for capture of 100% of the incremental tax revenue for a 30-year term. Under the credit enhancement agreement, 75% would be reimbursed to the developer in accordance with the agreement, with the remaining 25% retained by the City for eligible TIF purposes. Eligible uses of the City's retained portion include public safety, administration, public health, and infrastructure as described in the development program. Maine Housing's approval is required for final designation of the A.H.T.I.F. district. Per their requirements, this reading is also a public hearing and was posted and advertised accordingly. This item was reviewed and approved by the Business and Economic Development Committee by a vote of three to two. Mr. Chairman, I move passage of Council Order 26282. [1:23:24] Daniel Carson: Second. Council Order 26-282 has been moved and seconded. [1:23:30] Michael Beck: Mr. Chairman, I move to amend Council Order 26282 by substitution to replace it with the Council Order provided by staff, which is in the form consistent with the council order form in the proposed application to main state housing, and which indicates that the language in the credit enhancement agreement and development program as presented to council will be amended to indicate that the 30 year term of the affordable housing development program shall begin in the tax year in which the affordable housing development is placed in service. [1:24:02] Daniel Carson: There is a motion to amend Council Order 26-282 by substitution. Is there any discussion, is there any doubt that [1:24:26] Michael Beck: has passage? Mr. Chairman, I move Council Order 26-282 as amended. Second. [1:24:33] Daniel Carson: Council Order 26-282 has been moved for passage as amended. [Public commenter (Jackie Smallwood): Is] there any discussion from the Council? This item is also a public hearing. Is there discussion from the public? [1:25:01] Public commenter (Jackie Smallwood): Jackie Smallwood, Bangor resident. I'd like these comments entered in tonight's public hearing record. I ask the Council to postpone this vote until these three issues are resolved. The Environmental Notice names a different property. The City's Environmental Notice, last updated September 1, certifies the 30-unit facility at 55 Cleveland Street. This is not this project. Tonight's TIF and credit enhancement papers describe 205 Corporate Drive Math Lot R25-001-A. Until staff explains that on the record, you do not have a HUD notice that names the property in that order. This was on the City website. Number two. Two councillors asked last week for the part 58 environmental review record and did not receive it until 2 30 this afternoon. The City classifies the project and certifies it to HUD. HUD does not independently verify that file. In practice, this means that the only real check on whether the city got this right is the public and this council. An independent engineer also found that the sealed stormwaters planned omit the downstream invert up for the pipe that will carry the site's full flow, so slope and capacity cannot be verified. Last week, two councilors requested and received deed work. They received a 1996 FFA deed of release, book number 6164, page 301, covering 86.5 acres of former Dow land. Nothing in that packet shows that these 5.013 acres at 205 Corporate Drive sit inside the boundaries of that release. The deed in the city's own planning board packet is different than the deed that was given to the counselors. counselors. They have in their packet Book 8107, page 215 from 2002, covering a much larger tract. There is no subdivision plan or survey showing how or when that tract became MAP Lot R25-001-A and nothing tying either federal deed to the parcel in front of you, which you will receive. The HIP application number states that this was an FAA regulated airport land or that any release is limited to the described tract. Why this matters? These gaps go to whether this council has a complete file before approving a 30-year tax agreement. If a federal agency later audits the certification, the city will have to legally defend what is missing tonight. Please hold the vote and before this agreement is finalized, reissue the environmental notice which states the correct address of the plan produce the cart 58 environmental review record and the eer report is supposed to be a public document available for everybody to read confirm in writing with a survey overlay that 205 corporate drive is inside the 1996 96 FFA release in its entirety required the missing downstream pipe, invert elevation verified by city engineering. Thank you. Good [1:28:34] Public commenter (Suzette Furrow): Evening counselors. My name is Suzette Furrow. I'm a resident of Bangor and I'd like my comments to be part of tonight's record on young times. The opinions I present on my own and not those of any committee. I am on. Two of you councillors requested the environmental review record for this project last week. The City delivered it this afternoon at 2.30 prior to a 5.15 workshop and then the council meeting. That's roughly three hours to read a 58-page federal compliance document before voting on a 30-year TIF-CEA agreement. First, the report's own official Project location field lists this project's address as 55 Cleveland Street, not 205 Corporate Drive. That's not a typo in a notice. That's a formal location field in the federal environmental review record itself. Everywhere else in the same document, the land use findings, the summary of conclusions, the historic preservation review. The address is 205 Corporate Drive. It doesn't match any deed on file for this parcel, not 1968, not 1969, not 1996, not Nobody has second that the report states this