City Council - Regular Meeting

The June 1st, 2026 Auburn City Council workshop will be called to order. There's a single item on the workshop agenda tonight, review of the draft ordinance for the syringe service program. There's background. for the council and the public that might be watching. There's been considerable discussion over the past months by the council first regarding the moratorium and then regarding a draft ordinance. And when we last discussed this, we were waiting for the CDC to promulgate their rules pursuant to the recent legislative changes. So they've done that. We've worked with staff to try to encapsulate the policy areas that the council had identified during the workshops into the draft ordinance and sort of the framework of how this will operate You'll recall that currently the possession, sale, and distribution of hypodermic syringes is legal to undertake. There's no requirement for licensure or certification to distribute syringes. The state CDC has the syringe service program in which Applicants can become certified and the benefit to that is they have access to the CDC funding for running their syringe service program the way this is Ordinance is constructed is that it relies fundamentally on the state of Maine syringe service program rules, which is it 10-144 code of Maine rules at chapter 252 So as you'll see as we go through the ordinance, we're requiring operators of syringe service programs in the city to be certified. So all of the provisions of the Chapter 252 rules will apply. uh... the ordinance does not try to restate all of those rules that relies on them and the focus of the ordinance is the additional requirements that the city would place on an operator of a syringe service program So I'll give a brief overview of the rule. It's included in the packet. I'll touch on the highlights of what's in the rule, and then what's in the draft ordinance, and then we'll open it up for discussion by the council regarding the ordinance. The way that the rule is constructed, it follows statutory definitions. There's three types of syringe service operations. There's brick and mortar sites. These are permanent buildings within an approved operation area. For the purposes of the city, the operation area would be the whole city or some portion of the city as defined by the SSP applicant when they apply to the state under the rules. It could have a permanent site, although they're not required to have one. They could have a permanent site within the operation area. They can have mobile sites. This gets a little confusing, the way they set the terms up. Mobile or temporary or rotating variable site that have to be defined in the plan to the state ahead of time. So as an example, that an SSP could set up an operation and have a mobile site, say, at the resource center on Mill Street, and say they're going to be there the first Wednesday of every month. They can have a fixed or variable schedule, but they have to declare these ahead of time in the rule, and then The third operating method is delivery services. They have to be within the operation area. They do not have to declare the actual physical locations in which delivery will take place. It can be any place within the operation area. And for all of us, we would think of this more as mobile, right? Some type of a mobile operation could be, say, outreach workers dealing with people in a particular location. So there's, I won't go into all the details, there's specific application requirements, certain information that has to be provided by the applicant to the state, including some assertions of public notice, proof of delivery of public notice, certain assertions of compliance with local rules. When the state does their background check on the applicants, you'll see that there are a suitability review includes the applicant's record. In this case, the state, it's over a five-year period, including criminal convictions. ability to comply with applicable laws, ability to provide safe public services, management and oversight experience, experience in healthcare, public health, social services, HIV, substance abuse, disorder prevention, and treatment. They also have to comply with certain operating requirements. They have to stay within the syringe exchange ratio set by the CDC. Can only provide syringes to people that are 18 years old or older. They cannot charge the participants. They have to provide staff identification. They have to provide certain notifications to the consumer of their Services regarding the operating rules of the SSP provide certain mandated training to staff. They have to meet certain delivery service restrictions. So in the state rule, there's no particular restrictions on brick and mortar or mobile. But there is, in the rule, a restriction on delivery services cannot be made within 1,000 feet from any state approved primary or secondary school property. There's ongoing notification requirements that if there's any changes by the operator, they have to notify CDC within two business days. There's extensive data reporting on at least a monthly basis regarding the operation. There's significant record keeping rules for the operator to keep certain records in compliance with CDC rules. And there is contained the ability of CDC to conduct inspections, and they can suspend or revoke a license of an operator. So the city draft ordinance goes beyond, in a number of areas, goes beyond the requirements set forth by the CDC. The city requires emergency contact information. And the ordinance will require significantly more information about the business operator and the legal owner. There's requirements for, if it's a brick and mortar site, floor plans and more specific identification of location of the operation. There are additional requirements beyond the state's operation plan, including more information about the population to be served, staffing requirements, security provisions, traffic and parking demands, which are all more specific than in the state rule. There's a requirement for good neighbor community engagement policy that requires certain engagement with the community within 250 feet of any brick and mortar or mobile site. There's also rules regarding prohibition of drug use on the site, mechanisms to make public safety calls for services. There's more extensive criminal history background check requirements in addition to the current licensing provisions in the city ordinance that requires a criminal history record check not only of the applicant but of all staff and volunteers. except for volunteers that are intermittent and are under the direct supervision of licensed staff. And it extends the period for which Class A, B, or C crime related to controlled substance or violence to a prior conviction within 10 years, which is five years beyond the period in the state rule. It requires more extensive disclosure of all prior names used by the applicant. It requires, upon submission of the application, the most recent data reports made to the CDC. It requires compliance of city land use. ordinances. It limits brick-and-mortar and mobile sites to the T51526, GB1 and GB2 zones. The important things here is it would prohibit brick-and-mortar and mobile from residentially zoned areas, requires a school setback not only the 1,000 feet required in the state rule for delivery, but 250 feet for brick and mortar and mobile sites and prohibits co-location with for-profit businesses other than social service or healthcare organizations. There are additional operating requirements in the city ordinance as a cap on the number of certified SSPs to limit to no more than two to be active at any one time. It imposes hours of operation restrictions. There's no restriction on hour operations in the state rule. The proposed ordinance limits operations to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 1 to 5 on Sunday. Prohibits drug use on or near the premises. This, again, is in addition to the state rule. requires that ID on staff and volunteers be visible not just that they have it available but it's publicly visible on their person requires sharps disposal containers to be installed in brick and mortar and mobile sites requires litter inspections within 250 feet of brick and mortar or mobile site at the conclusion of the business each day and requires inspection in the immediate area of any delivery upon the completion of the delivery. There's cleanliness and maintenance standards related to the premise and any vehicles that are used for delivery. Since the state rule has no reporting requirements to the municipality in which an SSP might operate, there are rules in the proposed ordinance for notification of the city clerk and any change in the certification status and for the reporting of the data requirements and the reporting requirements to the state that that same information be provided to the city. There's requirements that for record inspections that give the city the same A right to inspect the records that the CDC would have requires a city license and this closely follows the current business licensing process that's in the ordinance. and gives the city inspection rights not only to physical facilities that might be used for brick and mortar or for mobile, but also inspection rights to any vehicles that might be used. So that's a quick overview. I'm not sure if staff, Mr. Holmes from Community Development And Ms. Edwards from Public Health to here, if there's anything I missed in the overview that we should add. I don't believe so.

I hit all the spots and a lot more than what I probably would have brought up.

Thank you. So thoughts or discussion by the council? Council Randall.

I appreciate the work that went into drafting the ordinance, but while reading through it, I had like four questions. Do you want all the questions at once, or do you want me to do them one at a time?

Yeah, let's do them one at a time.

So clarification, you mentioned that for the school distance section that the state requires 1,000 feet. We are adding 250 feet to that for a total of 1,250?

Now, so the state does not require any separation from schools for brick-and-mortar or mobile sites. You could be in the adjoining parcel pursuant to the CDC rules. with what's now called delivery, which is a new authorization by the legislature, for delivery, since you're not declaring the location in your operating plan ahead of time, you're just going within the operating area, you're limited in that you cannot do delivery within 1,000 feet of the school. So what we've added is a 250-foot separation for brick and mortar and mobile sites from a school.

So that'll make mobile $1,250?

No. We've added, it's zero now, and we've established in the draft ordinance a 250-foot separation for brick and mortar and for mobile. Well, let's see if there's other comments on that particular point.

That wasn't actually my question.

I do, but she can keep going if you want to just rattle them off.

Yeah, I just wanted to see if there was any comments about the separation.

Oh, no, sorry.

So I support the school distance protections. I'm glad to see them in there. I see general enforcement and inspection language elsewhere in the draft, but I'm trying to understand how the school buffer concerns would work in practice. So if there's alleged activity that occurs too close to a school, what is the process in the ordinance that governs review, correction, and...

Yes, so the enforcement mechanisms rely on the current enforcement mechanisms related to business licenses in the statute, excuse me, in the ordinance, current ordinances. So if there was a complaint that would be referred to code enforcement, they would do the investigation of the complaint, and they would then provide the information from that investigation to the clerk. If it was an apparent violation, the clerk would take action pursuant to the current business license ordinance for violation of the ordinance.

I also saw that it included the cleanup expectations, shops, containers, and remediation requirements. My question is how accountability works if there are recurring neighborhood concerns despite those requirements. How does the complaint go from complaint enforcement and corrective action in practice? Is it the same way?

Same process. Sure. That's fine. Go ahead.

And then since Maine updated its rules specifically to allow the mobile delivery services, we're not eliminating that possibility, correct?

Correct. So actually the legislature modified the enacting statute to extend SSP services to include delivery and the CDC as often happens with statutory enactments was promulgating more specific rules around how to implement that delivery.

