City Council - Regular Meeting

I'm thankful for the members of the school committee that are also here uh tonight. presentations.

Is it that next one? And then get that. So Just want to test. Thank you for your patience and thank you for the opportunity to be here again tonight and this evening. We'll be looking at the proposed FY27 budget for the Arburn School Department. I thought it was important for you to see the Arban School Department at a glance and the students that we serve. This is a great slide because it shows that we have nine schools right now. We have a high school, a middle school, six elementary schools, and we have the alternative program that's housed at Franklin. So, we have nine buildings. And we are serving students in grades preK through 12. And the total enrollment, and this is the official enrollment at the end of last year, was 3,281 students. I do want to make a note that the enrollment today as of right now is

3,477 students and that increase is mostly in grades 9 through 12. In terms of staff, we have around 550 staff members including our administrators, teachers, edte, support staff, transportation, food service, athletics and central office. And then on the right hand side of this slide, you can see our students and what their needs are. We have over 60% of our students that are classified as economically disadvantaged. And these are students that qualify for free and reduced lunch. Uh students with disabilities, 634, which is 19.3% of our population. And then we have 387 multilingual learners. That's just under 12% of our population. And then the students experiencing homelessness. That's at 3.4%. And that's holding steady. And this is about half of what we had last year at the same time. So this is a good number to see. Thank you. On this next slide here, you can see the values that drive our budget. Student success, equity and access, operational efficiency, and long-term sustain sustainability. Every decision that we make really is a is filtered through these four areas. So in our budget, we are focusing on making sure that our class sizes are small and doable for teachers and students, that

we have enough support staff, and that we're focusing on our graduation outcomes. And then we want to make sure that our resources are directed to the students who need them the most. So, we're taking into account our multi-ingual learner programming, our special education programming and interventions for students that need additional support. And then operational efficiency where, you know, we look at every single position. We eliminate positions that are unfilled that we might not need anymore. And we did not expand any programming or services this year. We did not add any new positions to the budget. and we are continuing to share services with the city. And then we've talked about this last week, we are looking ahead. We want to look at the long-term sust sustainability of our system. So we're planning for facilities consolidation and conservative use of the fund balance in the future. We are continuing to partner with the city. This has been an ongoing partnership over the last few years. We're working together to develop our budget. We are agreeing that we're not going to have new programs or services and we are continuing to work on sharing services to reduce overall costs. And then as we've talked about the facilities work where we have potential consolidation at the elementary level on the table and the emphasis is on sustainability and responsible use of public funds. Our budget is also aligned with the school committee goals. I just wanted you to see what those goals are. Student achievement is the main driver and achieving the 95% graduation rate is

high on the list there. And then clear communication is another goal where we want to make sure that we're reaching all of our families in the school district and also reaching out to the community and having that really important two-way communication. making sure that we are developing trust and a sense of belonging and engagement with the community. And then the facilities master plan is also a goal addressing the capacity and infrastructure needs of the district. And then the school committee also has a goal around self- evaluation where they want to look at how well they're doing and that's an effort to promote continuous improvement in the system. This slide shows you the budget process that we go through every year. So we start in September, October, November, December reviewing our enrollment projections and developing a draft of the budget. We're also meeting with administrators and directors and going over what their needs are for the coming school year. And then in January and February, we receive the state subsidy, which is the ED279 report. And at that time, I'm putting together a proposed budget for the school committee, and we begin to go through the process. So in the month of March, the school committee every week is going over different cost centers and different aspects of the budget. And we're also gathering community input at that time. And then we're rolling into April, which is where we are right now here in front of you at the council, going over our proposed budget. And then once we receive some feedback from you, we're going to do our final revisions. And then we're going to bring that to the school committee. Next Wednesday is

when we're voting on our budget. So, it will be helpful to get any feedback from you tonight as to where you stand with what we're going to propose. And then the month of May, you're approving the budget. And then in the month of June, we have the citywide budget validation referendum where our cost centers in our budget goes out to the community and they have a chance to weigh in and vote yes or no on the budget. So, now we're going to look at the big numbers. So, our proposed budget for fiscal year 2027, the total proposed budget is 67,685,744. This is an increase of around 3.2 million or 4.9% over last year. And then underneath that is the local share. So this is the local contribution and this is $21,688,59. This is an increase of around $700,000 or about 3.3% over last year. It's important to look at staffing and the updates that we've made to staffing through the budget process. This year we've eliminated three positions, a bus driver, a van driver, and an administrative assistant. And we've also eliminated the suspension diversion program. And then we continue to look at our grants for funding some class size reduction positions. These are positions that we have for one year at a time to make sure that the class sizes are manageable. And then on the right side of this slide, you can see the number of positions that we've