land was acquired by the city from the federal government in 1964. That date explained where 1964 comes from. Third and most important, this report spends real space describing the site's history as part of the former Dow Air Force Base a pump station military housing barracks hangars and says plainly that recognized environmental conditions tied to that history were identified but it never once addresses whether this land still carries federal aviation use restrictions the people who wrote this report clearly knew the military history well enough to describe it in detail they just never connected it to the question this council actually needs answered One more thing, the same person who prepared this review also certified it. There was no independent check built into the City's own process. I only know any of this because this report was finally produced today and I had three hours to read it. If I hadn't had that time, none of this would have surfaced. This report would have simply stood on the basis for a 30-year commitment, contradictions and all. I'm asking you to postpone this vote until the city corrects the address and its own environmental record explains the 1964 date and actually answers whether this land is free of federal aviation restrictions thank you Mike [1:31:23] Public commenter (Mike Burrow/Mike Ferrell): Ferrell, resident of Bangor. I'm absolutely opposed giving them the 75 tax relief. They should be taxed at the 100 rate. Listen, we have a bunch of elderly It's going to be facing a crisis with fuel well, and I don't see anybody giving them a tax break. So they need to be charged at the 100% rate. The other thing I want to talk about is we always seem to look at Portland, Pebble Street. This project is not going to work, therefore charge them at the 100% rate and don't take anything less. And if they feel they can't do it in Bangor, let them do it in Hermann, Hamden, Brewer. Let them put it in another place. But we've got to tax them at the 100% rate because we don't give businesses that come in here a big tax break, which we should be, but I don't feel that it's necessary to give them a tax break. Remember, treatment first. We've got to fix it. Remember, we have to fix it. Thank you very much. [1:32:26] Public commenter (Adam Baker): Adam Baker, Bengal resident. All my words are my own. I'm just here. I've been from the start, but I truly believe in Yellow Pines and what it does with housing first, the true housing first, that gives housing with supportive resources with them hand in hand and with the do not postpone this please and just I agree with this project and let it help Bangor [1:32:55] Public commenter (Jeff McLean): in this community thank you hi [1:33:06] Public commenter (Rich Trot): Rich Trot, citizen of Angor. I realize this project is laden with compliance, survey, engineering, FAA, you name it, the list goes on. I'm not necessarily here to speak at that tonight. The narrower question is whether the city has negotiated and reviewed the terms needed to protect the public resources before it commits to this TIF benefit. It enters a binding agreement, sells public land. The council should not approve a deal and rely on staff to resolve its unfinished terms afterward. If environmental, engineering, title, financing, approval, or project readiness questions remain after passage and the Council does not yet know the full bargain is authorizing. This is where ordinary contract discipline matters. The documents should state the City's actions and subject to completed due diligence and final written approvals and contingent upon verified site control, satisfactory title and environmental review, confirmed financing and binding commitments from Bangor Housing Authority. Authority. Most importantly, the land sale must be expressly contingent upon Bangor Housing being ready to proceed with a shovel-ready project. No deed should be delivered, no TIF benefit should begin, and no City obligation should become effective until final approvals are fully vetted and all conditions are satisfied. We can simply execute the sale when the project is ready to go, if it's warranted. That does not stop the project. It authorizes a framework while the City retains its assets in negotiating leverage until the deal is complete. Consider an ordinary home purchase. No careful buyer would close without knowing the contract terms, reviewing the home inspection results, understanding the mortgage rate and terms, confirming the title accuracy and knowing the closing conditions or the closing date, yet the city is being asked to move toward closing on public property and taxpayer obligations while material matters are still unresolved. No reasonable seller would do that. For a private buyer, that would be reckless. for public officials handling city resources it fails the standard of careful stewardship of taxpayers deserve please amend the actions and execution to subject to or contingent upon by voting yes tonight you're saying that you're smarter than attorneys engineers architects site plan FAA regulations etc and more importantly smarter than the citizens of Bangalore good [1:35:37] Public commenter (Tyler): evening. [1:35:38] Joe Bethany: Members of the council, my name is Joe Bethany. I am the general counsel to Bangor Housing Authority and the attorney for Bangor Housing Development Corporation. We support the passage of Order 26-282, and I do appreciate the amendment that was put on the floor and voted upon and approved to revise section 2.3 of the credit enhancement agreement. The section 2.3 as presented in the packet would provide that the 30-year term would start in the tax year beginning April 1st, 2027. However, we don't expect to break ground until 2027, and the project wouldn't be completed until 2028, so it seems to make sense that the 30-year term in the CEA wouldn't begin until the project is actually put into service, and that is allowed under the applicable statute. 