Auburn council rejects license plate reader ordinance, sends it to voters

[0:14] Mayor (presiding officer): The September 21st Auburn City Council workshop will be called to order. We have a single item of business tonight, the update on the solid waste disposal status and a review of potential ordinance revision. Good evening. [0:46] Scott (Solid Waste staff): Mayor and counselors, thank you for having us tonight. So just a little update on the solid waste recycling cycling. Seems impossible that it's been 10 weeks already since we rolled this out on July 13th. So we're 10 weeks into it. First of all, I'd like to do a couple thank-yous. Casella has been a great partner. They have done a lot for us when rolling this out for educational purposes, and anybody that didn't get bins at first, they went back with railroad trucks and picked up for us. I it was for a long period of time so trash wasn't left on the curbside, and for the majority most residents are handling this very well. I don't want to make it sound like the sky is falling. We do have some issues which we're going to cover in here, but I think it's all fixable and we'll go over that this with this rollout. APW took the highest call volume that we ever have. I want to especially thank my executive assistant. I don't know how she did it. She was answering phone calls, and when that when she was on the phone it rang about three more times and left voicemails. She was always going back and getting caught up. We had spreadsheet after spreadsheet going trying to keep track of everything, whether it was miss bins or you know. We did offer some larger and some smaller cans. So, you know, we had spreadsheets going on that. But it was a very busy from you know early to mid-June to the middle of August, and the rest of the staff, myself, Adam, my operations manager. We were out there through the thick and thin helping Casella with this. We basically eat slept and whatever trash and recycling for a few weeks. We made a lot of in-person connections. We promised when we went out that we were going to meet with residents if they had concerns on this, especially on the placement or, you know, what are they going to do, you know, with a hill in the driveway or whatever. And I don't think, I can't think of one time that we weren't able to figure something out for them and, you know, do that. I even found myself in a neighborhood on the back porch having lemonade with a whole bunch of residents, you know, on different size trash can issues or whatever. And we were able to resolve it with them too. They were very happy about that. Our agency leadership and staff, we hit the road in those early days and that first week. And we were out there, Cassella gave us part of the route and we went around and pick up, see the turn in the cans around. The OOP stickers, I don't know if you guys have heard that, some little orange stickers, boy, people took offense to those. But we were only trying to educate them. That's all we were trying to do. You know, we tried, it was a note saying whether they can was backwards or over full or whatever. That's why we were putting them on there. So we did a lot of those. I still have some in my truck and you know every once in a while we'll find one that we need to put out because sell this handling most of that now. [3:59] Solid Waste staff (education/outreach): Yeah, just in addition to some of the highlights. I think our education campaign went well, the public meetings, the social media posts, the alert me text contact website brochures, getting people signed up for the app. I think that's gone really well. Some highlights, making accommodations for residents with special circumstances or challenges, whether that be a dead end street where we had to move trash to one side, the camp roads, anywhere with congested parking. We've kind of adjusted and as we see fit on the fly. We took care of most of that with that street eval that the casella did, but we're still coming up with problems, coming up with solutions as they come, as we go. And yeah, we adjusted the parking ordinance to allow for automated collection, so those ordinance changes that we did make have helped and it they are working. Yeah, and along [4:53] Scott (Solid Waste staff): Along with that, every road that we, you know, had that happen on, we went around and hung door hangers on, you know, the side of the road that was affected or whatever. So, everybody got a door hanger. That was me and Adam, mostly, and the operations managers, but we did do that on every street. So, statistics. We ended up, Casella ended up delivering 17,340 64-gallon carts. Those all went to Kitty Hawk. They had a party, another hired party that came in and did all the deliveries on it on the very first part of it, obviously with. Once that was out and trash started picking up, all the calls started coming in about mistrash can. And a lot of that had to do with department buildings that you know weren't on the list when it went to them. So we ended up, they ended up hiring another third party once we had a whole list and there was a lot and had them come in and start delivering again until most of Them got delivered. I won't say that we didn't handle a few of them, and I will say the larger cans and the smaller cans, again, we took as people called in. We put it on a spreadsheet, and as you know, APW is the one that delivered those and swapped them out. We made sure that the 64 gallon cans were down by the road, and we swapped them out for either the smaller or the bigger. So we handled about 200 in-house, and the other thing that we offered was the collection of old carts. We did a two-week period where we opened up 67 Kitty Hawk. Had some roll-off dumpsters in there. We did everything we could to recycle those old cans. Unfortunately, in some of those, there's still some hidden metal in the plastic, and where they will go in to be recycled, there couldn't be any metal in it. But we were able to get some of them, and we tried to recycle them so they weren't going to the landfill. Another thing we did is we called avcog and put it out there that we had a bunch of cans that were still in really good shape, and they were able to pass it off to a bunch of towns that actually started using them for food compost a program. So there was several towns that came and got some. We still have some. We're holding on to them for a little bit, but there is a way to get rid of those good cans. So we tried to do the best we could to recycle them and not just throw home away. But in that, there was four 30-yard roll-off containers that went with old trash cans that we ended up picking up. Plus, we offered curbside. I forgot to mention that. We went around. Anybody that wanted their cans picked up and couldn't get them to 67 Kitty Hawk, we went around with a rack body one tons and picked up all that we could. [7:37] Solid Waste staff (education/outreach): Now getting into the challenges a little bit. Just to say our honeymoon phase is nearing an end. We're still going to focus on education and still making accommodations as we can, but we will be increasing enforcement as we move forward. So some violations, some non-conforming carts, so some people still have some old carts out there next to the new casella carts, the overfilled carts, material outside of carts are next to the can, and incorrect placement and or backwards carts. Still seeing some of that. Like to get benefit of a doubt with the backwards cans because at first we would swap them so They were correct, but put the orange tag out saying it was backwards. Scott and I, when we went out, we wrote on the can, you know, was backwards. We fixed, but I don't know if Casella did that when they went around. So when people come home, the can's facing the street, but they got a tag saying it was backwards. So I don't know if that contributes to some of it or not, but it's kind of what I'm thinking about. But yeah, we're gonna work our hardest to make sure that collection still happens for the resident. We just gotta, you know, give more education where we see fit or where there's needed. Some pictures of cans here. The picture to the left, generally they're gonna pick that can up without a problem. It's a little bit open, but it's not overflowing. The can to the right, more than likely they're gonna refuse pick up because that bag could fall out when the truck arm goes up and make a mess in the street and on the truck, and then they're not going to grab those two extra bags that are outside the can. So enforcement-wise, we came up with, well, we didn't reinvent the wheel, but notice of violation, basically the same that our code department uses for everything else, just tailored to the solid waste and recycling issues that we may have. And we get noncompliance reports from Casella every week, daily, weekly. It depends on when she sends it, but at least weekly. So we'll be able to send these out to addresses that they mark as noncompliant, something's going on. We can list it in here with a correction and move on. Hopefully it doesn't happen again. [9:50] Scott (Solid Waste staff): Yeah, and most of the compliance unfortunately is for people who are putting trash in their recycling bins. We are finding that, and we, I know we said that the trucks have cameras, but the camera up on top of the truck, by the time that can gets up there, they're thinking it's recycling, and then all of a sudden it's trash. It's hard for them to stop, so trash is going into the recycling, and that is contaminating it. So that is, you know, the biggest violation thing that we're going to try to fix. Obviously, we don't want our recycling contaminated. Right now, that recycling is still going to Lewiston, but unfortunately, Casella's sorting machine is broke, something to do with the wiring or something. So that stuff is getting reloaded and is going to Massachusetts. And, you know, obviously, they gave us some status reports, which is in this presentation a little bit later. But there wasn't much for how much of it was actually, you know, contaminated. So we want to make sure we're getting ahead of that. Like I said, he said that they're, you know, they're sending us status reports, and obviously this letter will go to those people that are putting solid waste in the recycling. And the worst part is that sometimes on Facebook, social media, all of that, we've had people threaten us that 's what they're going to do because they don't have room in their trash can. So we need to make sure that we're getting ahead of that and stopping it. Again, the majority are doing it right, but it takes a little bit. Thanks. [11:16] Councilor: Scott, just to follow up on that, so when the recycling bin gets contaminated in the truck, what happens? Does that mean the entire content in that bin has to be diverted, or how does that work? [11:32] Scott (Solid Waste staff): I think right now the way I understand it from seller, it's still going to the sorting facility. And they are obviously sorting some of it, but if it's a high concentration of trash in that truck and probably they're reloading it, thinking of its new trash bags. Yeah, they can sort that out. In the middle of summer, we all know what the trash is and, you know, it doesn't take much to contaminate stuff. So next was the Graceland mix. Unfortunately, you know, it's great people are able to bring their recycling there when they have above and beyond their cans, and it's great. Obviously, we're seeing a lot of recycling, but though even though we have a camera out there, it's very hard to enforce that. I mean, we can take a look at the camera, but we don't have time to sit there and look at every minute of the day and figure out when people are doing it, but they are dumping construction and demo demolition. Debris, it's going in there, bulky waste and electronics is going in there, even though we offer all day long and take that gray salon and have that go out, so we need to, you know, it's really hard for that, and if the driver shows up with a roll-off truck to pick that up and he sees a lot of that in there, he is taking that to the dump unfortunately, so we need to get a hold of that as well. Some of the other things that have happened is obviously we have signed galore up there about no brush or leave. But people are still dumping it off hours, and obviously there's still some probable non-resident use, obviously people are coming from out of town dumping those big recycling containers, again it's difficult to enforce. If you go to any other town, like my hometown where I live, you have transfer attendants that are there at the transfer station, that's the only, that's the only way I see us, you know, stopping this completely, you know, putting this in within a secure area, and then obviously we're taking. Hours away if we're only doing that while we're at work, you know, so maybe in the future thinking about that and offering some staffing on Saturdays or something, if it's in a security area we can still have residents have that time to bring it, but just something to think about for the future. Right now we're going to stay status quo, but it really is something to think about, so we're, we're actually recycling the way we say we are, and it's not getting contaminated. [14:04] Eric (staff, ordinance): Next