All right, and then my last question, for now, is whether the standards are objective enough for, okay, hold on, let me see, include suspension and revocation in appeals processes. I just want to make sure that the standards are objective enough, that the expectations are clear, enforcement will be applied consistently over time with new councils and such.

Well, I think that the, I guess that's in the eye of the beholder. When you read the draft ordinance, if you think it's objective enough, the enforcement mechanism and the appeals processes, the current process that's set forth for business licenses already, I think that that works fairly well. Mr. Manson?

Yeah, so if you look at under Article II licenses, Section 1427, That's where it really outlines penalty. So this business would fall in under all other licenses that are issued by the city. And so when it comes to penalties, the language is pretty clear on the civil penalty that is allowable. It ranges somewhere around $100, I think up to a couple thousand dollars, depending on the violation for each offense. And that's really built on severity, the number of offenses that might be worked through that. But then as the mayor said, there is a process for the appeal, there's a process for that all to take place. But what we wanted to ensure was that we already have all that language for all other licenses, so we stayed consistent with that. So you won't see it within the language of that specific license, just because it reverts back and it'll be under that article, so it'll all be compliance with that. So it's consistent across every massage license or any other license that we might have, all falls under the same.

Thank you.

Other questions or thoughts? Council Platt.

Thank you. Those are great questions and I think are in line with kind of where I'm going. I like the way the ordinance is written. I appreciate the dialed up language for application and the vetting process. My concern continues to be I think what think what council Randall was getting at and what I think the major concern of you know the average constituent is which is the threat of loitering and litter not to say that that actually occurs but it's the thought of it and so again I appreciated the daily checks within 250 feet I think that's important my concern is is the teeth which is what council Randall was getting at My only concern is because it's such a sensitive business type, call it, and we lump it in with all other businesses. I mean, the odds of us being able to do anything based on the nuances of this business type are very low. I can only liken it to the industry that I know, which is cannabis. I operate in that space. you know in that industry for example I think we have we've created a increased set of rules things that address things like odor I don't think we have the same odor ordinances for Burger King or McDonald's that's fine I support something like that I just I question if The current mechanisms in place give us the teeth. For example, if there are complaint after complaint after complaint about loitering, not drug use. I understand drug use would be a breach of the law. We would have the teeth to go after that. But if there are just complaints after complaints after complaints, it would be tough for me to say to a constituent, sorry, there's nothing we can do. It's treated just like a massage parlors. So I understand how we would deal with things currently. I don't know if it's appropriate to regulate a certain type of business different than others. I know that in many cases, that's not okay, right? We're not allowed to do that. However, with something like cannabis, we can. So I'm just curious about that conversation. My concerns continue to be loitering and littering. I guess very briefly the suggestions that I might offer up, you know, I wonder could there be a you know Because we're only awarding two of these could there be a six-month review? After one year rather than just sending it to the clerk for approval. Could there be another vote? Some municipalities do that with cannabis licenses. So I don't know what would be appropriate and fit for Auburn, but I Just a thought I'm having

Yeah, so there's quite a lot packed in there. So let me start at the end. The reason to vote, the clerk will issue the licenses like the clerk does with other businesses, licenses based on the ordinance. So they don't come before the council.

Understanding that, my suggestion was perhaps we have a system that does require that at six months or a year. I don't know if that's allowed or not. Maybe it's inappropriate to have something like that.

Well, I think we would need to check with legal counsel about that because the way this is currently constructed is the clerk, based on the ordinance, issues the licenses. If there's violations, the clerk can take action to suspend or revoke that license. The appeal is to the city council. So we would need to talk to legal about what entanglement there might be if the council is issuing the license as well.

Yeah, I think it's about standardization. And so the ordinance should standardize the requirements that any business has. And as long as they've met that, then the clerk can issue the license. The question would be, what else would you want to see by the applicant, right? And if there is more, then I think that gets to probably more of the legal question. Like, if you set the standard, then they just have to meet the standards. And so if there's something within the standard that we're not meeting yet that we think that there's, the council feels like we should be doing, then we should just set it in the ordinance. So that way there is just, you have to meet that process, and if you don't, then you will be, you'll be rejected, you know, denied, rather, and then, as the mayor said, you have that appeal process come back.

guess as an example again to further counselor Randall's theoretical situations so what would happen if within a 250 foot radius there were repeated complaints about litter I don't know that that's a violation of any ordinance or law let's say they're going out every day and doing their checks but there's just an inordinate amount of complaints and for whatever reason it's not a palpable location for our For our constituent, you know, I can see something like this playing out. So what would we have to look our constituents in the eye and say, I'm sorry, they're a business that's compliant? Or would we have to say, listen, we gave this a shot. Our ordinance wasn't tight enough. We're going to change our ordinance. But to me, aren't there legal issues with operating businesses? I mean...

So I guess I would offer that there's lots of businesses that there's people that are nearby that don't like those businesses and don't want them there. So I think the role of the council is to set reasonable standards. And to your earlier question, you can regulate this business different from other businesses. We don't require other businesses today that have a business license like a gas station to, at the close of every business day, check for litter within 250 feet of the gas station. But because of the particular issues here, we�re doing that. So to follow up on the manager�s statement, I think that if there�s concerns about the requirements under which an SSP would have to operate, then those should be put into the ordinance. If there are complaints, and those complaints are founded by an investigation by the code enforcement office, then the clerk will take appropriate action regarding suspension or revocation of the individual's license as they would with any other business. So I agree that we've all heard a lot of feedback from citizens about litter. I think what we've also heard is that All of the evidence shows that there's less needle waste when there's an SSP than when there isn't. And there's better relations with the people in the area when there's a proactive engagement plan by the SSP with the people that are within the immediate area so they can develop a relationship with them. make sure they understand how to make their concerns known to the SSP and how the SSP will respond.

I guess, just so I can be clear on my end, I'm not concerned about SSPs fundamentally at large. I'm actually concerned about the bad player. I'm concerned that we have only two shots to let in the right players, and what if we let in the wrong one? um that that's my concern is do we how quickly can we and i don't mean to disparage you know the the church of safe injection across the river but clearly towards the end of their tenure in lewiston things weren't looking good so my question is how quickly could we respond to that that's really what i'm getting so the term term of the license is a year but there's no limitation on

uh... action by the clerk for violation of the ordinance so you know we've all seen a range of operators most seem to do well when you talk to the various communities but there have been some that have been problematic so I think the council, as they discuss this, pointed out a number of items that have been put into the draft, and I think there's no limit. A month after somebody gets a license, if there's apparent violations, code enforcement will investigate those, and depending on the nature of the violation, if they're founded, the clerk can take action. Mr. Mayor? Sorry?

I was reminded when Councillor Platts mentioned the limit of two. I don't disagree with having a limit, but I question having a limit. So if we implemented this with the limit of two, with a review process after a year, and we've reviewed all of the data, complaints, compliance, geographical access, if things are going great and the data, the actual data, not us guessing, shows that this is great, then we are able to maybe at that point, because we have the review process, add more. And also on the flip side, if we go through that process and we find out that these are really not doing very well for us, we're not getting the results we thought we were going to get, we could scale down to one at that point. But having the review process sounds like something that might be in our benefit.

Yeah, so I think we discussed this at length during an earlier workshop. THERE'S AN INHERENT REVIEW PROCESS EVERY TWO WEEKS IN THE CITY COUNCIL WHEN WE MEET. SO I THINK THE IDEA WITH LIMITING IT TO TWO IS TO TRY TO PUT SOME GUIDE RAILS AROUND THIS TO BEGIN WITH SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF OPERATORS COMING IN. IT'S A MANAGEABLE NUMBER TO WORK WITH. AND IF AS WE GO ALONG, WE FIND the council thinks that they should have more than two licenses, then we can amend the ordinance to add two. If we think it's problematic and we should only have one, then we could amend the ordinance to do that. So I don't think you need to put any particular review into the ordinance itself because based on what we observe actually happening uh... with uh... licensed SSPs the council can then make amendments as necessary not just to the number but if we find that there are certain requirements in the ordinance that make it prohibitive to operate or we find that there's concerns that we haven't yet identified that need to be added to the ordinance, then the council can modify and amend the ordinance as necessary.

And I would just add to clarify that even if they already have the license and the council makes that change, it's just a notification of that business. We've done that with taxi cabs, marijuana businesses, special amusement permits. All of those we've, if there's something that comes up that it seems like there's an issue or an identified problem and it's addressed by ordinance, then we just make the, we bring it before the council for an amendment. Those businesses get notified. Now they must be in compliance with the new changes.

one other unrelated thought this may already be but would it be beneficial for the city to have a requirement that someone from the approved entity sits on like the homelessness committee or one of our municipal committees that has overlap with an SSP would that be overreach for us to say that their director needs to you know I'm just thinking about what ways can we require engagement. I think it's important that they have engagement municipally, which they will anyway, because they're gonna be an SSP in this municipality. But I think that type of connection breeds more connection with community.