30-A MRS 5248 2G allows for an affordable housing development program to begin in the tax year in which the affordable housing is placed in service. So with that amendment, we support that and look forward to bringing this project to the city. Thank you. [1:37:02] Carolyn Fish: I won't repeat myself. As you all know, I've not been in favor of this from day one because I'm pretty stingy about City of Bangor property. And I would be open-minded if I felt that the outcome was going to be to the benefit of the Bangor residents 100, are some type of economic or financial benefit. And I know I hear the argument that taking our own house off the street does in fact help impact us by removing those expenses. But for $11 million, I think we could better use that for rehabilitation and recovery. And also there's been no guarantee. I've asked, every time I ask, I get a different answer. How many are gonna be Bangor residents? And well, at first I heard maybe 30%, maybe 70%, but there's no guarantee that even one will be a Bangor resident. And then there's a question of well, what's Bangor resident? Well, if they come here and they're here for 24 hours, all of a sudden they're Bangors. And I just think that we are already carrying more than our share and we're giving up valuable property. And now we're gonna give up a TIF. And we still have a lot of questions that have been unanswered. I know being on committees, we've asked several times for a map, a color map to show exactly what the city owns and how these different zones in this different agreement with the FAA back in the 60s, exactly what does that mean? Where are these restrictions still applied? And we've gotten some kind of vague answer that, well, they really don't apply. Well, show us where, it's complicated. Well, I think our residents deserve more than an answer it's complicated. I think we need to have the document we can refer to and see why it does or does not apply. by. And lastly, I don't like the fact that there's going to be a sale after this is complete, we've got applicants going through this process under one name. And then after it's turned key, it's going to sell to another entity. And I don't know why what's the go around for that. So it's going to be sold for $10. And I still not clear why except for it seems to me that there's some kind of go around methodology with that. So I'm just not comfortable for all of those reasons. So I just wanted to explain why I'm not going to vote for this tonight chair just one quick point of order [1:39:30] David Szewczyk: we there needed to be a motion to open the public hearing and a motion to close the public hearing with the public hearing was opened I just want to make sure that are we closed is the public hearing closed it is not okay I'll [1:39:56] Susan Faloon: Pass there, Glenn. Second? Thank you. First, I'll move that we close the public hearing. Second, should we close the public hearing? And then I just wanted to comment that, oh, sorry, okay, the public hearing is closed. I've heard it said a bunch of times that, you know, that 11 million dollars could be used better used here or better used there, but I think one thing that we're forgetting is that we can't just use that money for anything. That's money, you know, most of that money is coming from the state and it's for a very specific project, so we can't just say, oh, we're going to use it for this instead. And I think it's also important to remember that property is generating zero tax dollars now, and it will be contributing 25 of the tax dollars into a fund to, you know, to help with additional economic development programs, but also the value of that property is going to be capped, so anything over that three million dollar cap, I believe that's what it was, is going to be tax revenue for the city too. So I just wanted to point out all of those things, and I've said it before, but you know, we keep saying no to projects, and this has the potential to get a number of people off the street, the hardest to house people, and we have already heard, although we don't have a guarantee of the numbers of people who are going to be from Bangor, that it's going to be a pretty high percentage of them, and it's going to be people from this general area, and all of those people, whether or not they live currently in Bangor now, they are probably receiving services, and chances are they are living on the streets of Bangor. So I just think, you know, yeah, it's not a perfect project. None of these projects are, but we just, it's something, and I'm in favor of it. [1:42:10] Michael Beck: Yeah, just to piggyback off of the previous speaker is that yeah, this isn't $11 million we're spending. This is an $11 million investment in our community that I fully support. So I am excited about the possibilities of this project and what it'll accomplish for the city. I know that there's a lot been made of the people who would end up living there and a lot of concern had been made about what they'll be doing in their private quarters. And so we did ask the question about, will there be regular inspections? And there will be. That's the answer we got. And so that if people are, you know, abusing what this opportunity is for them, that'll be. Be sussed out pretty quick, and it's been said that if they're violating the provisions of the program, they'll be evicted, they'll be removed. So that's not a concern for me, and so I'm thankful that this investment is being made here, the chance