is ordinance changes, Eric's going to talk about that, so we've, we've learned a lot as we've gone through the implementation, we've identified some areas where buildings were being picked up by Casella unbeknownst to the city that should, before you move on to the ordinance. [14:21] Mayor (presiding officer): CHANGES, I'LL JUST CHECK AND SEE IF COUNSELORS HAVE QUESTIONS UP TO THIS POINT. YEAH. [14:29] Councilor: IN TERMS OF THE BINS THAT ARE UP BY GRACE LAWN, ARE WE SEEING A REDUCED VOLUME OF RECYCLING THERE? [14:36] Scott (Solid Waste staff): THERE'S STILL A LOT COMING IN THERE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S WEEKLY. [14:42] Councilor: AND JUST IN TERMS OF VOLUME OF RECYCLING, I KNOW CONTAMINATION'S OBVIOUSLY GONE UP, IT SOUNDS LIKE. HAS THE AMOUNT OF MATERIAL RECYCLING ALSO GONE UP? [14:52] Scott (Solid Waste staff): Has participation, that's correct, that's on another slide after the ordinance changes, got it, thanks for. [15:01] Councilor: The recycling that is being transported to Massachusetts, I assume that's a temporary arrangement, is that an increased cost during that time for us, I don't think so, I we haven't. [15:13] Scott (Solid Waste staff): Seen any increased cost on it. I think it's just because their plants broke down and they have to have a place to go or it will just build up, so there they told me it was supposed to be fixed. [15:23] Councilor: And remedied really quick. Great, I have one more for the folks that you are noticing are utilizing recycling cans for trash. Are they, have you noticed if they're individuals who have sized. [15:35] Scott (Solid Waste staff): Up in their trash can size? I'd have to go back and look. I mean, I think it's a mix. I think, you know, I think some probably haven't gone up to the 96 gallon, council. Yeah, people that are. [15:51] Leroy Walker, Councilor Ward 5: Are overloading some of their trash cans right now, can they still get a larger one and swap out with you if they find that to be a problem? [15:59] Eric (staff, ordinance): Yep, we can do that, yep. [16:03] Councilor: Is there a charge to size up? [16:09] Mayor (presiding officer): On the violation, what's happening today before you get to this NOV state? It seems to me that what Casella's doing now is they're no longer getting out of the trucks and fixing all this stuff. So if the carts are backwards, if they're overfilled, they may slap the sticker on it and they leave it and go on. Is that correct? [16:39] Scott (Solid Waste staff): That is correct. Talking to them, they have done it for the last eight or nine weeks, and it was an educational period, and that has to come to an end at some point. They're short-staffed as it is, even with this change. Lewiston just went to this as well, so it's the same people that are working here that are doing Lewiston as well, so they still have somebody in our area and they are, you know, they're trying to tag it and trying to get people to understand that it's going backwards. We're doing the same, we see something, we're doing I. [17:08] Mayor (presiding officer): Think, I think it's fine. I mean, it's a behavioral change issue and hopefully they'll get the message. The other question, I don't know if you have an answer to this now, but if not, if you could follow up on it, so when EPR comes into effect, you know, the way that's going to work is we're going to get a revenue stream from the state for the recycling to help us set our recycling cost. What's the contamination rate, what impact is that going to have on the reimbursements from the EPI program? [17:46] Scott (Solid Waste staff): I will have to get back to you on that. I do not know. Like I said, I tried to get what is the contamination rate right now and they could not provide that for me right now. Where it is going to Massachusetts, they really haven't reported out or reported back to us on it. I'm hoping that it isn't that bad if they're still loading it up, but I ask a seller to get that information so I'll ask them. [18:08] Councilor: Boy, just totally blank. Sorry, go ahead. So on your over full people, is it, do you have any sense of whether or not those are people who did it wrong the previous [18:28] Scott (Solid Waste staff): week and so weren't picked up? Not necessarily, it's random, you know, we see it out there. May be a few out there, obviously they don't get over the whole city during the course of the week, but you know, you might see one. We saw one over full on Turner Street today, but it wasn't like that last week. So yeah, I don't, I don't think that's a wholesale problem. I just think they might have a bigger trash week and they're trying to load it up. [18:56] Eric (staff, ordinance): Thank you. As we've gone through, we've noted some issues that exist within the ordinance and also some pickups that were occurring by Casella that the city was unaware of, a certain uses of certain buildings. So over time, we have historically collected all one to three family buildings with no additional fees charged to the building owner. We've collected owner occupied buildings, multi-family buildings from four to seven units. Owner occupancy is really hard to track, and we found some that were owner occupied when they signed up for the program, that the owner has moved, they're no longer owner occupied, but there was no notification that it was not eligible for pickup anymore. So with the proposed ordinance changes, really trying to simplify that. What we're proposing is that we increase the pickup for multifamily residential properties from one to four units, so without proving owner occupancy, pick up that for you building, whereas before had to prove owner occupancy, but stop doing pick up at buildings from five to seven. We've looked at the number of units. We have that information here. So there will be some property owners that may be owner-occupied in the 5 to 7-unit range that would lose pickup as part of that change, but it's very difficult to track. And a lot of the multifamily buildings downtown, many of them have very small lots, even with seven units, and placing 14 bins, seven recycling bins and seven trash bins along a 50-foot frontage is just too much for the street frontage to handle. So what we're proposing is that change, so we pick up one to four instead of one to three with no owner occupancy verification, and then we stop doing pickup at five to seven unit buildings. We would also, as part of that, we're proposing that trash pickup has To occur in those five to seven unit buildings has to occur on the property. So they wouldn't be able to go get their 14 bins from Casella in a seven unit building and place them in the street right away. We would work with property owners to try to have that storage of trash in the collection occur on the property rather than in the street right away or on the sidewalk. It's just really become apparent that those larger multi families that were able to pay for pickup before that you just can't fit that many bins in a 50-foot street. [21:43] Mayor (presiding officer): So those, the five to seven units, they're paying a fee to the city now, right? They are. And that, so... [21:51] Eric (staff, ordinance): If they're owner-occupied, they could pay the fee to the city. [21:55] Mayor (presiding officer): Right. So we're presuming that those are all supposed to be owner-occupied. They're paying a fee. If this change goes through, that will be discontinued. [22:04] Eric (staff, ordinance): Continued they'll just get their solid waste pickup from a seller or some could be any vendor that they want to use it could be a dumpster it could be bins but what we're proposing is that whatever they are they not be placed within the street right of way so that they're collected on the private property when we'd like to give them a grace period if we move forward with these changes then there would be a period of time where we continue to pick up the ones we've been picking up while they make other for trashing. [22:32] Solid Waste staff (education/outreach): So that's what we're looking at. And the fee is quarterly. As well. [22:38] Scott (Solid Waste staff): The other thing, too, is that we found some properties have two buildings on it. So it might be two three units, but still 12 bins out in front of it. So that would also. Be considered a six year. [22:51] Eric (staff, ordinance): That's another significant changes that we would look at that by property rather than by building. So if you have even a three- and a four-unit on a property, they may be receiving pickup now, but they wouldn't be able to do it afterwards. Seven units on a property, whereas now we refer to building. So you could have multiple three-unit buildings on a single parcel and still get pickup in the current order. That is a significant change. I thought you brought that piece up. We did notice that there are some churches. We do not pick up commercial properties or churches Currently according to ordinance and we don't know when it started, but there are some churches that are receiving city pickup The ordinance prohibits that and that would also end with a notification time to find other arrangements [23:46] Scott (Solid Waste staff): Yes, and the mixed-use might be a business with an apartment above it or whatever. It's the same way. We've been trying to deal with those as they come in with these apartment buildings. You know, they weren't on a list when it went to Casella for the first bin, so that's why I said that's where a lot of these missed bins came in. So there was a long time these didn't get done because they were on the list, they weren't paying, they should have been. So it was, there was quite a few missed bins because of that. And like I said, the churches and stuff that all, you know, they got bins delivered to them and they really shouldn't have. How [24:25] Councilor: many units do you estimate will be affected by this? [24:30] Eric (staff, ordinance): So we can get those exact numbers. The on this slide, the five units, six units, and seven units, those would be affected by this change. I don't know, Scott, maybe you could clarify, are those units listed here? All of those are currently receiving pickup or occupied. There are a couple that still haven't got bins, but yes, most of those are. So those would be the approximate number of units, buildings that would be affected, and it would have to be time for them to make arrangements, and we recognize that if that's the direction we go, the challenge with the owner occupancy requirement is it's constantly changing, and nobody's going to call us to tell us they move, so they can start taking care of their own, their own trash pick up [25:22] Scott (Solid Waste staff): eight unit apartment buildings. So we had to go back and actually take them back. So we have cleared those up. There's no more eight unit receiving. [25:36] Eric (staff, ordinance): Really, exposed any inconsistencies and we're trying to work through those now with individuals at every property. So that's like 550 units. It's a lot of units. Yeah, that is the number of buildings, not the number. So it is significant. And then, lastly, within the ordinance, we have a number of units changes. We want to clarify what the city's options are for enforcement. We're still in that education phase right now, that's coming to an end over the next month or so, and we'll have to start issuing notices of violation. We wanted to be clear that we currently have the same tools as other code enforcement cases, where we can issue monetary citations, that we have to go to court to collect, but we can issue those citations, achieve Compliance and collect it voluntarily, or we can go to court. And we also want to make it clear in the ordinance that if you continue to violate and we have the ability to stop your collection, that's the last piece of the proposed changes. That we can use all the enforcement tools, but we can also stop collecting. Continue to violate after knowing full well what the should [26:55] Councilor: Have two quick questions. In the instance of the commercial property that has an apartment above, just to [27:02] Scott (Solid Waste staff): clarify, their personal trash will be picked up? No, it shouldn't be, because it's considered mixed use. It falls under that. So they've been getting collection right along, but they shouldn't have been. That was spelled out in the ordinance already. And then for those who won't have trash [27:19] Councilor: pickup, can you share some of what the other arrangements are that folks can be making? [27:25] Scott (Solid Waste staff): So I mean, they can call any of the trash haulers around and get an account set up. There are several, you know, Casella by, you know, I think Riverside from Augusta comes down here. There's several that they can Google and find that would probably come and do it, no problem. [27:44] Mayor (presiding officer): And just to be clear, the folks that you referenced that never should have been getting collection, the reason that was happening is people were just putting trash bags out by the street, right? You had no idea where they came from. Or that is correct. And it and there was nothing to stop anybody from just putting their trash bags by the street, unlike with the carts, you know, that you're [28:13] Scott (Solid Waste