Yeah, I think that we currently have a seat, councilor Cowan will remember this. I think there's one specific to mental health service provider and another one specific to drug treatment, is that right, service provider, that the idea behind that is that they'll have ongoing relationships with people in that community. I don't know, it's something to think about. I don't know that there'd be a specific benefit. Council Cowan you might weigh in on this so you're at all the homeless committee meetings as well as whether that My concern would be if you Are you going to put both of them on there or just one?

That's where my head was going as well I I THINK CERTAINLY ANOTHER OPTION WOULD BE WE WOULD INVITE, WE COULD INVITE THOSE ENTITIES TO COME IN, YOU KNOW, PERIODICALLY ONCE A YEAR, COME IN AND TALK TO US HOW THINGS ARE GOING AND TRY TO DO THAT. WE DO THAT WITH, SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, THE SHELTER. WE GOT AN UPDATE FROM THE FOLKS RUNNING THE SHELTER IN TERMS OF INFORMATION FROM SERVICES PROVIDED OVER THE PAST WINTER. So that would be another way to do it. But I think because we already have it's intentionally built so that committee has a representative for that so starting to double up or I think it could be a challenge but I guess to close, I wouldn't recommend necessarily that they be required to sit on it, but I think that we would certainly, we could, Jennifer does a great job of keeping track of the types of things we want to make sure come in front of that group on a regular basis, and so this would definitely be one of them on the radar.

PSY options, they are all very actively engaged with the committee, so this council cowan said besides a shelter trinity has been and the uh... the folks that do coordinated entry uh... i think it would be important for that group that establish a relationship uh... You know, if it's one locally authorized SSP, which is Spurwink, they are already very actively engaged with the Homelessness Committee. Mr. Manager?

I think under the application process, there is the good neighbor community engagement policy. And I think that outlines that they must maintain relationships with the local community, they must demonstrate that they are engaged with and have some expectations that they will be involved in those conversations. So I do think that probably covers it. But it's one we can revisit if it's not.

Other thoughts or questions? Councilor DeWolf.

YEAH, THANKS. SO I HAVE A FEW ABOUT LOCATION. SO WE'VE LIMITED IT TO THOSE ZONES. CAN WE GET A MAP OF, LIKE, ONCE WE APPLY THE EXCLUSION OF SCHOOLS AT SOME POINT, LIKE, I CAN LOOK AT WHERE THE ZONES ARE. THAT'S EASY. BUT HOW MUCH OR MAYBE A BETTER QUESTION TO ASK NOW WOULD BE HOW MUCH DO THOSE 250-FOOT EXCLUSIONS. I THINK WE HAVE THAT.

DON'T WE HAVE THAT? WELL, WE HAD ONE EARLIER IN THE PROCESS. IT'S BEEN SLIGHTLY AMENDED, BUT WHEN WE GET TO FIRST READING, THE STAFF CAN PROVIDE SOMETHING SIMILAR. IT SHOWS THE OUTLINE OF ALL THE ZONES, AND THEN IT SHOWS A THOUSAND-FOOT BUFFER AROUND ALL OF THE DOE CERTIFIED SCHOOLS.

OKAY. GREAT. THE SECOND QUESTION I HAVE IS IF WE LOOK IN TERMS OF CITING MOBILE SITES, THERE'S THIS FOR-PROFIT PREMISES EXCLUSION. DOES THAT MEAN, FOR EXAMPLE, I DON'T KNOW, THE COLES PARKING LOT, I CAN'T HAVE A MOBILE SITE IN THE COLES PARKING LOT. IS THAT CORRECT?

I DON'T THINK SO. I DON'T THINK YOU COULD HAVE IT IN COLE'S BUILDING. I DON'T THINK SO.

I DON'T THINK YOU COULD HAVE IT IN COLE'S BUILDING. I DON'T THINK SO. I DON'T THINK THAT WAS THE I DON'T THINK THAT WAS THE I DON'T THINK THAT WAS THE INTENTION.

INTENTION. INTENTION. YOU CAN CO-LOCATE WITHIN YOU CAN CO-LOCATE WITHIN YOU CAN CO-LOCATE WITHIN WALGREENS OR COLE'S. WALGREENS OR COLE'S.

WALGREENS OR COLE'S. I UNDERSTAND IN THE SAME I UNDERSTAND IN THE SAME I UNDERSTAND IN THE SAME BUILDING. BUILDING. BUILDING. I'M THINKING ABOUT CITING THESE I'M THINKING ABOUT CITING THESE I'M THINKING ABOUT CITING THESE Locations particularly I'm looking at the PAL Center and that's you know 600 feet from general business Is that and and it's in a park like what how are we thinking about citing? Things relative like can we get delivery or a mobile center

you know if we could do it in the stables parking lot so then that's close to something where i think we might want to think about whether or not we want services there a couple comments i'd make about that i think that i give you a real life example so a number of years ago a prior life when i was at the state police there was a federal law enacted regarding sex offender registries and the state legislature started making these long list of how far you had to be from all these many many many things so we use portland as an example sex offender couldn't live in portland we went to lewiston couldn't live in lewiston we went to bangor couldn't live in bangor the thing that you need to think about is that lots of the types, once you start going down this road, lots of the types of things that you might identify are all throughout the city and you start putting these buffers in and pretty soon you've buffered out the whole city and the only places that it would be allowable are going to be out in these residential areas that are outside of the core. So the way to think about delivery is that, first, they don't have any more right to operate on someone else's private property than any other operation, right? So delivery would need to be in a public place.

I mean, is that how delivery is defined, or mobile? I would think mobile would have to be in a public place.

Yeah. uh... it is the same way right so so mobile they can't declare a fight to go to that they don't have permission to go to so they would have to have some type of an agreement with the owner of the property that they're going to mobile on and deliveries the same way delivery would have to be in a public space unless you had permission of the landowner.

It gets confusing. It gets confusing, this between delivery and mobile and everything. No, I mean, I think you're accurate. That's what's going to provide that protection is that they're going to need permission to be there.

So if I live in a general business district, which is allowed, I couldn't get delivery to my house apartment?

Yes, you could, but I think there might be some misconception that being DoorDash isn't what the SSPs do. SSPs aren't having somebody call them up and say, hey, bring some needles over to such and such a street apartment for. That's not the, I suppose they could do that, but under the CDC rule and the statute and under the ordinance, But typically, delivery services are coupled with outreach programs. So think about outreach workers going to a place where people who have substance abuse disorder congregate, like in a homeless encampment or a place like that. The idea is not that they're traveling from house to house. That's not typically the service that they're providing.

So it's not a matter that you can or can't. I think it's more a matter of like the business model itself. I mean, first of all, this is a not, I mean, nobody's making any money on this stuff. Yeah, no. To be good, actually, is it going to work?

Well, I mean, I understand, but it's not necessarily, it's not prohibited and it's not necessarily undoable.

Right. And just to follow up on the prior thing, delivery is, constrained to the operating area. So let's just say that the SSP declared to the CDC that their operating area was the city of Auburn. They could do delivery any place within Auburn. The bricks and mortar and the mobile sites are constrained to those particular zoning districts.

Wait, say that again?

Okay, so the way it's set up right now, if you have a brick and mortar site or mobile, and remember, the terms are a little funky here. Mobile isn't driving around, right? Mobile is I'm not at my brick and mortar fixed location, but it's a site that I've declared in my operating plan that I'm going to go to. So brick and mortar and mobile, they can only operate in those listed zoning districts. They can't operate, the idea there is that they're not operating out in residential neighborhoods. Delivery is limited. ONLY BY THE OPERATING AREA. AND THE IDEA THERE IS TO ALLOW FLEXIBILITY FOR THE SSP TO BE ABLE TO DO OUTREACH WHERE POPULATIONS OF PEOPLE ARE THAT COULD UTILIZE THE SERVICES.

AND JUST TO ADD TO THAT, UNDER POINT B, THE ONE RESTRICTION IS THAT THE DELIVERY CANNOT BE DONE WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF ANY SCHOOL. THAT'S CORRECT.

BUT SO ARE WE RESTRICTING THE OPERATING AREA OR IS THAT WE'RE JUST LETTING THE STATE SET THAT?

You're actually letting the SSP set it, and since it's within a municipal boundary, it would either be operating area would be all or part of the city. And the SSP would, in their application to the state, would declare their operating area.

Sorry, so the state in approving it then, in approving the application, sets the operating area. I mean, they declare where they want to operate, but then the state has to approve it.

Yeah, and from a practical matter, I don't think the state's going to limit their operating area. They're just asking them to declare in their application what it is. And if they meet the rest of the requirements, they'll get certified, and it will include the ability to operate within that operating area. And just to be clear, the state operating area includes brick and mortar, mobile, and delivery. So at the state level, other than the 1,000-foot restriction on delivery, if there was a state-certified FSP and they declared their operating area to be the city of Auburn, According to the state, other than the 1,000-foot rule for delivery, brick-and-mortar, mobile, and delivery could be anyplace else in the operating area. We're trying to constrain that more.