to take 30 individuals who are high needs, that cost us a lot of money to manage that chaos on the streets and dollar for dollar this is the better way to spend tax dollars and really it's not even spending them again it's we're returning 75% of what they're spending so it's not coming out of our pockets and meanwhile that's that many fewer police calls fewer fire calls fewer emergency room visits which ends up being fantastic for our bottom line so all around I just see this as a win and I'm happy to support it [1:43:59] Daniel Carson: Councillor Mallar, I [1:44:03] Wayne Mallar: am not in support of this. I have concerns about what the potential cost is going to be over a 30-year period. We don't know if the funding for general assistance which provides the vouchers is going to continue with the same rate or going to be at a reduced rate. I asked for information on the potential cost to the city over the 30 year period and I haven't received it yet. Or if I have, I don't know where they sent it. And I think there's still a lot of questions that haven't been answered. When we talked about the agreement we were going to have, it was mentioned in a public meeting that were there going to be pedophiles there and it was said no, that would be in the agreement. Agreement, I don't remember seeing anything in the agreement. We asked about illegal drug use, it's a low barrier shelter to get in but once they get in can they use illegal drugs that was supposed to be in the agreement. I don't believe it is. There are still too many unanswered questions and I am afraid that the city of Bangor is going to end up with the burden of paying all the GA for people that come in from other towns, the difference between what we get reimbursed and what it costs us. So I'm not in favor of the program. Any [1:45:22] Daniel Carson: further discussion? We have a motion on the floor. Council Order 26-282 to pass as amended. [1:45:37] Carolyn Fish: Chair Carson, I'd like to make a motion to postpone. A [1:45:44] Daniel Carson: motion to postpone. [Wayne Mallar: And second that.] A motion to postpone and second. And do you believe the motion to postpone takes precedence? It does. I would just ask for a [1:46:03] David Szewczyk: point of clarification. Is it a most motion to postpone to a date certain, or is it a motion [1:46:07] Carolyn Fish: to postpone indefinitely? Postpone to what's the next workshop? October 14 is council for 14. October 5 workshop for more questions correct when you go back to committee [1:46:29] Daniel Carson: motion to postpone to October 5th committee discussions. We have a second on that. I'll second that. Any discussion? Is there any doubt? And I see he's trying to see how to shake it out. Did you have something to say? No. Okay. So madam clerk, councillor [1:46:55] Lisa Goodwin: Beck? No. Councillor Deane? No. Councillor Balloon? No. Councillor Fish? Yes. Councillor Leonard? No. Councillor Mallar? Yes. Council Walker? Yes. Council Carson? Yes. Two yes, six no. [1:47:21] Joseph Leonard: It still fails. It was wonderful. [1:47:27] Lisa Goodwin: Can I do that one again? See what I might, thank you. Councilor Beck? No. Councilor Deane? No. No. Councilor Flun? No. Councilor Fish? Yes. Councilor Leonard? No. Councilor Malheur? Yes. Councilor Walker? Yes. Oh, there was three. Carson was a yes. Well, it's time to go home. [1:48:04] Daniel Carson: All right, motion to postpone 4-4 that fails. Are there any other motions? I'll move to indefinitely postpone. Second. Motion to indefinitely postpone council order 26-282. Is there any discussion? Is there doubt? There's doubt. Out of court question is to postpone indefinitely. Councillor Beck? No. Councillor Deane? [1:48:43] Lisa Goodwin: No. Councillor Faloon? No. Councillor Fish? Yes. Councillor Leonard? No. Councillor Mallar? Yes. Councillor Walker? Yes. Councillor Carson? No. Yes. [1:49:00] Daniel Carson: I know, okay, most of the postponing definitely has failed. There is still a motion on the floor to pass as amended, but it's the motion that we will return to has been doubted, so we're going to roll call that one also. Councilor [1:49:23] Lisa Goodwin: Beck? Yes. Councilor Deane? Yes. Councilor Faloon? Yes. Councilor Fish? No. Councilor Leonard? Yes. Councilor [1:49:33] Daniel Carson: Maller? No. Councilman Walker? No. Councillor Carson? Yes. Five yes, three no. Council order 26-282 has passage. Adam [1:49:54] Lisa Goodwin: Kirk, 26-283. Resolve recognizing the value of a cooperative partnership between the city of Bangor and the Penobscot Job Corps Center. Councillor Faloon. Thank you madam clerk, this [1:50:09] Susan Faloon: Resolve will recognize the cooperative partnership between the City of Bangor and the Penobscot Job Corps Center. The City of Bangor welcomes opportunities to work alongside the Penobscot Job Corps Center in fostering a community where young adults are encouraged to learn, contribute, serve, and build successful futures. The City Council encourages the continued exploration of opportunities that strengthen connections between students, employers, educational institutions, municipal government, and the Bangor community, and recognizes that strong relationships are the foundation of workforce development and long-term community prosperity. Mr. Chair, I move passage of Resolve 26-283. Second. Council Resolve 26-283 has been moved [1:50:56] Daniel Carson: and seconded. Is there any discussion? [1:51:09] Public commenter (Tyler): My name is Tyler and I'm a Bangor resident. I just wanted to speak and support this partnership with Penobscot Job Corps Center. I was a student there from February 2014 to July 2015. Job Corps was a great program. I completed the nursing assisting and medical assisting