staff): supposed to pick them up. That is correct. You know, the guys from Casella didn't know, especially if it was a residential property or one of these businesses that had trash. They just stopped and did it, you know, that they want trash out in the street. Some of these apartment buildings, the only way that might not have got picked up is that we had a do not collect list for some of them that hadn't paid. And some of those, when this all took place, paid, started paying again. So that's why they have cans now. But it's still, it's too much. And when it comes snow and we start adding all these cans and everything out there, 14 cans out in front of a place, there's just no room [28:49] Eric (staff, ordinance): to put them. And the uniform cans have really made it possible for us to identify this. And before, we would be relying on the driver of the truck to recognize a can that has no uniformity. You could put different cans out, very difficult. Yeah, just I know we mentioned it, but just to [29:07] Staff (solid waste/finance): Highlight even though there's over 500 units, the majority of them have already been paying, so that won't be an added cost. They'll just not need to contract that separately, and not, they other than those that were on our list as owner occupied, whether or not that was accurate, that's that's really what we're finding. But that, because I think that might be something that you might receive calls on, is now there's this new cost. They were paying anyway. They're paying a cost now, whether or not that cost is the same, you know, Cassell is gonna continue with that cost that they're charging, you know, that's between them and the vendor, whichever vendor they choose. [29:56] Eric (staff, ordinance): And they can competitively bid that with the multiple vendors that are multiple places? [30:06] Leroy Walker, Councilor Ward 5: I'm hoping that somebody's going to meet with these people that own the business on the lower level and they've got apartments up above, because this is really going to pee off some people. I mean, they're not going to get any kind of a tax break because they rent their own dumpster or something, and most people think they're paying taxes to have their trash, you know, in the city of Auburn to be picked up, like I can see this becoming a real headache in a hurry. There are a lot of people, a lot of small businesses that we allow that are on the first floor, two or three apartments above them. I can just see this being a stinker right off the bat. They've been, you know, like you said, for years and years and years we've been picking up their trash, and the business might be only as someone that cuts hair, and they maybe have one little bag, maybe two, and most of that is somebody picking up the hair off the floor. So I can just see this really being a headache for us telling them that they're not going to be able to use us, you know, waste stream. I'm not really sure that I would personally say that's very fair to them [31:22] Eric (staff, ordinance): people, and they're not eligible now though either. We did find a couple where that was occurring, but there shouldn't be too many of those because the commercial storefront made them ineligible for that property. All right. [31:35] Mayor (presiding officer): yeah that was what I was gonna ask just to make sure that 's clear mixed use WITH A BUSINESS ON THE BOTTOM AND SOME APARTMENTS UPSTAIRS HAS NEVER BEEN ELIGIBLE FOR CITY TRASH PICKUP. SO IF THEY'VE BEEN HAVING THE CITY PICK UP THEIR TRASH, THEY'VE BEEN GETTING IT FREE FOR THIS PERIOD OF TIME WHEN THEY WEREN'T EVEN ELIGIBLE. [31:58] Scott (Solid Waste staff): That is correct. Are [32:03] Mayor (presiding officer): there other thoughts or questions? [32:08] Eric (staff, ordinance): Some good news on the recycling. [32:10] Scott (Solid Waste staff): Yes, so you asked about recycling. So in April, we were at 24.37 ton, and, you know, obviously, it got better in July and even better in August. So we're at 87.97% on the recycling. It's a 261% increase from April to August. You're good. [32:30] Solid Waste staff (education/outreach): I think some of that has to do with everybody having a recycle bin now, whereas if they didn't want to participate before, they didn't have a bin. They didn't have nothing now. They have that bin to put. And I think a lot of it, too, is people sorting out their trash. You know, we talked to folks that said, oh, I need another trash can, a bigger second, third. Whatever. We said, well, do you recycle? And a lot of those answers was no. Well, you can put a lot in your recycle bin to take that out of your trash stream, so that the can that we gave you is sufficient. So I think, you know, that's just a reflection of that to helping it. And for solid waste itself, we've seen a decline and in the tonnage. So April was six hundred and sixty four tons. Back to when we started in July five hundred and fifty six tons, and now in August, one hundred fifty six times. So our solid waste is starting to decline. I think part of that is due to the cycling increase. So it's looking good. [33:30] Staff (solid waste/finance): What we will do is we'll compare some numbers once we start getting main waste to energy numbers, too, because what we might be seeing more people going to anyway and discarding it. So we'll take a look at our overall tonnage that's going through Mainway City to see how we're competing. I think we will, as we're seeing the numbers here, we'll see that shift in recycling. Now that doesn't mean a direct cost saving because it costs us more to process recycling than it does our solid waste. So we'll be monitoring that. We'll be taking a look at that. We'll provide you a mid-year report on what our costs are, where our savings have been, and then also be able to look at main waste to energy, actual numbers of salt. [34:17] Mayor (presiding officer): And to make sure I understand, the reason that we can do that is the residential trash goes in a separate place and gets weighed separately than what the commercial haulers bring in? That's correct. And on the cost, that the with the main waste to energy fee increases this last year, the gap between the cost of recycling and the cost to incinerate the per ton tipping fee is a lot less of a differential now. That's right. Yeah, because we're seeing [34:57] Staff (solid waste/finance): With the 450 if the solid waste of 456 times ends up being if that stayed because we're seeing a steady decline, and our summer months are where we see a higher volume of waste, too. So we'll start seeing that decrease. But if those numbers track the way that we're seeing it, that means solid waste will see a $220,000 roughly decrease in our cost. Again, we don't know the numbers yet for that extra bin, so that could offset those. But we know that we will see a potential increase in the recycling. but I think the number next regarding organic waste if we can continue seeing that 's where we're gonna really see some benefit before we jump to that Phil [35:43] Councilor: Just so I'm accurate in my head recycling per unit is more expensive to pay for per ton, but is that statement still true even when we get some reimbursement from the state? [36:02] Staff (solid waste/finance): We won't know. We'll have to see what the numbers come to. [36:04] Mayor (presiding officer): Yeah, we won't know until we get there, but that is the reason the statute was set up that way is recognizing your tipping fees for recycling tire. If you fully participate in the program, you will get money back to help offset that. We won't know what that nets out to until it's in the program. [36:23] Councilor: Gotcha. Thank you. Councilor Garrett. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. How much of the trash is still being brought up to your grace lawn up at your public works? And is this factored, is any of this factored into that? And have you seen an increase of trash being brought up there? [36:43] Scott (Solid Waste staff): You said trash. You mean recycling? Both. You know, there's been some bulky waste and stuff. I mean, it's hard to keep track of that inside one of those bins I mean, obviously the recycling is still pretty heavy. Those bins are pretty full. So there's still a lot coming there as well Again, some of the probable causes something might be out of town stuff that's coming in there as well. But [37:04] Mayor (presiding officer): That but the tonnage in the previous slide this recycling that Includes both the curbside pickup and the roll-off. That is correct [37:16] Eric (staff, ordinance): And we transport the bulky waste I assume to mid main waste if it's delivered to PW if it's [37:23] Scott (Solid Waste staff): Outside of it we you know we don't like doing that but yes if it's outside we have to we got [37:28] Eric (staff, ordinance): No choice we take it to M1 we should be able to account for that tonnage in the mid-main waste [37:35] Councilor: Thank you moving [37:40] Solid Waste staff (education/outreach): On to the organic waste garbage to garden so since the program I'm not quite sure [38:04] Scott (Solid Waste staff): What they meant with the mileage offset and the fuel save part of it. So I think, you know, if they figured that and picking the trash up out on the street, that's the miles diverted from picking up trash, and then the fuel save doing that, they have a little, you know, formula that they use to figure all that out. But and then the compost obviously has been, I know the school's taken advantage of it, so you know some of the compost that they make, the school did some stuff with some gardens, and we also have that availability that if we need some compost, we can reach out to them in the spring and get some. So we just had a meeting with them. [38:36] Solid Waste staff (education/outreach): They did say the bins that we have up on Race Lawn are used the most. We have two up there right now. We're going to add a third one because they said those two are full every, and we have a couple [38:48] Scott (Solid Waste staff): that are not producing that much, so we're not really going to add one to the services, but we're going to just grab one of those ones that's not being used and put it there, and we might move some of the other ones to where it makes sense. All right, and the last one is a curbside leaf collection. I know in the past everybody's been able to bring it out and put it roadside and picked up with their trash. They were able to, one time it was up to 10 bags, now and then it went down to five bags a week, but everybody was able to stack them up and they'd put five out each week and get rid of it. We've had several calls asking what they're going to do with their leaf, you know, the leaf stuff that they pick up on their lawns. A couple of them been real nasty, saying they're going to just blow them out into the street and it's going to be our responsibility anyway. Not really sure if that will happen or not, but obviously we do have to worry about it, you know, our MS4 permit now with DEP includes picking up leaves. We have to do a second sweeping of the year in a certain location to keep the leaf nutrients and all the leaf debris going into the rivers and streams. Not only does it, you know, it does make its way there, but it also plugs all of our drainage ditches, it plugs catch basins. We are going to have issues if, you know, I think if we don't pick up stuff. We went to the drawing board trying to figure out what was the best way to do this. We have done it way back in the past before my time, they used to go around with a loader and trucks and pick it up not an efficient way to do it at all you know and then we talked about maybe renting some railroad trucks ourselves and doing it but it takes away from all our other tasks as well so the ultimate thing is casella has offered they had offered it in the contract when they wrote it out for year three, but they are willing to do it this year. What we talked to them about was maybe doing it for three weeks in a row, figuring out when the best time. Sometimes the leaves kind of a later drop, but trying to figure that out and then bringing two trucks into town on Thursdays and Fridays. That would be their time frame. And they would do two days a week for three weeks. And they would go around and try to do the whole the whole city obviously outside you know people probably have place to put it but it's internal in town that is the real problem for that it's it's basically $265 an hour for a per truck so it figures out to be about 42,000 if we do three weeks in the spring I have three weeks in the fall and two weeks in the spring so that's what it ends up being I don't you know again it's hard to say the leaf disposal the went to mwac to begin with so that was always included in the in the tonnage it would only be the cost of them picking it up that we would have to add to what we currently have so just throwing that out there thoughts on it you know i think you know people do have the be able to bring it to old castle they have you know they'll take them for free out there obviously it can't be in bags and if we were to do that in-house and pick it up we would have to cut all the bags and dump all the leaves out over there if casella does [42:02] Mayor (presiding officer): it goes to main