Council, I think I mean you're kind of sort of all you're raising some really important points, you know related to liver to delivery It's a fairly new Idea and so it's hard to know where people are really going to be going with that So, I you know, I hear your word of caution and I I WONDER, IT MIGHT BE WE SEE WHAT COMES IN ON OUR APPLICATIONS AND THEN MAYBE THAT CAN BE REPORTED BACK TO US. IF THERE'S CONCERNS, IT JUST, IF WE STARTED LIMITING IT, I THINK THAT REALLY BECOMES CHALLENGING IN TERMS OF, UNLESS WE WANTED TO SAY IF WE EVEN COULD, WE REALLY DON'T WANT TO HAVE DELIVERY AS A MODE, BUT I'M NOT SURE WE CAN FOR THE STATE STATUTES. IF WE ONLY SAID BRICK AND MORTAR OR MOBILE, because if we wanted, but I would err on the side of saying let's leave the delivery as it is, see what the applicants come in terms of what they're thinking about and then we can review that and better understand what that scope even means.

I think it's important, the intent. I mean, as someone said it, it's like the intent of a delivery service. Like this isn't, it's not an ice cream truck. People aren't going around making sales, right? It's also not someone going out with a thousand needles and dropping it in the middle of a park. This is like, these are like home visits or, you know, visiting a tent city or whatever. So if we're gonna start like regulating that with setback, I mean, what else are we gonna, are we also gonna regulate like home hospice visits? Are we gonna regulate like nurse visits? You know, this is like a medical visit. So I think the best thing we can do, I mean, setbacks from schools, I think parks is something to talk about. Yeah, and again, I can only respond to like, I'm backing off any public health stuff, right? We listen to the professionals, let's let them do their jobs. We can focus on our ordinance language so that it protects our citizens. Whether it's true or not, anecdotally, all I hear is litter and loiter. And I hear it within the 250 foot radius of the store. People I know who had businesses in Lewiston next to the needle exchange downtown didn't like what was happening down there. That's what I'm concerned about protecting. I don't want to get overly regulatory or compliance-heavy, personally.

Yeah, a couple of follow-ups to that. There's no difference in the... services provided through the delivery operation method, they're not just going to pull up and say, hey, I want some needles, right? They're still going to have the same process where they interview. We've heard this, right, through operators, the folks from Spurwink that operate the SSP currently in Lewiston about the process that they go through to make the determination. They still have to give them Public health they still have to offer offer the medical testing all of these types of things that they would offer So it it's not I Drive up There's a bunch of people there and I say hey you get Dirty needles you want to do a needle exchange this is still going to be the same process that they would have to go through as if they were at brick-and-mortar or they were at the fixed site and You know, and that's one of the reasons for enacting the ordinance, right? Because literally today, under the state statute, an 18-year-old with a knapsack full of needles and a skateboard could be zooming around downtown at 3 o'clock in the morning handing out needles, and there's no prohibition on that because you don't have to be certified. You only have to be certified if you want the assistance through the state program.

Great point, and my thoughts when I was talking about not really, you know, let's wait and see and see what the delivery is, is that, you know, would they be thinking about that that's only going to be a certain percentage, people that are a certain age that really can't get out, or, you know, it could be, we don't know what it's going to be, but I would imagine, to your point, Glenn, these are non-profit, and they're going to be as close to the vest as possible. They're not, this is not probably going to become 95% of their delivery modality.

I know somebody, I know it was the mayor or the manager that said it, that a big part of this is for the outreach piece of this because if they're certified and they're part of that organization, then all of a sudden if you see them somewhere talking to somebody in the woods, well, are they supposed to be doing that? And the one thing they have to bring to those people besides the education, the knowledge, and the help are the needles. And that's what gets people to have the conversation. So it's really, I think, a big part of it was that is the reason they've expanded this.

Yeah, the other point that I would make is, again, that a number of years ago, the legislature legalized possession of hypodermic apparatus without a prescription. You can order them up on Amazon. The delivery truck goes to people's houses today and delivers these exact same needles. You can go into Walgreens and CVF and buy them. There's home health services that are doing medical deliveries to people in Auburn every day that includes these exact same syringes. So I think It's an unknown, and that's not the modality that they're talking about, but if we see the reports and the data that they are gonna have to provide to the city and we see that this is of a concern, we can always then come back and amend the ordinance and put some other type of regulation in place. Councilor DeBell?

So yeah, I mean, I appreciate all this clarification. It's been very helpful. The one place I would flag that seems to fall through in how we've written our ordinance is the Powell Center. It's not a school. it's you know you could have delivery right right next to the pow center or wherever i just feel that feels like you know i don't know whether there are other places like that but that feels like a place that we wouldn't want this sort of activity the 250 feet would be fine i don't know we just it feels like we need something there

So I'll just give you my own two cents worth on this. I don't think there's any basis at all of the 1,000 feet. It's something that CDC made up in response to people. I called and I've asked, had several conversations with them to ask what's the basis of the 1,000 feet. There's none. They just created a number. So I understand the concern about the PAL Center. So if we do the PAL Center, what about the Boys and Girls Club? If we do the Boys and Girls Club, what about Salt and Light on Hampshire Street? What about all these other after school type programs, rec programs, things that are going on? And there's a balancing act here between having the ability to regulate the provider and and buffering them out of the city, right? Because once we go down this road and we say You know, for all intents and purposes, we're using the school thing not because there's any particular justification or data that shows that there's any risk whatsoever at schools, just because the CDC put this in their rule. So if we start adding things, we can do that, but we're going to have to then add every similarly situated operation and know where they are and set the buffers up.

The schools are not in the CDC ordinance. The schools are in the- The thousand feet of delivery is in the CDC ordinance.

Right, so the point being that the only thing that the CDC on a state level has identified for which there should be a buffer is a school for delivery. And my question to them was, so if I have a school, And I put on the next abutting lot, I can put bricks and mortar or mobile, and the answer was yes. And I said, in your risk assessment, if you don't see there is a significant risk to disallow brick and mortar on the abutting lot, why are you doing delivery? And they have no answer.

Yeah, no, I agree with that. I don't think that makes any sense at all. Nobody does. It makes no sense.

But to Counselor Duvall's point, we've chosen to implement a 250-foot buffer to schools, correct? The state is not requiring that. We are choosing to do that. So I think to Counselor Duvall's point, why not include a category that is the PAL Center and the Brotherhood? Since we have decided to add 250 to schools for a setback, for brick and mortar, Why not do that to organizations like PAL? Don't we see them as equal, PAL and the school?

Well, I guess I'll say the same thing when the council raised the 250 foot, we didn't talk about the exact number. We talked about a number of different numbers at workshop. And the council brought up schools. And I'll raise the same question I raised then. What are you basing that on? What's the risk analysis? And what data do you have to show? Because there is nothing to prevent all kinds of other activity on the sidewalk in a public place in front of the school that has the same or an elevated risk. Councilor Randall?

I think that maybe it may be arbitrary to put the school's buffer zone in. However, I think it makes the general public feel better that we're protecting the children from whatever they imagine or we imagine that they could be exposed to. So say they get their needles delivered and they're 200 feet from a school and then they decide to break the law. And again, I don't do these hypothetical type things because it's like in movies, but What if they decided to break the law and use their drugs there at the school? So maybe it makes the citizens feel better that we've put the buffer in at places like that, like the palace under the kids are just walking there and they're hanging out and their parents aren't there. And so like they can see this, they can walk right by it and they might feel better. I think that that might be the reason to put it in. I don't think that it really there's no data to support it, but I think it just makes people feel better.

Yeah, and 100%, I agree with what you're saying. And my point is, I can name you 200 or 300 other places in this city where kids have access to, kids congregate, all kinds of different programs. Where are you going to draw the line? because if we start going down this thing, are we going to say, okay, every place is a daycare, every place is an after school program, every place is some type of a recreational program, there's an arts and crafts program. Any place kids go, are we going to say we're going to draw the buffer around that? And I agree this, it's completely arbitrary because there is nothing in the law today to prevent someone who has substance abuse disorder from sitting on the sidewalk directly outside the school with hypodermic apparatus in their possession. And they're not being supervised at all, whereas the SSP will be supervising the activity there. So look, we can do this if the council wants to go down this road, but I think you should be prepared not just to be picking individual places. You need to articulate the conditions that will exist, and then we'll have to go back and identify every one of those places in the city and decide what the buffer is around that location.

What are the provisions for liquor, setbacks for liquor, like a bar? Could I open a bar next to the PAL Center?

You yeah we don't so there is there is a stipulation within state statute that created state created. An area called safe zones those safe zones were to put a layer of protection around areas where miners congregate and. And so we have those labeled. We have those within our GIS system. I'm not sure about alcohol. I don't know as if, I'm sure there's some kind of provision regarding a restriction for, as it pertains to probably a liquor store, but not necessarily a place that sells alcohol. I don't know that for sure, but my guess is there's something in that language.

When you apply for your license.