trades. I earned other certifications. I did a medical assisting externship through PCHC. I took a leadership class and served in student government. Living on campus, I learned conflict resolution and communication through the mentorship program. I had an excellent mentor, Joshua Green, who guided my personal and professional development. When I finished, I went straight to work as a nursing tech at Eastern Maine Medical Center, and I got my own apartment. Life has thrown challenges my way since then. The lessons and the support I got at Penobscot Job Corps are a big part of why I have been able to keep going. That is what this partnership is actually about. Young people learning a trade, doing real meaningful work in the city, practicing leadership, and leaving with a job and a place to live. Be the right kind of person, then do the right kind of things. Then and only then can you have all that life has to offer. Job Corps helped me with that. I support this resolve and I please keep in and please keep looking for real ways students can work, volunteer, and belong in Bangor. Thank you. [1:52:42] Public commenter (Acadia Miller): Hello, Acadia Miller. I'm not a resident of Bangor, but I did attend job course program. I was a high school dropout and I received not only my high school equivalent there, but also I got job training. I got my CME license there and I just want to say that I'm really happy about this. I'm really happy about everything I learned there. I kind of learned how to be an adult at Job Corps and I know a lot of other people do too. And it's a lot of other people's only option when it comes to having a place where they can be fully supported in getting their whatever they need, their high school, equivalent job training, or as well as getting their driver's license, or just the support they need in general. So, thank you. [1:53:49] Daniel Carson: Council resolved 26-283 has been moved and seconded. Is there any doubt person that has passage? Are there any staff present who would like to make comments? Thank you for the resolution that was Robin Stanicki. Any other staff comments? Lots of head shaking. All right, Counselor Flume. Thank you. Thank you [1:54:24] Susan Faloon: everyone for coming out on Saturday. I had the opportunity to attend Recovery Palooza for the first time. It was an amazing event and if you ever have the opportunity to attend that I highly encourage you to do so. And I want to congratulate all of the hard-working people in the recovery community for all of the amazing work that they do. Recovery does happen and there were plenty of people there to demonstrate that. And I also wanted to say we have 12 candidates running for City Council which is amazing. The interest is amazing and I am especially happy to see some pretty young candidates, a few right here in this room. And I just want to, like, the political environment is contentious at all levels right now. But we've got people stepping into this arena for the first time ever, and they are not seasoned politicians, like a lot of us up here are not seasoned politicians. And I just want to encourage people to please be kind and not attack people. You can debate the merits of what people are running on but attacking individuals is just not fair especially to our young folks who are stepping into this for the first time. With that I will say good night Bangor. [1:55:48] Michael Beck: Thank you. Yes Recovery Palooza on Saturday was fantastic. It was nice to be out there. Fifth annual. I believe this is my third time being out there. It's always great to get out there and have so many wonderful conversations. You know, I personally believe Bangor is a city of recovery and talking to the folks who do this work and how hard they're working, you know, truly show that recovery is possible. But I know that with a continued partnership with council, with the city, with public health, that recovery is not only possible, it's probable. So, you know, with that in mind, you know, again, I'm so grateful to everyone in this space who does this work and they work so hard. I can't even imagine where we would be without them and how worse this crisis will be. And make no mistake, it is a crisis and there is so much work that still needs to be done. But it was nice to just take a moment and celebrate the good work that is being done in this community, in the recovery space. And I'm just grateful that work continues. And I look forward to seeing how it progresses this coming year. And that's a great way to end National Recovery Month this month. So, good night Bangor. [1:56:57] Angela Walker: I would like to really say how appreciative I am of our city staff and all the council members here for all the work that gets done, countless hours. I also wanted to speak about having everyone here for public comment, everyone that stays until the end. I do take into consideration what everyone has to say. I did spend the last week really digging into emails and whatnot and revisiting some of the past meetings that we've had and writing things down and really taking consideration that we are here for our community members. members and it has kind of turned a switch in my mind and in my voting in being here and representing the city and all of you and so with that I will say good night Bangor [1:57:58] Susan Deane: well said Council Walker it's lovely having you here I have nothing exciting to say I just want to say good night and thank you all for coming and have a have a good week councilman good [1:58:14] Wayne Mallar: night [1:58:15] Daniel Carson: have a good night everybody good night bangor right is there any business other business from this council with that it is 8 58 p.m thank you all