waste energy so if this is casella they would be using like real load trucks and they'd have to be bagged and put on the roadside and is there a limit to how many bags [42:17] Scott (Solid Waste staff): no i don't believe so i you know last time they did you know they did it they were picking up trash too so there had to be a limit then i think people can get it out to the roadside as [42:26] Mayor (presiding officer): long as it's there they'll pick it up and if this is going to main wave to energy it doesn't matter than a paper bag plastic bag long as it's a bag yep it's as long as it's in the bag [42:37] Scott (Solid Waste staff): Like I said, I think as staff we think that's the best route. It doesn't, you know, take our guys away who are trying to tidy up before winter time. We're still trying to get construction projects tied up, and again, lots of times if we start on it we get hit with a snowstorm and then, you know, it gets covered over. But if people have put it in bags and Casella can pick it up, that does not involve us doing it when we're busy with snow. [43:02] Mayor (presiding officer): And is the thought to do the three weeks in the fall, this fall? That is correct. And, Mr. Manager, I'm assuming the $42,000 is not currently in the budget. [43:15] Staff (solid waste/finance): It's not in the budget. We, you know, we made projections in the budget because we obviously were changing to a new system. So we made sure that we were as conservative as we could be in the projections. I think we're on track to be able to absorb that $42,000 within our solid waste line item. We're still tracking other costs. We're also tracking a reduction in the revenue that we were receiving for the apartments, right, that has an impact as well. So we know that we're also, we're tracking that as well, but we believe that the $42,000 can be included in the solid waste line item for this year, and then we'll make sure that it's helpful [44:09] Councilor: for him. Is the $42,000 per season or for both seasons, or fall and spring, fall and spring. [44:19] Scott (Solid Waste staff): It is, and that's based on an eight hour day, too. If they come in here and they do it in six, it's going to be less than that. 42,000, but I was conservative and that tried to add to eight hour days. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Do you [44:30] Councilor: have a sense, Scott? Consequence, you've got a plug, you know, you got to clean out drains and things like that. You have a ballpark sense of the cost that would take on if we didn't do this [44:43] Scott (Solid Waste staff): Boy, I don't, I mean, each year we do catch basin cleaning anyway, so you know, but it's the, it's the leaves that, you know, get on top and then it diverts water in a different spot and that might do damage if, you know, so that's hard to tell, you know, if a ditch gets filled up it might make its own path, so it is really tough to come up with a cost for what that would be. So, Mr. [45:07] Mayor (presiding officer): Manager, it seems that there isn't any action required by the council. I'm assuming that the council would all be in favor of them proceeding with this, with the understanding that if it can't be a sword, the manager will come back. Council funding. That concludes the presentation. Are there any other questions? No. Any final questions? [45:36] Councilor: Council Gary. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is an easy one. May I get a copy of your presentation? Yes. Council. Not a question, statement. Great work. Thank you for all your hard work on this. [45:53] Mayor (presiding officer): Look, change is hard. I think you guys have done a really good job trying to manage it and get a few bumps on the road left. We'll see if we can get over those. So thanks very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, so we have some additional time before the regular council meeting starts. So we're going to handle the two executive sessions the first one is an executive session pursuant to one MRSA section 405 sub 6d for discussion of labor contracts and proposals and meetings between the City of Auburn and the Public Works Mechanics Union was there a motion to move by second Walker a seconded by councillor Cowan vote would be by show of hands all those in favor the council be an executive session the September 21st 2026 Auburn City Council meeting will be called to order please join us and the pledge of allegiance thank you if we could have the counselors introduce themselves [1:31:32] Councilor: starting with council gary good evening belinda gary city councilor at large good evening rachel randall city councilor ward two one good evening tim cowan city council award two good evening [1:31:48] Mayor (presiding officer): matthew duvall city council award three good evening jeff hyman mayor i'm going to suggest I would suggest we switch seats, so Councillor Randall sitting in the first chair. [1:31:57] Councilor: The real reason is that she used to live in Ward 2 and I think she likes that house so much she can't help herself. Good evening, Kelly Butler, City Councillor, Ward 4. [1:32:07] Leroy Walker, Councilor Ward 5: Good evening, Leroy Walker, Council, Ward 5. [1:32:11] Brendan Edwards, Student Representative: Good evening, Brendan Edwards, Student Representative. [1:32:15] Owen Robinson, Student Representative: Good evening, Owen Robinson, Student Representative. [1:32:17] Staff (solid waste/finance): I'm Phil Kroll, City Manager. [1:32:19] Mayor (presiding officer): Thank you very much. The first item tonight is a consent agenda. UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA THE FIRST ITEM IS ORDER 7809212026 POINTING MEMBERS TO CITY BOARDS AND COMMITTEES AS NOMINATED BY THE APPOINTMENT COMMITTEE THERE'S A LONG LIST TO THE AGE FRIENDLY COMMITTEE KRISTEN CHAPMAN AND RACHEL LAJONDA AUBURN HOUSING COMMITTEE MICHAEL THURSTON HOMELESSNESS COMMITTEE DAVID BILLARDU WILLIAM LOWENSTEIN AND PEGGY WALTON THE PARKING AND TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE, GREG SIEKMAN, PARKS AND REC ADVISORY BOARD, MR. EDGECOMB, JOSEPH, CLAIRE MURRAY, RYAN WALKER, AND FOR THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, CHRISTIAN CHAPMAN. OTHER THAN THAT, THERE'S THE APPROVAL OF TWO AUTO GRAVEYARD JUNCTIAD PERMITS, ONE FOR RANDY'S AUTO AND THE OTHER FOR M&P AUTO, EXCUSE ME, THIRD, AND PAROLARIZED NEW ENGLAND, and the last item is nominating city manager phil kroll to the appointment on the anderson garden county budget committee for district 5 for an unexpired term ending in 2028. Is there a motion? So moved. Second. Moved by council gary, seconded by council walker. A vote will be by show of hands. All those in favor? Six having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, the motion is adopted. The next item is acceptance of the minutes of the september 8 2026 regular city COUNCIL MEETING. ARE THERE ANY ERRORS OR CORRECTIONS? SEEING NONE, IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MENU? MOTION TO ACCEPT. MOVED BY COUNCIL WALKER. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECONDED BY COUNCILOR COHEN. VOTE WILL BE BY SHOW OF HANDS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? SIX HAVING VOTED. FIVE HAVING VOTED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, NONE IN THE NEGATIVE, AND ONE ABSTAINING. COUNCILOR COHEN WAS NOT HERE AT THE PRIOR MEETING. THE MOTION IS ADOPTED. move on to communications presentations and recognitions. So the first item is an update on a little field dam with a conservation working group, and then we'll have presentations afterwards. Mr. cousins. Thank You mr. mayor and City [1:34:28] Eric (staff, ordinance): Council wanted to take a few minutes to update you on this project that the conservation working group and staff as well as neighbors have been working on for just about 10 years now. In 2018 was the first time the conservation Commission at the time and then conservation working group came to the City Council to ask for your support and submitting a pre-application for the NOAA community-based restoration program coastal and marine habitat restoration grant. That grant was proposed to provide funding for the removal of the Little field dam that sits on the little andrew scoggin river kind of between outer hotel road off of little field road and on the other side of the river martindale country club. The dam was built around 1930 and was breached in 1936, so it had a very short useful lifespan and has been breached ever since. There was an effort to re-license it in the late 1980s that was deemed financially infeasible and has continued to block passage along the river but allow water to move around it on the river left side of the dam since then. Why is this important? Downstream, the Barker Mill dams have been an impediment to fish passage. We have fish passage at all of the other facilities between the lower Barker Dam and the Atlantic Ocean. We do have our wives that make their way in an occasional salmon that make their way up the Androscoggin to the little Androscoggin River. And they can't pass beyond the lower Barker dam. The lower Barker dam is required to build fish passage by 2031. So very shortly five years from now, we could have passage at that facility and the upper Barker is in the final stages of relicensing. And it looks like they'll have the same requirement to build fish passage by 2031. The removal of littlefield dam once that passage is built in 2031 will open up about an additional 70 square miles of river habitat above the littlefield dam. The first application for the dam was in 2019 was unsuccessful and the second one in 2022 was funded for a total of 3.5 million. Construction estimates during that time we were in a period of rapidly increasing costs and we were doing our best to try to anticipate what costs would be one to one and a half years later as we put together construction estimates and applied for those grants. The total grant amount at 3.5 million ended up being more than what's needed in sort of the settled out construction demolition market. We estimated the total cost to be between 2.2 and 2.7 million but we got a low bid from shaw brothers out of gorham for that project at just under 900 000. So there's a significant surplus left in that grant. That grant covered all the costs including staff time used to manage the project and was completed just a few weeks ago. So I have some before and after pictures here to share with you. This is May of 2025, you can see at that time of the year the water levels are higher than they are on average this time of year and last year in this summer we actually had lower than average water level so it's much lower. This is august of 2026, same general area. You can see at the center of the screen where the dam sat before the pool below the dam is still visible in the next image but the dam is completely gone and The river has settled into its natural channel more on the river right and no longer going around the dam to the river left. May of 2026 looking upstream at the dam. August of 2026 same general perspective without the dam there, and the river is no longer being pushed around the remnant dam, and the fish can pass freely once they can get here. And there are native fish there now, but not migratory sea run fish yet. July of 2025 here, this is above the dam looking down on the Martindale side of the river. August of 26 same perspective, so much different perspective with a free-flowing river that really you wouldn't recognize that there was even a dam there. Pretty amazing as the river reclaims its natural path. July of 2025 last year, here in the low water we discovered this remnant dam, as they called it, just a couple hundred feet upstream of the main Littlefield Dam. We think it was a dam to power a sawmill before the Littlefield Dam was built. There's some stone structures on the shoreline. Most of that was washed out, but it's still considered to be a blockage for fish passage, so it was taken care of as part of the same grant. And August of 26, same location, the logs removed and the rocks re-scattered among the river. So last week marks two months since they started the dam removal. I have a quick video while I talk through the rest of it and recognize some of the partners, but this is flying upriver towards the dam early this year with higher water at spring water levels. And then we'll be able to fly back down and look at it when the dam is gone. You can see the remnant dam kind of at the center of the screen now. And free-flowing river above with a number of these ripples that kind of control the water elevation as you go upstream. So the dam really controlled the water level from the dam up to that first remnant dam, but not really above it. Now looking downstream, right at the center of your screen now is where the dam's at, the natural river channel back there. It's a difficult site to get to. It's all private property, so we thought it was a good chance to show the videos and pictures so you and the public can see it, even though it's difficult to get to without passing down the river. Thanks to unusually low river flows, we had less than a third of the typical volume of water for most of the time we were there doing the construction, from what the average is for that time of year. The dam removal went