When you apply for your license. I'm sure there's, I know we have that language built into safe zones I believe it's as it pertains to marijuana establishments I think there was some language regarding that so like the mayor said we can we can show what that would look like I think the you know it's but we I think would make sense to use the language that the state has because then it's already captured but I think once you put that layer on I think it's going to get back to the area what we discussed earlier is you basically have blocked out any potential for sites to be established because there won't be any space left and you'd have to push it outside

Not to beat the horse dead, but I would be curious what the liquor setbacks are, only because those stores are everywhere. Clearly we haven't blocked those out of existence. And if there aren't setbacks from a place like PAL, then I guess I don't think there should be for needle exchanges. If there are... then maybe there should. I just think there should be parity. You know, if we're saying liquor's bad, kids watching, you know, people walk in and out of a place to get hypoderma needles is bad, then let's treat it the same. You know, I don't want to treat one thing this way, another thing this way, another thing this way. So I don't really have a horse in the race. I just, standardization, I think the city manager said earlier. That's what I would advocate for, standardization.

Yeah, so we can look and see. When you file an application for liquor, As Council Walker is pointing out, they have to list this. It's not just a school, it's a church. And there's probably some, apparently, at some point in time, churches were offended if they saw people buying liquor too near them or something. But we can see what that is. But it may also be for tobacco sales. This was at the legislature the last session. I can't remember how that came out. But we can gather that information about what the buffer is for alcohol and tobacco. 300 feet.

Look at 300 feet from us.

And it's only schools? Yep. Okay, well we have that answer.

Well, the recreation departments in Auburn, wherever there's kids, there's no smoking on premises. No smoking in the parks. Even the adults who are playing softball, they can't smoke in a park because it's considered where young kids come.

Thank you Mr. Holmes for looking that up. I'm in agreement with Councillor Platt that the parity is really important. I think we can start with the 250 or if we wanted to make it 300 we could, but around schools, see what we're getting for the applicants. Again, these are folks that are really out there to do a social service and a public health endeavor. I would be very surprised if these folks are going to think of a mobile site close to the pal center anyway you know so i think we these are the kinds of things that i think naturally would be to to counsel devol's point yes technically it's not in the ordinance but i think from a practicality we may see that it's not going to happen i i'm reminded that a number of years back there was a uh someone wanted to put a convenience store and it was very close to one of our schools is where bedard pharmacy is right now the public didn't let it happen because there was outcry right and so planning board responded to that so that's the other thing i think we haven't to remember that we planning probably wouldn't look at these things without thinking about those issues the other thing i think the council needs to remember here is

When you're talking about liquor licenses and places that sell tobacco, you're talking about the sale of a regulated substance. In this instance, the SSP isn't selling drugs, right? They are providing these services. And as part of those services, they're providing needle exchange, the needles for which are legal to possess and buy without a prescription. Again, you can go into, after we had one of the other workshops, I went into CVS and Walgreens, and you can buy 1999, pack of 100, they're sitting right there. So, you know, I do agree about the parity. You know, if it's 300 feet, maybe we should consider the 300 feet and look at that. But there's no actual controlled substance that's being exchanged in this program. Council Gary?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. What about limiting the number of vendors that offer one or all the services just until we get an idea of how many they apply and keep it under control?

Yeah, so the way the ordinance is currently drafted, it limits it to two licensed SSPs.

So no more at this, at that time, I mean at this time unless it gets extended by the state.

Right, and within the ordinance there, I can't remember if it's in the ordinance or if it's in the standard licensing language, but there's a process for which the clerk declares that applications are open. their date and time stamp, their process on a first come first serve basis. If four apply, the first two through the door, if they make it through, they get licensed and the other two wouldn't. So there's a whole process for this. It doesn't rely on the number that apply, it relies on a maximum of two being licensed by the city.

Thank you.

It's in our ordinance, just for clarification. Council Butler.

I just have a couple of questions on roles. With the peer recovery support folks and the increase from five to 10 years, are they counted under someone else's license? I'm wondering if there'll be difficulty with hiring.

Right now hiring people to do these jobs is difficult no matter what.

The other question I had is where does, who has the primary role around the public education, community education?

Around the public communication? Yes, the SSP would. OTHER THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS?

JUST GOING BACK TO THE COUNCIL'S ORIGINAL QUESTION WAS A BAR, THE 300-FOOT RULE DOES NOT APPLY TO PLACES THAT SERVE ALCOHOL ONLY TO THE AGENCY LIQUOR STORES.

SO A BAR COULD BE ON AN ENJOINING PARCEL BUT A LIQUOR STORE WOULD HAVE TO BE 300 FEET AWAY.

And I'll just note, that makes no sense.

That is insane. The short explanation is that at the bar, you have to consume it in the bar. When you go to the liquor store, it's to leave the bar and you can go drink out in front of the school, I guess. But that was their differentiator.

It's also, it would be easier for a student to come in, purchase, and leave to go partake in such alcohol purchased illegally more easily than they would be to sit in a bar and drink it.

I think the conclusion is that it will be impossible to achieve parity here as there's a lot of arbitrary ordinance from blue laws and such.

250 years of fun. I think what I've learned is if we're gonna open a BYOB club next to a school, make sure the liquor store that they're bringing their liquor from is at least 200 feet away. Councilor Randall.

So I listened to your argument, and you convinced me. I think that just choosing arbitrary numbers of 200 and 300, since we don't have anything that's solid, I think that you're right. If we make too many rules, we're just going to push them right out.

Yeah, I think if we want to have some semblance of parity, we could have them draft the map at 300 feet. I don't think it's going to make a substantive difference in extra 50 feet. Jen may remember this when we looked at the map. There's like 12, right, licensed private and secondary schools in the city because they're not all public schools. So we can have them, when we create the map, let's use 300 feet, and then everyone could see what that would look like. Councilor Duvall?

Yeah, well, I think, I mean, are there any schools within the zones that are identified in the ordinance? I think there's just one. It's Fairview, right?

We'll have to look at the map. My recollection was the buffer The buffer may just slightly, like in GB2, because of Fairview, I think overlap just a small amount. In a general sense, they don't.

Yeah, and I think Washburn.

And Franklin.

And Franklin, right, yeah.

I think those are the two.

I JUST, I WANT TO SECOND WHAT COUNCILOR RANDALL SAID. I THINK, I MEAN, I THINK THIS HAS BEEN A REALLY USEFUL DISCUSSION. I DON'T FEEL A NEED TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO WHAT YOU'VE PRODUCED, SO.

THANK YOU.

SO LET'S MAKE SURE I'M STRAIGHT. SO THE SENSE IS TO GENERATE THE MAP AT 250? OKAY. WE'LL GENERATE THE MAP AT 250, THEN WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT see where that falls and then we can adjust it if we need to. Any other questions, thoughts on this?

Thank you all for the process. This has been great for all the workshops.

Yeah, I I was going to you jump jump the jump right ahead of that that's fine the same sentiment. I think it's really been great discussions. I guess I had one quick follow-up. Council by Larry raise a good question about the the 10 years and didn't know whether we wanted to do any follow-up. OK leaving here, but if you guys might want to just if you could look into that to see if. I DON'T TALK TO SOME CURRENT SSP IF THAT WOULD BE A REAL ISSUE AND THEN IF IT IS PERHAPS WE BRING IT BACK BECAUSE THAT'S ON THE BACKGROUND CHECK YEAH

Well, I think that you run into some issues here, right, because this is a non-criminal justice activity. So you have particular federal statutes that you need to comply with. And so the two things that the city would need to establish in order to use a criminal history record check Checking the background of someone that's involved in this activity is there has to be a nexus to the activity So it's not all convictions. It's convictions related to controlled substances or violence within the 10-year period We have to establish a nexus and you have to establish a time period The issue right now is that There's no requirement for a background check in the state rule for the people that work at the SSP, right? So there is for the applicant, but there's been some issues with people that have what under this ordinance would be a disqualifying background because there's a nexus to the activity within the timeframe. And it's, I think that's an area that would be problematic. I think you want to have a significant separation between someone who's got a controlled substance conviction or a violence conviction and actually working in this environment. So we can ask. I don't know if they know the answer because they don't have to, of course, The current operator does a lot of things well beyond the CDC rules in running their operation. So we can ask that question and see if they are comfortable with that provision or not.

And to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that we remove it entirely. I was thinking that we were talking about potentially a shorter time period if that meant that it would be less of a burden to hire good people for their staff.

Yeah, so we can follow up and see what their thoughts are on that standard. Any other questions or comments on this? So for the council and the public, this should appear, the draft should appear on the agenda for the 15th for first reading. If there's nothing else, we'll be in recess until the regular council meeting will convene at 7 p.m.

I think that's it. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. That was just practice.

The June 1st, 2026 Auburn City Council meeting will be called to order. Please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag,

Thank you if we could have the counselors introduce themselves starting with Council Gary.

Good evening, I'm Belinda Gary City Council are at large.

Good evening, Rachel Randall. Ward one.

Good evening, Tim Cowen Ward to City Council. Good evening, Matthew Duvall, Ward 3, City Council.

Good evening, Jeff Hyrman, Mayor.

Good evening, Kelly Butler, Ward 4, City Council.

Good evening, Leroy Walker, City Council, Ward 5.

Good evening, Adam Platt, City Councilor at Large.

Good evening, Brennan Edwards, Student Representative.

Bill Kroll, City Manager.

The first item on the agenda tonight is a consent agenda. There's several items, appointing Charles King to the Zoning Board of Appeals, appointing Robert Cavanaugh and Diane Vincent to the Age-Friendly Community Committee, appointing Joseph Groshmal to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, and there is a approval of a license fee waiver for Auburn Suburban Baseball and Softball. Is there a motion to adopt?

So moved. Motion to move, second.

Move by Council Gary, seconded by Council Walker. Vote will be by show of hands. All those in favor? The motion is adopted. The next item is approval of the minutes of the May 18th, 2026 regular City Council meeting. Are there any errors or corrections? Not seeing any, is there a motion to approve the minutes?

Motion. Second.

Move by Councilor Randall, seconded by Councilor Walker. Vote will be by show of hands. All those in favor? Seven have been voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion's adopted. We'll move on to communications, presentations, and recognition. Pleased to have Senator Bickford from District 20 here with us tonight to present two legislative sentiments. Senator?

Thank you, Mayor Harmon. I'd like to call Charlie DeAngelis up. Charlie, on behalf of the entire Maine legislature, the Maine Senate, and the Maine House, I'd like to present this sentiment to you on your retirement, and I'm going to read the sentiment. Be it known to all that we, the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, join in recognizing Charlie DeAngelis, I'll get the right one, of Lewiston, Auburn's longtime city electrician on his retirement after 46 years of dedicated service. We extend our congratulations and best wishes and be it ordered that this official expression of sentiment be sent forthwith on behalf of the 132nd legislature and the people of Maine. Congratulations. Is Dennis Matthews here? Dennis, oh, sitting right next to me. Good to see you. Dennis, on behalf of the entire Maine legislature, the Maine Senate, and the Maine House, we present this sentiment to you for your Maine Fraternal Order of Police President's Award. I'm going to read the sentiment to you. Be it known to all that we, the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, join in recognizing Dennis Matthews of Brunswick, a detective on the Auburn Police Department who received the 2025 Maine Fraternal Order of the Police President's Award. We extend our congratulations and best wishes be it ordered that this official expression of sentiment be sent forthwith on behalf of the 132nd legislature and the people of Maine. Congratulations.

So the next item under communication is a communication that comes from the city manager regarding the Maine Community Resilience Partnership membership renewal. The communication from the manager is that on May 29th, 2026, the staff submitted the community resilience self-evaluation and list of community actions that were required for the city to re-enroll. The information will be included by the clerk in the minutes. We'll move on to the first open session of the evening. If there's any member of the public that 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. We move on to unfinished business. FIRST ITEM IS ORDINANCE 0905182026, AMENDING CHAPTER 52, TRAFFIC AND VEHICLES OF THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING PARKING CHANGES RESPECTIVE TO SOLID WASTE COLLECTION. THIS IS THE SECOND READING AND A PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE A MOTION? So moved. Moved by Councillor Cowan. Is there a second?

Second.

Seconded by Councillor Butler. We'll open a public hearing. If there's any member of the public that would like to address the council on this item relative to the change in parking regulations to facilitate the new automated solid waste collection, please approach the podium and provide your name and address. Not seeing any, the public hearing's closed. Discussion by the council. Council, ready for the question? The vote will be by roll call. The clerk will call the roll.

Councillor Geary? No. Councillor Randall? Yes. Councillor Cowan? Yes. Councillor Duvall?

Yes.

Councillor Butler? Yes. Councillor Walker? No. Councillor Platts?

Yes.

Five having voted in the affirmative and two in the negative, the motion is adopted. The next item is ordinance 1005182026, amending chapter 44, solid waste, of the city's code of ordinances related to solid waste collection services. This will be for second reading and a public hearing. Council Butler?

I would like to propose an amendment to section 44-26 to remove the reference of the size of containers.

council butler has moved to amend the uh... item before the council is there a second seconded by council randall any discussion by the council this item is to remove one reference within the ordinance that stated the uh... gallon size of the receptacles And this is just removing the 64-gallon reference, which would be limiting in the event that staff, after our public input session, is able to work with the vendor potentially for use of some receptacles of other sizes. Council Walker.

Does that mean that we'll be able to have a different barrel than theirs, or still only their barrels?

My understanding currently is that it's limited to 64 gallon receptacles for both waste and recycling. I'm sure all of the councillors, as have I and the managers, received feedback. There's going to be more discussion about potential use of other sizes. Those receptacles would, however, have to be provided by the vendor to ensure that they'll work appropriately with the automated collection system. Councillor Geary.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So does that mean if by chance I'm a senior citizen, I don't have a whole ton of trash or recyclables, I could get a smaller barrel as long as I buy it from the company and it will work with their truck?

So I think any questions about the size of the barrels are premature. There's going to be three... public sessions, information sessions, where the program will be described in detail and the vendor and staff will gather feedback. There may, after that discussion, be some proposals brought forward by the staff through the manager about some alternatives. What's before us tonight is just amending this to remove the 64 gallon reference, so if there are alternative proposals, THEY WOULD NOT BE PROHIBITED BY THE ORDINANCE.

COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL

I just want to be clear before I pass the message along with the three informational sessions that we're going to have is there going to be an opportunity for the public to ask questions and give suggestions yeah so the this will be similar to some of the other town halls or public forums that we've had where you know there'd be an explanation of the program attendees will be able to ask questions make suggestions at the meeting Anything further from the council? Council Randall.

I just want to address that. I know that at our last meeting I voted against this and I wanted to let the public know the reason why was because I wasn't involved in the prior council and I wasn't, I didn't have enough information to support a yes vote, but I've changed my vote since being able to do the research and talk to a lot of my constituents.

Thank you. Anything further from the council? Is the council ready for the question? So the vote will be on second reading to adopt as amended. The vote will be by roll call. The clerk will call the roll.

Councillor Randall? Yes. Councillor Cowan?

Yes.

Councillor Duvall? Yes. Councillor Butler? Yes. Councillor Walker?

Yes.

Councillor Platts? Yes. Councillor Geary? No.

Six having voted in the affirmative and one in the negative, the motion is adopted. move on to new business ordinance one one zero six zero one two zero two six replacing the complete streets committee with parking and traffic safety committee as uh... reminder for the council and the public that may be watching this is a follow-up to the prior uh... work session on which the council discussed this item This would eliminate the participation in the current Complete Streets Committee and would create a city committee that would adopt not only the role that Complete Streets had relative to activity in Auburn, but also expand their scope to include other traffic safety and parking items. This is for first reading, is there a motion? So moved. Moved by Council Cowan. Is there a second?

Second.

Seconded by Councilor Randall. Is there any member of the public that would like to address the council on this item? Please approach the podium and provide your name and address. Hi.

Good evening. My name is Bilal Hussain, 40 Weaver Street. First time doing a public hearing at the City Council Hall, so I'll try to keep it brief. So the Parking and Traffic Safety Committee, just a few thoughts. For the record, I'm neither for nor against the creation of this committee. Just wanted to give a few thoughts for the councilors based off the conversation that you guys had back in, I believe it was May 4th meeting that I watched. So I think everyone in this room can agree that the city must prioritize vulnerable road users. Bicycle, pedestrian, person using a wheelchair, the elderly with the walker. That is first and foremost a priority for everybody in the city. It's just how we go about solving this, right? So one comment from the previous workshop that kind of had me by surprise and was concerning to me was to the effect of you know we can't afford to make all the investments that the complete streets committee recommended to the city so i understand budgets are tight i understand that you know there's a certain protocol that we have to abide by but that does not need to come to the expense of the people that are living in the city the residents of the city that want to you know, use the resources and have access to those resources, you know? So that's just one thing I'd like to keep in mind. And I think this is an issue of prioritization, right? Because of course there's only so much resources that the city has. It's about where are we prioritizing and putting these funds and where are we gonna be building these infrastructure needs that the city needs, right? And I'd just like to point out, you know, this isn't a zero-sum game where investing in bike and pedestrian infrastructure is somehow taking away from motorists or vehicles if we invest in bike and pedestrian safety and infrastructure we give more options to the residents of the city the city must be planned full of vulnerable road users because if we plan if we can plan to make sure the comfort for the elderly, the cyclist, the school kid who's walking from school to wherever they need to go, it's going to work for everyone else. And so I think that's another key important thing is that this entire state is built on cars, right? I mean, we know that there's, that's how everyone in the city gets around and throughout the state, but it's important to note that people and livelihood is something that we need to value and something that I'm not entirely sure that this committee entirely deals with, but it has the potential to deal with. And so a couple more points which are just more questions that I think that the council should consider. is how will the Parking and Traffic Safety Committee function more effectively and address bike and pedestrian concerns compared to the Complete Streets Committee? I don't think that was really highlighted in the last meeting. Second one is what standards and criteria will the Parking and Traffic Safety Committee use to review projects? Because in the status quo, the Complete Streets Committee ALL OF THE COMPLETE STREET COMMITTEE PART IS GOING TO BE SCRAPPED AND REPLACED WITH THIS, AND THERE'S NOTHING IN THIS THAT IS SIMILAR TO THE COMPLETE STREET COMMITTEE WHERE IT HAS THE TRIGGER FOR THE TRAFFIC MOVEMENT PERMIT. Any project that comes before the planning board, which I'm also part of, that triggers the traffic movement permit, which is, I think, 100 peak trips in an hour a day would need to be reviewed by the Complete Streets Committee. There's nothing in this current ordinance that would trigger that. So I don't know what the mechanism for that is going to be. And that's going to be a tool that the planning board will no longer have. So that's just something to consider as well. And then lastly, aside from parking enforcement, what plan will the committee have as it relates to bike pad safety, infrastructure, and connectivity? Which is really a big thing, especially on the planning board. I've been serving for a year and a half now. One thing that we see is new developments that come into the city, and we don't require them to have a pedestrian plan as of yet, but we are in a comprehensive plan, so that could change, potentially. So we have these little enclaves of different developments that are throughout the city, but there is no connectivity to the inner city. There's no connectivity to other developments close proximity. And that's a big concern as we have more and more people living in these subdivisions that need to get to where they need to go. They need to go to the market. They need to go to the grocery. They need to go to the parks. And so how can we tie that all together? And I don't know. you know, the current ordinance doesn't seem to have that kind of language in explicit detail, so I'd like to, I think, you know, the council's gonna decide what they wanna decide, but just some thoughts that you guys really should consider. And for those councilors and the mayor and the manager who are on the comprehensive plan, you know, a lot of The decisions and policy decisions that we're going to be doing in the next couple months are going to be tailored around transportation, which is going to be a big thing. And my concern is that we're really putting the cart before the horse, right? We have a new committee that we're trying to form, but we don't have the mechanism of what exactly is going to be tailored and specific targets that it's going to deal with.