pretty smoothly, and concrete removal was completed in late August. Planting and vegetation continued into early September, and the site's fully stabilized now, and actually much greener than it looks in the picture. Now that the grass has taken, you can really see the river reclaiming its natural path. Sand that used to settle out above the dam is now moving through the river system more naturally, and we'll continue to do that, and it will probably look very different after one spring flooding season. There's a significant beach above where the dam is now that they anticipate will be redistributed through the river system as it would have been if the dam hadn't been there. We've had some great coverage if you want to see more about this project. Sundar Journal did a detailed article with some good drone footage. Absolutely Auburn podcast gives the account of some of the stakeholders and the Conservation Commission of how we work through making that project happen. And if you look up YouTube channel Adventures with Robert, or google YouTube Littlefield Dam removal, there's a gentleman named Robert that works at Panel M that documents a lot of his outdoor adventures, but he documented the Littlefield Dam removal every week through the whole process and compiled that at the end. That some really outstanding footage progress during that project. Like to recognize the stakeholders that helped make it happen. None of this would have been possible without the hard work and dedication of the volunteers of the Conservation Working Group, and as we go through the stakeholders that were a part of that, if I could, I'll hand you a plaque, Mr. Mayor, and you can hopefully share that with the with the state. Volunteers on the Conservation Commission, in particular Sam Boss as chair, was a significant contributor to the project and also a significant contributor to the grant writing. The abutting property owners also became key community partners and played a crucial role in making the dam removal a reality by allowing access, working with the city and nowhere to complete the project. In particular, Martindale Country Club owned the dam that I don't see representative here tonight from Martindale Country Club. Panel M Industries provided the primary access for the site and we worked through their gatehouse, Ralph Anderson and Jeff O'Hearn in particular. We'd like to thank Ralph. Was planning on being here tonight but he is sick unexpectedly. Residential neighbors, abutting property owners, we'd like to thank the Beaudry family for their support, and they are not here. Ray Willette and the Bilodeau family as well, who is not here tonight. And Central Maine Power, also for allowing access to the site. We expected a rep from them that's not here and Main Waste Energy couldn't be here tonight but they asked that we read a short statement that they were proud to be a partner in the project to help open up the river and restore the natural flow. They swift efficient completion of the dam removal is a major win for public safety and conservation and they look forward to continuing to be a collaborative community partner and as a neighboring property they're particularly excited about the potential for future trail networks or public river access that would allow Auburn residents to fully experience the restored river and they wanted to thank the city for recognizing their participation. [1:45:33] Mayor (presiding officer): Thank you thank you. Any questions from the council? No thank you very much for the presentation Mr. To Cousins and again thank you to everybody that participated in securing the grant and getting this work done. It's been a project a long time coming and it's really great that the city was able to accomplish this with everybody's help. I'll move on. I'd draw the council's attention there's a memorandum from the clerk regarding the denial of an auto graveyard junk dad license for 79 and 80 Old Hotel Road. And just to summarize this for the public, this is a renewal of a license that's been submitted for quite some time, but the company abandoned this site in 2015. They've continued to renew their license under the thought that they might reuse the site again someday. The clerk has denied this because elsewhere in the ordinance there's an abandonment ordinance, and the simple reapplication every year does not preserve the right to the site. They would have to file with planning and permitting if they want to use this site in the future. We'll move on to the first open session of the evening. If there's any member of the public who would like to address the council regarding items not on tonight's agenda, please approach the podium and provide your name and address. [1:47:17] Wynton Chapman, public commenter: Wynton Chapman, 51 Eastman Lane. I hate to follow up that dam removal. I'm not a big fan of removing dams, but that one makes really good sense, and I'm glad it got done. Thank you for all your work, Eric, City Council. I'm here again today, once again, to discuss the endless needle giveaways in the Housing First initiative. After previously hearing from the experts at the Maine CDC Spurwink, I began to consider who the true experts are regarding drug addiction. This led to an epiphany, St. Mary's. Knowing they have worked in the realm of addiction for years, I visited them one morning, believing that if anyone had answers that made sense, it would be their team. While there, I asked a multitude of questions. Because I only spoke with front-line staff, I did not receive an official institutional opinion. However, I do not believe I am talking out of school by saying that every single staff member I questioned about the needle exchange program quickly stated that it was a horrible idea. Furthermore, much to my surprise, I learned that St. Mary's is no longer a rehab facility. It is now strictly a detox center, yet another victim of our main care policy failures. As I consider this crisis and witness the pain and misery these endless needles cause to the people that use them and to the people that live around them, I have to wonder why we are not investing in rehabilitation and aftercare. It seems, and I know during the work session it was brought up, there was plenty of resources invested in rehabilitation and aftercare yet I cannot seem to find those resources no matter how hard I look there's 300 beds available in Maine license I believe Spurwink said they had 300 active customers gathering needles in Lewiston so maybe we can I may not be accurate but I believe that's what was said it was 300 people that were using their services so we could take care of Lewiston if everybody wanted a bed. As I consider this crisis and the pain, why we are not investing in rehabilitation and aftercare, it seems as if we want this problem to persist. In my short time being actively involved in politics, I've become well aware that the government often creates, inflates, and focuses on problems just to spend money on them, resulting in crises that never get better, only more expensive. I watched firsthand as a family tried to find a rehab bed with no success, and I keep these, some of these statements very vague because I don't want to implicate people, but I'd be more than happy to talk to anybody offline, and by the way, I'd be more than happy to take a walk with anybody anytime. I could show you right now where there is ungodly amount of needles, not caps, needles, bedding, garbage, trash going into this a little and Scoggin that we're fighting hard to clean, and we're just destroying it on the other side. So they tried to find a bed with no success, which prompted me to look for a bed. I had no luck either last Friday after talking to somebody from the city and found out that we were modeling our Housing First after Portland's. I decided to go visit the Logan House, Portland's oldest Housing First building. When I re, when I arrived, I introduced myself as state representative for Auburn. I told the staff the truth, Auburn is pursuing Housing First, and I was told we were modeling it after your program. The staff member I enacted, interacted with was warm, caring, and highly intelligent. We had a lot in common too. We come from a lot of the same places. We shared stories back and forth. We talked as we walked, excuse me, we talked as they walked me through an impromptu tour of the facility. I left them with my card and my information and proceeded to visit the Florence House, which is an all-woman center with an emergency bedding downstairs, where I spent considerable amount of time, I think three, four hours, talking with several tenants slash residents. They have a title. I'm not sure what it is. Tenants, residents. At the end of these visits, I was overwhelmed. I have spent many hours replaying those conversations in my mind. The current Housing First model takes three entirely different problems and forces them into one bucket. Drug addiction, mental illness, and situational homelessness. As a result, a person with mental illness and no substance abuse history is forced to live alongside individuals in the depths of drug addiction. Meanwhile, those who are homeless simply due to life circumstances and just need a helping hand are forced to navigate an environment filled with mental illness and addiction. And we call this helpful and humane. And then I find out one person was working on the other side of the town but was denied a bus pass because it wasn't to an appointment to get Suboxone or whatever. Didn't have an appointment. It was to go to work. So we're not going to give you a bus pass. So she had to leave that job and get another job that was closer. And she can only work a limited amount, otherwise she'd get tossed out on the street because you make too much money. There's no step down. There's no step up. You're here. This is what you do. And that's it. A few, a few critical points were echoed by both tenants and staff. First was the complete lack of goals. There are no productive, no productive expectation, no required contributions, and no incentives for residents to better their conditions. When I asked tenants how they felt about the needle giveaways, this was great. When I asked the residents that live at the house how they feel about the needle giveaways, all but one stated it was ridiculous, stupid, or dumb. The one person who defended it argued that it reduces hepatitis infections, but several other residents instantly fired back asking where. They noted that infections are worsening everywhere these needles are, and they accounted facts from their own lives. Otherwise, the lone defender conceded that the program was harmful. I said nothing. I just sat there. I've learned so much on this subject over the last few weeks, but I will leave you with these few stark statistics regarding mortality rates, and a lot of this was published in the Portland Press-Herald. Maine's general mortality rate, 776 per 100,000, less than 1%. National homeless mortality rate, 2,752 per 100,000. Maine doesn't calculate homeless mortality rate for Maine, so I had to go off the national. But Maine's housing first mortality rate in Portland alone is 9%. When I asked how many residents have managed to get their lives together and complete rehab, I was told none. When I asked how many improved their conditions and moved out, I was told none. Instead, three separate individuals told me they are actively trying to get into a rehab but cannot secure a bed. And as Preble Street itself noted, passing away is the most common reason people leave this program. And we're bringing it to Auburn. Good luck. If [1:54:47] Mayor (presiding officer): any other member of the public would like to address the council on items not on tonight's agenda, please approach the podium and provide your name and address. Not seeing any, the open session is closed. There's no unfinished business before the council this evening. We'll move on to new business. The first item is Order 8309212026, accepting the 2026 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant for the Auburn Police Department. I WOULD NOTE FOR THE PUBLIC THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE GRANT IS $18,337, AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT INTENDS TO USE THIS FOR THE PURCHASE OF A MOBILE MESSAGE BOARD WITH BUILT IN SPEED RADAR. IS THERE A MOTION? [Leroy Walker: MOTION TO ACCEPT.] MOVED BY COUNSEL WALKER. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECONDED BY COUNSELOR COWEN. DOES ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COUNSEL ON THIS ITEM? PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM AND PROVIDE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. Not seeing any, public comment will be closed. Discussion by the council, ready for the question. The vote will be by show of hands. All those in favor, six having voted the affirmative and none in the negative, the motion is adopted. The next item is Ordinance 1509082026, Automated License Plate Recognition, ALPR Ordinance. This item comes before the council through a citizens initiative petition that was filed on July 30th, 2026. Is there a motion? So moved by Council Randall. Is there a second by Randall? Oh, excuse me, Councillor Gary moved the item, thank you, and seconded by Council Randall. If there's any member of the public would like to address the council on this item, please approach the podium and provide your name and address. Not seeing any, the public comment will be closed. Before we move to discussion by the council, City Attorney Mr. Stockford is here and he's presented a memorandum to the city council regarding the impacts of the proposed ordinance and Mr. Stockford, could you give a quick synopsis and then we'll see if there's any questions from the council? The [1:57:21] City legal counsel: Memo that I've shared with the council speaks to some of the issues of concern that I have as the city's legal counsel respect to the breadth of the ordinance and the potential impacts. The way it is drafted, the ordinance as drafted would limit the city. The ordinance as drafted doesn't just apply to the city's operation of automatic license plate recognition systems or use of information from an automatic license plate recognition city by this, you know, operated by the city within the city and I understand that the city has chosen not to operate its own ALPRs and that has been implemented. It is far broader than that and would, it would prevent the city and the Auburn Police Department in particular from accessing any external information that was, you know, generated through the use of ALPRs anywhere in the country or potentially the world. So I believe that because the city, you know, needs, you know, needs access to those databases and needs to be able to use the information that it obtains from external databases, and in many cases would not be able to identify what information on those databases was generated or acquired through an automatic license plate recognition system. It would have significant unintended consequences for the city. So that's my biggest concern. CONCERN, THE MEMO SPEAKS TO A NUMBER OF OTHER CONCERNS, BOTH LAW ENFORCEMENT RELATED AND PARKING ENFORCEMENT, OPERATION OF CITY PARKING FACILITIES IN WHICH THE ORDINANCE, I BELIEVE, WOULD HAVE UNINTENTED CONSEQUENCES AND CREATE SOME CHALLENGES AND ISSUES FOR THE CITY. [1:59:44] Mayor (presiding officer): Is there any questions from the city attorney by the council? Thank you very much, Mr. Mr. Doctor, discussion by the council. [1:59:57] Councilor: Councilor Randolph. Where do we have any of these parking lots that will be affected? [2:00:04] Staff (solid waste/finance): Mr. Manager. So over the last few years, the city has proposed different initiatives regarding license plate readers in our parking lots. We have not moved forward with that. We've, we have, we currently have a camera as you come into the parking garage itself. Part of the challenges with enforcement is just time, you know, it's having a parking enforcement officer enforce that. We have looked at some automated systems much like you would see in any municipal or even a private lot in other communities that actually collects that information. The one that we looked at regarding the intro, what we call the interim law, and that is the parking lot at the Hilton Garden across From that location we were looking at a gated system. That gated system would actually read the license plate, and from that license plate as a is either a permit holder or would record it for enforcement. That is teed up as we've been working through this to bring that to the parking and traffic safety committee to take a look at. So it's been in future capital plans. We have not moved forward with it due to just the cost, but where we continue to monitor it. So currently not being used, the automatic license plate readers that were on mobile on the cruisers are no longer in use as well. We've had those came out of service with the installment of the fixed other [2:02:06] Mayor (presiding officer): questions by the council. Thanks. [2:02:14] Councilor: Mr Mayor, reading adjusting the information provided by the attorney, thank you for the thorough review. I have concerns was with I think what are unintended potentially unintended consequences, particularly around crime investigation or emergency time-sensitive public safety matters, that you know particularly around the time-sensitive public safety matters where a warrant would that might become necessary, and that could delay or prevent use of plate data in urgent circumstances. But as cited here missing and involving missing or endangered persons, abducted children, active threats, fleeing suspects. So I think the other thing is that I have a reservation with the ordinance as written because of its breadth. I think there's unintended consequences of being able to use the external data sets that are used on a regular basis by public safety, particularly our police departments. I don't know if Mr. Manager there's any specifics that you could provide in terms of the particular limitations that might have on a regular basis, or examples that you could provide. So we [2:03:55] Staff (solid waste/finance): have a handheld system currently with parking enforcement. The there are photos that are captured. We are not using the we're not using an automatic reader on those photos. They're attached to the enforcement documentation that demonstrates it shows the plate, shows the vehicle, but does not currently does not run through a system. The concern is that as each one of these systems continue to upgrade is that may not be a system that we can use moving forward because we will see we've had we've had changes with the most recent system i say recent i think we 're probably online with this new system for about seven years now however we know that there'll be changes to it in the future and this could restrict us being able to do that and needing to go back to handwritten tickets and i won't even get into some of the challenges with of course with challenges with chalking tires that's been through the courts and so there's an issue with that so there are some challenges there i think to your to your other point, absolutely, I think we have cases that certainly would have an impact on this. You know, I can, just a few years ago, not even using this, the system not in place, but an incident that took place regarding an abducted child on Minded Avenue resulted in that minor being raped three times, being brought to the woods to be murdered, and individual chose, did not have enough courage to do that, and came back to a residence on Hampshire Street. We factored that vehicle probably would have passed through a current camera system probably six times. We had the plate number, but we did not have, we did not have a location for that vehicle. So there's certainly incidences like that, and I, you know, I don't mean to use such an extreme, but there, if getting that and being able the step now to apply for a warrant takes time, and so there are concerns with that. I think that there's, there are initiatives taking place in other states regarding the storage of this data, and I think that's that's really, I think, a major part of the issue. I wish legislation would be able to move this in a way that could address that, so that this information is not being stored, if it's not in the system, it's not being alerted. And so I think there's a lot of benefits to that, and I think that, you know, there are, there are arguments to this as well regarding the safe securing of that information. So, it is, it is an issue, and it is an evolving issue, but I do think that there will be, there will be impacts to this without a [2:07:03] Councilor: doubt. Other questions, comments? Council ran, I guess all of, all of these items are could potentially impact. I agree. However, I still believe that having an ordinance in place that we can work on rather than having no ordinance in place is the best way to go. So I'm just going to say that. Council Gary. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have a few issues with this as it is written because it's covers so many subjects and I agree that there could potentially be some unintended consequences but giving that I support our residents right to petition to bring forth a question for us to either pass or send out to the voters when the vote is taken I'm going to vote to support the citizens initiative. [2:08:14] Mayor (presiding officer): Other questions or comments from the council. A few thoughts on this. I certainly recognize the basis under which the petitioners brought this forward. I think that there's some legitimate concerns regarding potential misuse of data that's just generally collected, is in the hands of a private entity, and is stored. I think that was a basis for the council's decision not to fund the permanent fixed ALPRs that we had in the city. However, I have some significant concerns about this ordinance or what would become an ordinance if the council adopts this. I think that it tried to address those high-level issues, but I'm not sure it was thoroughly thought out. Out, and it's not that well written. There's four pages of concerns, legals brought forward. The one that most concerns me, having been in law enforcement for 25 years, is that there are no significant criminal investigations or complex criminal investigations that are done by just one agency. The Auburn Police Department, like every other police department, routinely in an investigation receives lots of information from third parties. It could be other law enforcement agencies. Agencies, it could be information that they've gathered in the conduct of their investigation or that the other law enforcement agencies gathered. It's not possible to receive all that information and make a determination on the face of it whether or not information that contained therein was gathered legally through an ALPR system in another jurisdiction. I have concerns that there's potential harm to criminal cases being investigated by the Auburn Police Department by them violating what this ordinance would say even though it was not intentionally done. There's lots of other issues in here but that's my predominant one. I don't think that it's good practice for the city council to adopt ordinance language that's not well thought out and is not well written, and I would urge the council to reject this and let it go to the voters. I would say that my thoughts about this are the same as when we had the budget hearing,, which is that the council should take the time to craft an ordinance that controls the use of automated license plate readers, but that we take the time to make sure that we restrict the usage that all of the councillors have concerns about without causing unintentional consequences. with that is there any further questions or thoughts from the council randall [2:11:58] Councilor: the information that you speak of that would be getting collected from other agencies is also information that the people who sign the petition don't want collected in the first place in that way so the people who signed the petition do not want apl they don't want the data being collected by these by these cameras so the argument that is being put forth that we won't be able to use the information from other municipalities it's being collected in the same way that our citizens do not want the information collected in yeah i don't i don't agree with that [2:12:35] Mayor (presiding officer): i think that i would agree that some citizens in auburn do not want the type of collection and storage and usage of the information in the flock cameras. But there's many,, many other uses of ALPRs. And my point was more that we'll never know. We may never know until the police department's in a suppression hearing in front of a superior court judge and the defense attorney brings up that some critical piece of information was gathered from an ALPR system. It's not noted in the report, and that information is then prohibited from use. So I do think that there are certain usage of automated license plate readers that there's concern about, but I think, as I've said in the past, I think there are appropriate uses for this where there's appropriate controls and private parties are not involved and there isn't long-term storage of the data council county yeah [2:13:51] Councilor: I concur I am NOT convinced in my concern and why I would and prepared to vote against this tonight in order for it to go to vote by the public is I'm not sure that even all of those who signed on to voice their opinion on this very important issue we're thinking beyond flock cameras and the most egregious uses that we are hearing about in other places you know I think I reflect back on the conversations and the data that we heard about in the budget hearing about these types of software and it Really, for me again, it really comes down to the human error as much as it is the technology, and I think I applaud the representative Chapman and others who put forth this and those who signed it as there's, there's really good intention here to bring this forward, but my concern is the unintended consequences. It's just so broad that it's creating a lot of issues. I would prefer it go to vote so that a broader set of individuals who could be informed about some of the unintended consequences and be able to voice their opinions about what they really want focused on and where we should have exceptions, and we can bring that forward in a different process. [2:15:25] Brendan Edwards, Student Representative: Process representative Edward. Yeah, I just want to say I agree with Rachel Randall on this. I went to three periods at school today and all three of my period students were against the use of flock cameras and any license plate reader, so I think as the representatives for students you will not find students that want to live in a city that allow this kind of technology to stay in our city and it's that simple. [2:15:54] Councilor: Council Duvall, yeah, I just want to echo the concern of Councilor Cowen. I am not actually much in favor of these, this technology, but the way this particular ordinance is written is broad and will have such unintended consequences that it's, I can't support it at this. [2:16:13] Mayor (presiding officer): Time. Other questions or comments from the council? Councilor Randall, I believe that what we need to [2:16:21] Councilor: do is take a minute and think about what Brendan just said. They are the future of the country and the future of this city, and if that's not what they want, then who are us old people up here to tell them that they have to have the cameras? Council, what I heard was there's a lot of people that are against flock cameras and those that level of technology i'm not particularly in favor of it either but what we heard and what you know one example is that someone could take a picture with their cell phone it could be used put it in there and that could potentially be used against it because it's a you know it gets put in with a form of alpr i don't know that 's the level that people are really signed on to say that they don't want i think the concern people had was a flock camera stuck on a on a pole taking pictures of cars that were traveling across a bridge and you know I think it's a different level and I so I fully support that but I am in good conscience I was voted by residents of all ages who can vote and I was not I'm not prepared to come in and say well I'm just going to pass it because the future when this is it's so broad that there's there's more could potentially be more challenges created by this than solutions I think we owe it to the city and the residents to work on an ordinance that can carefully think through some of these really important exceptions and that can include hearing and seriously listening to students I just I appreciate the input but it goes to me it goes beyond that I have to look at all the information and i see more potential problem than i do anything gained council randall i see more potential problem having the cameras we don't have the cameras we voted to not have the cameras and so we can still work on putting an ordinance together and or even have people that my point is i don't want to vote on something that i know has problems and say I'm gonna put it in as word the way it's written because that's my choice that's all I have is a choice is to vote it in as is as written I can have it go out if the residents voted in okay then we go with it and then we work [2:18:52] Mayor (presiding officer): through those issues. Council Randall. [2:18:56] Councilor: Sorry, Councilman. First I want to just recognize the folks who did spend time putting together the ordinance and bringing this important topic to us I do think it impacts everyone of all ages one of the things that is standing out the most to me is The need for public education and the difference between What is in the media but also has evidence of flock camera versus the exceptions that we're reading about Brandon I would love to do a town hall with you. We've talked about that before with students and Bring these exceptions to the students to see how they might feel about some of the exceptions And I think that's a way that we were able to educate right so if we only know the one thing in the news Maybe they know all of it, but I'd love to hear that they know all of it not just make that assumption I think the same is true for the voters This is a this is some sample of voters no more for myself I've heard nothing directly from constituents on This topic which amazes me every day. Because I figure I should be hearing lots about this topic. And so it doesn't, it doesn't feel good to think a child can be kidnapped, or one of your friends at school, or there could be a silver alert in the community. And on the other side of that, we can't take action. And I think we should be able to take action to help the members of our community and keep our community safe. So I'm in, I'm sitting a little bit more Counselor Kalman on this in terms of really needing to see public education around it to understand those exceptions. I wish we had a different pathway and more time than what we're afforded based on what we're doing. But I can't see doing this without hearing from a larger group of our citizens. [2:20:45] Mayor (presiding officer): Council around, did you have anything further? Council Gary. [2:20:49] Councilor: Thank you Mr. Mayor, I don't want to be, I don't want to be us to be like other municipalities that if an initiative came in front of them that they would vote it in just so that tomorrow, next month, or whenever we could change it. So in other words, to send this out to the voters to let them decide tonight would be a no vote, am I correct? And then the voters will have a chance when this is able to be put on a ballot. [2:21:26] Mayor (presiding officer): Right, when would it be on a ballot? I'm going to go over the process in a minute. [2:21:34] Councilor: Before we take the council as well, so I just have, I have a theoretical question here that goes to the language of this particular ordinance. If I take a computer with my cell phone, the sensor records raw data which is then run through an algorithm to make the pretty picture that I have on my iPhone. The picture itself is a bunch of numbers arrayed in a grid. It's already computer readable data. Is the picture excluded according to this ordinance to the, to the point then you know what we use already. Would with the parking stuff. [2:22:21] City legal counsel: Would be illegal. I believe it would because of the breadth of the definition of a automated license plate recognition system in the ordinance components, a system of one or more mobile or fixed high-speed cameras, and we all carry high-speed cameras with us. So that would be, that is then combined, fed into a system with computer algorithms to convert images into computer-readable data. Data. So the breadth of that definition is such that the scenario that you described. [2:23:08] Councilor: So then continuing down this road, to use photography in police work in Auburn, Maine, one would need to use a film camera, get it developed, never scan it into a computer or anything, it would have to remain actual printed film photography stock, or else it would be in violation of this potentially correct, I mean even [2:23:35] City legal counsel: then I you know it would have to be fed through a database at some point likely in order to determine the identity, I think it opens up like real can of worms, yeah [2:23:54] Mayor (presiding officer): so perhaps I can give a real-life example here to illustrate the concern about these unintended consequences, so I appreciate representative Edwards observations about the students and I don't think there's anybody sitting up here that thinks otherwise, I don't think there's support on the council to run cameras around the city just filming everybody that goes by, capturing their license plate number, converting it into a database and storing that, especially with someone that's not directly within our control, but we had a case here in Auburn, I was a sergeant of state police supervising homicide cases in this part of the state, and we had a murder in the city of Auburn, and the state police and Auburn police went around every ATM machine, every store, every person in the area that had some type of camera, won't date myself about how many years ago this was, but there is exponentially more cameras today than there were, I assigned two detectives 16 hours a day for seven straight days to review those films, to write down the license plate number of every vehicle that was captured on those videos, to then manually run these license plate numbers to find out what happened. If that happened today, it would take months for detectives, two detectives, to review view all the video, not automated license plate reader video, just video from people's security cameras, ATMs, their ring doorbells, and we could take that video and we could locally, completely within the police department's control, run that through a piece of software and look at hundreds and hundreds of hours of video in less than a day, capture every license plate number that's on there and read it and spit that out. I don't think there's anybody at the high school or in the community that would say that we should impede significant criminal investigations in that way, even if they're opposed to the type of operating methodology that the flock cameras use. So, again, I think there's work to be done to respond to the concerns that Representative Boyer and Representative Chapman and Representative Libby brought forward when they initiated this petition. But I think there's significantly more work to be done to make sure we're focusing on regulating the activity we really want to prohibit without hamstringing law enforcement investigations that we don't intend to impede. Other questions or comments by the counsel? Not seeing any, I'll review the process because there's been a couple questions here. So when we take the vote, if the councilor's intention is to adopt the citizen's initiative as a city ordinance, as written, because the council has no authorization to amend the petition, you would be voting yes. If you don't intend to adopt the citizen's initiative as an ordinance through council action, you'd be voting no. IF YES PERVAILS TONIGHT, THIS, AS WITH ALL ORDINANCES, WILL GO TO SECOND READING, AND IF IT'S ENACTED AT SECOND READING, THE LANGUAGE OF THE PETITION WOULD BECOME A CITY ORDINANCE FIVE days after final enactment if no prevails the clerk will return to the council with a proposed order setting a special election for the initiative to go before the Auburn voters no sooner than 120 days from tonight and no later than six months as that is the Charter provision for bringing a citizens initiative vote for the voters. So with that, is the council ready for the [2:28:40] Councilor: question or how serene our ALPR readers legal in Maine can we use them or is there 's legislature that says that we can't use them anyway I [2:29:01] City legal counsel: don't believe the legislature has adopted any law at this time it prevents their you well [2:29:08] Mayor (presiding officer): Well, just to correct that, there's no prohibition on ALPRs in the state statute. There is regulatory language around ALPRs that limit them to certain law enforcement purposes, to limit the retention of the data for 21 days. I don't recall all the provisions. We reviewed this in the past. So, under certain circumstances, the use of ALPRs is authorized by the state statute. [2:29:45] City legal counsel: Yeah, I would agree. I mean, they're regulated, but they're not unlawful. [2:29:51] Councilor: What is the cost for a special election? Madam Clerk? [2:29:58] Staff (elections/clerk): With staff time, and if it is a special consolidated election to one polling place, it would significantly reduce the cost. For this time period, we would be looking somewhere in January to March, so I would say it would be the cost of election of up to three election workers, and then to have the building open for 13 hours for an election, so and we'd be hand counting or tabulating, so the costs of programming a tabulator can be up to $2,000, so we'd have one tabulator likely. [2:30:35] Mayor (presiding officer): Any further questions from the council? Councilor, ready for the question? The vote will be by roll call. The clerk will call the roll. Councilor Cowan? No. Councilor Duvall? [2:30:47] Staff (elections/clerk): No. Councilor Butler? No. Councilor Walker? No. Councilor Platt, I'm sorry, Councilor Geary? No. Councilor Randall? [2:30:56] Mayor (presiding officer): Yes. One having voted in the affirmative and four in the negative. The motion fails. As previously stated, the clerks instructed to bring an order before the council proposing a date for a special election no sooner than 120 days from today's date and no later than six months from today's date. The next item is ordinance one six zero nine zero eight two zero two six amending chapter 60 zoning of the city's code of ordinances regarding eliminating the number of people employed in sawmills within the agriculture and resource protection zoning district. This would be for first reading and a public hearing. As background for the council and the members of the public, the current ordinance limits sawmills so though only those that have four or fewer employees. This comes before us from the Planning Board who is recommending, as you see in the packet, to eliminate the reference to the number of employees. Is there a motion to approve? Moved by council walkers or a second, seconded by councillor duvall. We'll open a public hearing if there's any member of the public would like to address the council on this