So yeah, that's just my concern from a high-level standpoint.

But yeah, thank you all so much.

Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public who would like to address the council on this item? If so, please approach the podium and provide your name and address.

Hello, I'm Catherine Truitt. I'm a current member of the Complete Streets Committee, appointed from 42 Winter Street in Auburn. I wanted to come up to make sure that our memo to the councillors was read. Has that been received? Okay, so like just to reiterate some of it for the public, members of our committee are mostly concerned about this new committee not being a joint committee anymore, and I'm not sure Well, I guess I'm speaking mostly on behalf of myself, but that's my biggest concern is that this traffic and parking committee does not address the fact that half the city is over there. People cross the bridge every day. They go back and forth throughout the day. And I believe a transportation committee would be best used if it continued to be a joint committee. At the workshop meeting that I attended there was some description of the I think it's a RTC or that a bigger Multi-city Commission there was some discussion that that might address some of these projects that we've done But really we we've made recommendations to that committee like or to that Committee that I believe involves sabbatist Lewiston and Auburn and a and I think one other city. But we've made recommendations to them. They come to us. There's a working system now, and it was We were also very surprised that this came up to the committee to just scrap our committee, the joint committee that we've been working, doing lots of work on, and we didn't get notice that it was on the agenda tonight. We got notice Friday before the workshop that this was proposed, so we're just kind of confused about the lack of communication that the committee didn't get, basically. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any other member of the public who would like to address the council? Please approach the podium.

Yes, good evening. My name is John Ruckelow and I live on 1 Shepley Street here in Auburn. I second pretty much everything that Catherine said. Not having communication and discussions with as it stands still, I guess. It kind of disempowers, if you will, our mission. And the fact that the proposal is to take this group, cut off the Lewiston part of it, and just have an Auburn representation, I think it's a little short-sighted. i've been living here for three years now and while i was working i commuted to lewiston by bike and i've brought concerns often to the mayor about traffic and control and adherence to ordinances and i feel like there should be continuity because minneapolis st paul lewiston auburn you know the cities are intertwined and to act like one is necessarily more important but when they receive the focus seems like we're kind of missing it a little bit I think that with this new committee where we would need to reapply I think before that happens I feel that complete streets committee as it exists should have some type of a working discussion with whomever would be most useful, who has the information to really kind of discuss what's being put forward as opposed to just receiving what's being put forward. So I think that not having discussed with the existing committee, I think it's a little short-sighted. And I guess that's about it.

So thanks for your time. Thank you. Any other member of the public who'd like to address the council, please approach the podium, provide your name and address. Not seeing any, the public comment is closed. Mr. Hussain raised a few questions. I'll try to answer them. If I can't, the manager will jump in here. So one of the questions that was raised was what standards would be used. The standards are not changing. The current ordinance recognizes the complete streets uh... standards and vision zero both of which are not only used by the committee they're actually adopted on a periodic basis by the city council so uh... there'll be no change in the application of the complete street standards to construction projects or to the goals of vision zero uh... both in engineering and also in the enforcement area There was a question about what would be added from this committee. I don't think anything, the way this ordinance is written, there's nothing that the Complete Streets Committee does today that could not be continued by the committee, but one of the shortcomings that I think that staff and I have seen is that on many of the traffic safety issues outside of street design there is no feedback loop from Complete Streets. We're going on seven years now since Complete Streets Committee has actually brought any recommendations forward to the Auburn Planning Board or the Auburn City Council so What Complete Streets does today would be continued and the scope of the ordinance allows additional work to be done regarding traffic safety. The question about the traffic movement permit, traffic movement permits are not regulated by the city or by any of these ordinances the hundred uh... peak uh... movements per hour of a hundred or more as a state statute and that actually requires the submission of a traffic movement permit to MDOT this ordinance won't uh... change that in any way i think the connect the uh... question about connectivity that's not really a complete street committee uh... scope right now and neither would it be of this committee connectivity is mister who's saying pointed out is uh... uh... pretty active topic of discussion of the conference of playing committee and i would expect by the time they complete the review of the proposed policies over the next month or two that there will be a number of items included in the comprehensive plan regarding the planning of connectivity. And then I guess the last question was about joint operations and currently Projects that span the two cities are handled in one of two ways. They're either MDOT projects, for which MDOT handles the coordination. If it's an MDOT project that spans both cities. If it's not necessarily an MDOT project, AVCOG at the ARTC has the mandate to do the coordination of activities when the transportation projects span multiple jurisdictions. So it wouldn't be limited to the Sabatus Lisbon Lewiston and Auburn often even though it's not within their direct scope if it's if it's connectivity in Auburn with other communities, they also participate in that so Mr. Manager or any councillors with their questions that I didn't capture Council Gary Thank You.

Mr. Mayor I understand the need.

Councillor Gary, we're not to council discussion at this point. My question is, are there questions raised by the public that we didn't answer?

I'm sorry, I thought you asked for our questions.

No. Are there any questions the public raised that we haven't answered at this point? If there aren't any, we'll go then to discussion by the council. Councillor Gary.

Excuse me for jumping in early. That's fine. I understand the need to refocus this committee to focus more on Auburn instead of jointly with other municipalities. Auburn is growing. We're changing. We've got many construction projects on the planning board, I mean on the drawing board. And I do feel that some sort of mention should be in that title dealing with our... with the complete streets i mean auburn streets meaning like sidewalks and curb cuts and things not just the traffic flow and uh... and the traffic safety of the speeds and the different things. So I would like to see some mention in there. I know you say it's in there through ordinances, but I still, if we're going to be changing another ordinance, I'd like to have something in there dealing with some mission of the complete streets, like I said, with the sidewalks and different things included.

SO I WOULD POINT OUT THAT THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS CURRENTLY DRAFTED IS A REFERENCE TO THE COMPLETE STREET STANDARDS. THAT'S QUITE A VOLUMINOUS STANDARD. IT COVERED SIDEWALKS, BIKE LANES, CURB CUTS, CROSSWALKS, ALL KINDS OF STANDARDS REGARDING vehicular safety, pedestrian safety, bicycle safety, and because those are standards adopted by the council, those would still be applicable in this work just as they are today. Those standards, while the Complete Streets Committee's name is a Complete Streets Committee, the standards that they're using are because the Auburn City Council has adopted those standards.

uh... any other other questions or comments you miss mary appreciate the uh... three uh... members of the public who who talk to us today and and appreciate your your thoughts uh... reason that i a m in favor of this changes that is because of the broadening scope of what what this committee would work on and I think more intentionally to try to remedy the issue that getting more up to the council for more proactive actions being taken I think it's the timing of it is very useful in terms of the comprehensive plan being completed in the coming months and then there's going to be a lot of work to do there that goes beyond necessarily a lot of what you were being asked to do is responding to potential projects and being this committee i as i'm reading this uh is almost empowered to be a little bit more proactive in terms of even with the current roadways how do we address some of the traffic issues how do we address the safety and and the accessibility for, as Bilal said, our vulnerable individuals riding bikes or walking. And so I think this is why I was particularly excited about it. I think it actually empowers us, the sense I get, encourage others to weigh in if you think differently, is there was less about the connectivity even with the Complete Streets This gives us more to really focus on the pieces in Auburn. There's nothing precluding this committee to saying, hey, this may be an issue that is something we'd want to connect with or coordinate with others as well. So I'm in favor of this change. Council Duvall.

Yeah, I just want to say that though. I think I agree with councillor Cowan the safety provisions of this and the mandate to actually create a forum where People who are maybe not driving cars or are driving cars are concerned about safety on our roads a Regular forum for airing such complaints. I think it's really a useful thing and will move us forward in this space. I Council Platt?