issue. Please approach the podium and provide your name and address. Stephen [2:32:23] Public commenter (Johnson Road resident): b0575 johnson road As some of you are aware, I was a member of a large group of citizens three years ago which did a major revision of the Agriculture and Resource Protection Zone. There were three members of the planning staff in a smaller drafting group. Mr. Cousins was a member of that drafting group, as was Mr. Cleveland as a private citizen, and myself and three others. We amended hundreds of lines of text and introduced many new lines and added and subtracted dozens of individual paragraphs. Things that were in need of major improvement at the time, this particular section was not amended simply because we had much other work to do and didn't deem this essential to our work at that time. I would say though, as a woodlot owner and person who has been and quite a number of mills, that the technology has changed so much in the operation of sawmills that a limit of four people to work in a sawmill doesn't have much relevance to the amount of wood that can be sawn in a mill in a given period of time. Furthermore, limiting a sawmill operation or other language of that sort to four employees might well include a person at the desk, a truck driver, and only two people operating a sawmill, so this numerical delineation is no longer relevant, and it's not useful in the ordinance, and I would recommend its deletion, as has been proposed. [2:34:07] Mayor (presiding officer): As any other member of the public would like to address the council, please approach the podium and provide your name and address. Not seeing any, the public hearing is closed. As we go to discussion by the council, I point out, Mr. DiCarlo, the planning director is here and available to answer any questions that you might have about the planning board's deliberation or the planning department's thought on. So questions or comments from the council? Is the council ready for the question? The vote will be by roll call. The clerk will call the roll. Councillor Dufault? Yes. Councillor Butler? Yes. Councillor Walker? Yes. Councillor Gary? Yes. Councillor Randall? Yes. Councillor Cowan? Yes. Six having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative. The motion is adopted at first reading. The next item is order 8409212026 authorizing the city manager to execute the collective bargaining agreement between the City of Auburn and the Maine State Employees Association service employees in a national union local 1989 covering the period of July 1st 2026 to June 30th 2029 and you'll There's a synopsis provided by the assistant city manager in your packet, but for the public a high level summary is 4% market adjustment For FY 26 on the wage scale effective 7-1-26, Effective 1-1-27, a 3% COLA, and in FY27, a 4% COLA on July 1st, and in the final year, July 28th, a 4% COLA on July 1st of 2028. There's changes to the paid family medical leave language, new language on bereavement leave, updated language on overtime and on-call duties, changes to the comp time banking maximum, new parks labor or wage scale, moving an inventory tech position from this unit into the public works mechanics unit, and language updating on class a requirements and out of class. A is there a motion to move by council Walker? Is there a second by councillor Cowan? If any member of the public would like to address the council on this item, please approach the podium and provide your name and address. Not seeing any, the public comment is closed. Discussion by the council, geary. Thank [2:36:50] Councilor: you, mr mayor. When you talk about service employees, that's does that cover just the non-union employees or is this going to cover all the union employees? [2:37:01] Mayor (presiding officer): This is union employees covered by the Maine State Employees Association, the Service Employees International Union Local 1989, and the assistant city manager or city manager can probably give you a synopsis of the type of positions covered. [2:37:22] Staff (solid waste/finance): It's on page 6 of the actual collective bargaining agreement. Actually lists all the positions but just says, you know, it's mostly that mid-level and technicians as well as front office providing services, so administrative assistants, the electricians office, planning assistant, code a court officer, crime analysts, firing EMS support specialist, admin GA office, IT technician, our information assistants, ice arena maintenance workers, parking enforcement officers, rec specialists, and tax assistant and economic specialists. Some of those positions we may not have in use, but they're still part of the collective bargaining. Thank you. Other questions or [2:38:21] Mayor (presiding officer): comments from the council? Ready for the question? The vote will be by show of hands. All those in favor, six having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, the motions adopted. The next item is order 8509212026 authorizing the city manager to execute the collective bargaining agreement between the city of auburn and the teensters local 340 for auburn public works covering the period of july 1st 2026 to june 30th 2029. As a synopsis of this item is a FY 26 4 market adjustment and a two percent performance on wage scale effective July 1st, 2026, and FY 27 a three percent COLA and a two, excuse me, 2.5 percent performance increase on July 1st, 2027, and in FY 28 a three percent caller and 2.5 percent performance on July 1st, 2028. Adds the recreation specialist to the clothing allowance article, updated language regarding holidays, updated language regarding personal days, increased HRA amounts under Article. Sorry, do I have the wrong one? Yeah, it should be the... Oops, sorry. Yep, my error. Okay, I got this backwards. So this is the 4% market on FY26, effective 7-1-26 on January 1st, a 27, a COLR of 3%, 4% COLR on July 1st, 27, and an FY28 of 4% on July 1st, changes to the paid family medical leave changes to bereavement leave on OT and on-call duties comp time banking new wage scale for parks labor moving in from inventory tech position to the public work mechanics unit and updating the class a requirements about a class a is there a motion to move by council walkers are second seconded by councillor Duvall Any member of the public I'd like to address the COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM AND PROVIDE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS NOT SEEING ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED DISCUSSION BY THE COUNCIL UM JUST QUICK SO [2:41:00] Councilor: I BELIEVE THAT YOU ACTUALLY READ THIS SYNOPSIS TWICE SO I THINK WE SHOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE SYNOPSIS FOR THE PREVIOUS ONE WAS INCORRECT RATHER THAN UH YEAH THANK YOU [2:41:15] Mayor (presiding officer): You it is correct for this item but unfortunately it's correct for this one but for the previous one in the wrong order in the packet thank you are there other questions or comments council ready for the question what will be by show of hands all those in favor six having voted an affirmative and none in the negative the motions adopted we'll move on to reports so i have a few things to report regarding the comprehensive plan the prompt plan committee approved the draft comprehensive plan and They have presented it to the City Council and the Planning Board last week the Planning Board will continue their deliberations on September 23rd at 6 p.m. Here in the council chambers, so members of the public will have an opportunity to observe the planning board's deliberation on Wednesday, October 14th at 6 p.m. here in the council chambers. There'll be a public hearing. This is the predominant opportunity for the public to come in and provide their comments to the planning board, plan committee, and city council, and again, that's on October 14th. I want to thank Chief Chase for coordinating the 9 11 remembrance event down at Festival Plaza. I think they did an excellent job. I appreciate a number of council members is also attending. Thanks to all of the city staff for the Blues and Brews festival. You know, great job by our folks at community engagement, communication, police, fire, public works. A lot of behind the scenes work that goes on to make this happen, but they couldn't have had better weather. It was a really great event for everyone. I attended the MEREDA, which is Main Real Estate Developer Association conference last week. I typically have one in the spring and the fall. I go to them. Very interesting, it's always informative, and I would say that a lot of the actions that the city's taking regarding the comp plan and the forthcoming recartification of the ordinances, which will help drive the accomplishment of our housing goals that the council adopted, I think that most of the major issues that the development community have, we are addressing. So I took that is positive feedback, and this last weekend I attended the Black Poster Project, which was held over in Lewiston, which is a memorial to people that died of drug and alcohol overdoses. I had a chance to speak. It's a very impactful event. If it comes back, I would urge all of the counselors to attend. I think the biggest takeaway is that as you walk through hundreds and thousands of posters of people that have died from overdoses and look at their story and see their pictures, it's just like everybody else in the community. I think people have sometimes a skewed vision of what goes on with substance abuse disorder order, and that is very narrowly affecting a certain segment of our community, but it's quite broad based, and if they come back next year, I would urge everyone to go over and participate with that. Council Geary, nothing [2:45:30] Councilor: at this time. Thank you. Council Randall, nothing. Thank you. [2:45:33] Mayor (presiding officer): Council Carlin, nothing tonight. Council Duvall, nothing tonight. Council Butler, I just want to [2:45:39] Councilor: put a shout out for the women's literary union of andrew scoggin county who is really looking for membership and support so if anybody's interested look them up and i think they have a membership [2:45:50] Leroy Walker, Councilor Ward 5: Meeting Monday night coming up. Council Walker. Thank you. We have a neighborhood watch meeting this Thursday night, six o'clock at the Six Street Congregational Church. Thank you, Council. [2:46:05] Councilor: Council Collins. Sorry, one thing I did intend, just so people are aware, the Auburn Public Library's annual meeting is tomorrow night at the library, first floor and ground floor in the Ennis-Chicago Community Room, 615. [2:46:21] Mayor (presiding officer): Thank you, Representative Edwards. [2:46:23] Brendan Edwards, Student Representative: All right, field hockey win against Lewiston, girls soccer's also won against Lewiston, and then the rest of the week, we have field hockey tomorrow against Camden Hills, volleyball against Deering tomorrow,, boys soccer will play Bangor at home on Thursday. There's 250 days till graduation, and the yearbook class is asking for ad purchases from local businesses. If you are interested in purchasing one, please reach out to our school. Representative Robin. [2:46:49] Owen Robinson, Student Representative: Tomorrow the high school has NWA testing for grades nine and 10. There's a two hour delay for grades 11 and 12. National Honor Society members are now tutoring for grades nine through 11. And lastly, today we asked the city to join our school in remembering Mr Edward Little, who passed on September 21st, and marks the anniversary of Mr Little's death in 1849, whose life and contributions helped shape the history of our community. Edward Little was a respected citizen whose generosity supported education and growth of Lewiston and Auburn. So please let us honor his memory by pursuing excellence and using our talents to [2:47:25] Mayor (presiding officer): make our community stronger. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr Manager. Thank you, Mayor. [2:47:30] Staff (solid waste/finance): Here. Representative Robinson, thank you for sharing that. I think it's important that we don't forget those nuggets of our history and how valuable they are for us to remember. So appreciate that. Just for the council and the public's information, Auburn Hall will be closed this Wednesday from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. This is the annual staff recognition luncheon. And so we put that on the social media. We'll make sure that folks are aware of it as well. And it'll be [2:47:59] Mayor (presiding officer): Noted on the on the doors, thanks, thank you. We'll move on to the second open session of the evening. If there's any member of the public who'd like to address the council on items not on the agenda, please approach the podium and provide your name and address. Not seeing any, the open session is closed. The council dealt with the two executive sessions that are on the agenda in the period between the workshop and the start of the regular council meeting. There's no further business to come before the council. Is there a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. Moved by Councilor Walker, seconded by Councilor Randall. All those in favor? The council is adjourned.