I just wanted to make a quick acknowledgement for the three people who spoke. I just want to say it can be hard when you see your committee go away. I was on the conservation committee when it was turned into a working group. This stuff, it does happen. I guess what I wanna say is I wanna thank the three of you. I know you're all volunteer members of committees here in the city. And even though it might feel demotivating, I just wanna thank you guys for the volunteer work that you've done. I hope that you continue it. even with the name change of the committee. Obviously, if you wanna have this conversation with any of us counselors, please do. But at the core of it, I can say as a recovering conservation committee member, you can still do really good work even if your committee name changes. And so I apologize on behalf of the city if it felt demotivating to find out in a certain way, but I just wanna thank you guys and I hope that you continue to pour in some energy into the city, thanks.

Council Walker.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As well, I want to say thank you to you, but I am really grateful that we have this here in the city of Auburn. I've been waiting a long time for us to come up with some duties and responsibilities that really I think protect our citizens that are walking, biking, rollerblading, or whatever else they might do on these sidewalks and next to them. And of course, we all have to gather and try to fit in with the motor vehicles, which is a tough job. But I think this, we are going to be closer to what's happening, and we're going to know if they're going the right way at all times. And I'm thankful that somebody has at least moved this forward.

Other questions or comments from the council? Council Gary.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. When I spoke earlier, it's not that I'm against this, because I think there's real added value to this, but if we put an ordinance the way it reads, if I'm trying to find anything dealing with sidewalks and different things, I'm going to gloss over it and just look and say, oh, it's just parking and traffic safety. That was why I made the comment that I would like something added to it to say that we're also working on street amenities or something that deals with the sidewalks. That was the only point I was getting at.

Mr. Manager. Thanks, Mayor.

So, Councillor, on the city's website under Boards and Committees, there will be a page for this committee, and there will have a description that will address, even if you just take a couple of the duties, I mean the second one regarding traffic safety, is related to pedestrian bicycle transportation, but talks about sidewalk conditions, talks about infrastructure. So we'll make sure we highlight that. But there will also be on that page a form for you to be able to fill out if you have a concern that you've noticed in the community related to parking, related to a sidewalk condition, and then that will go to that committee for review. So there will be, the goal here is to have better citizen engagement, but I think it's also a tool for the council, because I know many of you reach out to me when you receive citizen concerns. It'll be a great tool for you to be able to say, If you can go to the city's website, there's this tool that you'll be able to use to communicate with this new committee. They'll be on their agenda in the future. They'll be able to address that and have a conversation. So the goal here will hopefully be able to address the gap that we currently have with citizen engagement.

Thank you kindly for your explanation and the thought of the creation of this new type of site that people can either possibly go online and fill it out or maybe even call their counselor if they're not computer website savvy or even call the city manager's office.

Councilor Cowell. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just to follow up with that, City Manager, the seventh point there, the policy adoption, there may be potential, too, on the website to be able to explain some of those things, or if someone wants to go to a link and learn more about Vision Zero Complete Streets, we could add that in as well.

Other questions or comments from the council? Councilor, ready for the question? The vote will be by roll call. The clerk will call the roll.

Councilor Cowell.

Yes.

Councilor Deval?

Yes.

Councilor Butler? Yes. Councilor Walker?

Yes.

Councilor Plaz? Yes. Councilor Gary? Yes. Councilor Randall? Yes.

Seven having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, the motion is adopted at first reading. We'll move on to reports. A few items. So last week, the Assistant City Manager and I appeared at the Androscoggin County Commissioners meeting at their request. couple months ago they head uh... contacted us again about uh... what it would look like for consolidated communications uh... with l a nine one one we provided them a presentation they're going to be having a workshop on this on june third uh... i think uh... the what's currently driving the conversation here is that LA-911 has given the timing of this because of the new public safety building is, as the council knows, renovating space in this building for a new center that will not only be able to accommodate LA-911, but would have the space for consolidated communication. So we'll update the council as that goes along uh... i wanted to uh... thank the staff and counselors that went to the l a metro chamber of commerce uh... awards banquet uh... out at poland spring inn uh... really great turnout as always had some VERY DESERVING PEOPLE THAT WERE RECOGNIZED. I WANTED TO THANK THE CITY MANAGER, COUNSELOR WALKER, COUNSELOR COWEN, ATTENDED THE MEMORIAL DAY PRESENTATIONS FOR THE FOUR CHAPLAINS MEMORIAL AT VETERANS PARK AND FOR RECOGNITION OF ALL OF OUR VETERANS. THEY HAD A REALLY GREAT TURNOUT. Some really great speakers about the story of the four chaplains and I appreciate everyone coming out that day Communication from the clerk a reminder that June 9th is Election Day the besides the primaries the Auburn school budget will be On the ballot people can still pick up absentee ballots through Thursday Given how rapid the US mail moves. I would suggest that if you're picking up absentee Absentee ballots now are through Thursday that your plan is to return it to the clerk's office or at the drop box at the back of Auburn Hall between the building and the parking garage. And on the 9th, all of four poll sites, excuse me, all three poll sites for all wards will be open from 7 a.m. till 8 p.m. That's all I have. Counselor Geary.

Since our our appointments committee is already met and we on our gender today we we put forward in the nominations of of people that we filled slots with I have nothing to report till our next appointments committee meeting.

Thank you council Randall.

Just two things tonight. The Auburn Public Library is going to host a trivia night, a fun night of community building sponsored by the Auburn Public Library. It's on June 16th from 6.30 to 8.30 at Lost Valley. It's free. Just come on out. There will be an opportunity for donations to the Auburn Public Library if you should choose to do so. And there will be a summer themed raffle basket for sale or for raffle, including some sea dog tickets. The second is that the main mill project is complete. They will be moving the week of June 8th through the 12th. And the ribbon cutting is on the morning of Saturday, the 27th. The entire weekend, the admission to the museum will be free. Hope to see people there.

Thank you, Councilor Cowan.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just highlight that last Thursday we had a fun, slightly wet groundbreaking for the new public safety building. It was good and exciting to see that project at this next milestone. And then related to earlier conversations this evening about solid waste, one of the first of the three meetings that was referenced is June 11th, in case people want to come to that. It's here in Auburn City Hall on the second floor across the hall at 6 p.m. Thank you. Councillor Duvall?

Nothing for now. Councillor Butler?

The Auburn Lewiston Municipal Airport has its Tailwind and Tailpipes event coming up on Saturday, June 13th. That too is free admission with a rain date of June 14th. There will be coffee and donuts fly-in from the Maine Aeronautics Association from 8 to 12. The Young Eagles Rally from 9 to 1 p.m. for kids ages 8 to 17. And then a car show, food trucks from 9 to 1. And there will also be some static aircraft and public safety displays.

Thank you. Council Walker.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I've got two dates. If you want to learn more about your household waste and recycling, containers, parking, and all the rest that goes with it, I suggest you come to the Neighborhood Watch meeting June 25th, which is a Thursday night in New Auburn at the Sixth Street Congregational Church. and June 30th, Tuesday night at Rowley's Diner. Both will be at six o'clock, so don't be late, because there'll be a lot to talk about.

Thank you. Council Platt.

Nothing to report.

Representative Edwards. Yeah, so we had graduation at Norway Savings Bank and we had over 2,500 people from graduates, parents, all of the people. Step-up day is happening on June 9th and we will be welcoming the class of 2030. Finals week is next week, so the school is just about over. Spring sports are finishing up and playoffs start this week and next week. And then a reminder for young people that if you're 17 and you're turning 18 by election day in November, you have the right to vote in this primary and referendum.

Thank you, Mr.

Manager.

Thank you, Mayor. I'll just, a couple highlights regarding the solid waste automated system. As I think a couple of councillors covered, the meeting locations, all of those at 6 p.m. This is available on the city's website, so I encourage you to to look at that. I think one thing that we had a meeting with Casella last week and we had a good, the team had a good conversation regarding process. Casella has rolled out automated services across the country. This is something that they do. all size communities and so they're very familiar with the process I think that a key takeaway that was shared was to be patient I think the we will work through challenges not every community is exactly the same and so we'll have some challenges as it pertains to parking we'll have challenges as it pertains to we have a lot of private roads in Auburn. How do we address that? We're working those through on a case by case basis and we'll continue to do that. And so if a constituent has a concern about Maybe they don't have a driveway. That's the case for some of our locations. Please call Public Works. They're working through those on a case-by-case basis because they will not just be a cookie cutter, this will fit every situation. There needs to be process and we're working through each one of those. And so encourage people to call and we're gonna do our best to make sure we're communicating as we continue for rollout for July 13th, week of July 13th, thanks.

Thank you. We'll move on to our 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 tonight's agenda, please approach the podium and provide your name and address. Not seeing any, the open session's closed. A note on the agenda, there is an executive session listed. It's not going to be needed. There's no further business to come before the council this evening. Is there a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn.

Moved by Council Walker. Seconded by Council Randall. All those in favor? The council will be adjourned.