reduced over the last three years. So including those three positions is 39.5 positions over the last 3 years. And then moving on now to the major cost drivers in our budget. Health insurance is a major driver. It's we're budgeting 12% right now, which is a little less than a million dollars. And then special education costs, that's always a volatile area right now. That's up 9.4%, just under 1.5 million. And then our transportation costs are up quite a bit for this coming year, up 22%. And that has to do with not only fuel, but our salaries and health insurance benefits for the transportation staff. So these are all areas that are not in our control. And then if we go here to the next slide, you can see our revenue sources. So we have the state subsidy and we were very fortunate to see an increase again this year. Not as high as last year, but we are seeing a very nice increase there of $34,658,280. So that's up about 2.61 million 8.2% 2% over over last year's amount. And then we have the city of Auburn contribution. So that's your local contribution at 21.7 million which is up about around 700,000 which is about a 3.3% increase. And then we have debt service. This is the money that we received from the state. the debt service aid. Park Avenue is listed there, but we no longer receive funds for Park Avenue. That

one's offline now. So, we're receiving $8.2 million and that's down 7.2% just under $700,000 because Park Avenue, as I said, is now offline. And then the fund balance is the last major source of revenue. This year we're proposing to use $2.35 million. This is up $325,000 from last year. So it's up 16% and it's also equal to the same amount that we used in FY25. Going to keep going. This next slide shows our cost centers. So when we look at our budget, it's divided into the different cost centers, the different areas that we are funding. And as you can see here, regular instruction and special education make up the majority of our spending. Regular education at 33% of our budget and then special education at 25% of our budget. I'm going to move along the next few slides. We are revisiting the AMS project that we shared information with you about last week. Some of the questions that came up we wanted to address in some of these slides. So this first slide is really going back to the project rationale and providing our sixth graders with a better middle school experience. One of the things that came up as a question was around the declining enrollment and that was one of the main drivers when we began to look at the possibility of this project. So I wanted to reiterate that again. the enrollment at the elementary level in Auburn has been going down and

is projected to go down. And then at the same time when we had Herman do the facility study, they identified $62 million in facilities needs over the next 10 years. And when we saw that number, we said this, we can't do that. Like we don't have that kind of money over the next 10 years to put into our facilities. So, how can we look at being efficient and strategic and what kids need and the facilities that we have and figure out a way to reduce the number of our buildings, but also increase the experience for our middle school students, increase the quality of that. So, the plan was to create the grades 6 through 8 middle school at AMS. And this is going to improve the programming there. It's improving the curriculum and just the overall student experience. This then allows us to reconfigure the elementary schools and potentially close a school. One thing I will also say is if we don't do anything in action will increase the long-term costs here for our facilities. This next slide just summarizes the proposal. And I want to also say that the goal is to have this completed in the fall of 2028. So in the fall of 2028 would be when sixth graders would be moving to the middle school if we're able to move forward with this project. And then funding the AMS project. How are we funding this project? and what's going to happen in the gap year when we haven't closed a school. So there's no cost next year for the project, but the next year we would then begin to make payments and the first

payment would be substantial because it includes a large interest payment. So it would begin with a $1.8 million payment and that would decline over time. And then we did talk about the offsetting factor of if we close a school then that's going to be 1.9 to $2.6 million in annual savings. So the projected annual savings are expected to cover the project costs. What we didn't talk about last week was that we have additional funding pathways for this project. One is that we anticipate that there will be an impact from changes to the state funding formula. There are potential changes coming that will benefit the Auburn school department because the essential programs and services formula is likely to change for next year. And what they are doing is they're looking at the number of students that we have that are classified as economically disadvantaged. And they're also looking at a community's ability to pay. So what is the median income here in Auburn? And can people here pay for the education? And with some of the modeling that I've seen, we stand to gain a quarter of a million to a million dollars on the minimum side of things and it could be substantially more in terms of state subsidy. So that would help us and this would also help the taxpayer. And then another funding pathway is to apply for state revolving renovation funds. And Miss Couture has some information I think she wants to share with you about that. Right now we know the cap on this is $2 mill million but I think some things may be changing

there as well. And we do intend to apply for funding in the fall of 2026 with some of the pieces of the AMS project. Would you like to share a little bit more?

Sure. So, we've taken advantage of the school revolving renovation fund twice in the last six years. And in 2020, what happens is you don't pay interest on the loan and you are forgiven based on the state's share um identified for each school department. So, in 2020, we were forgiven 61% of the loan. So, we only ended up paying 39% of what we received for renovations. In 2022, our numbers are actually very similar to what they've been identified for FY27 and we had 67% of the loan forgiven and that was over 1.2 million that year. So, as Dr. Doris said, currently the maximum you can apply for is 2 million, but the Commission on School Construction has met and there is legislation trying to increase that amount. So either way, we have identified parts of the middle school project that qualify for the priorities in this loan. Um, but depending on the legislation going through, there's the potential to apply for even more of this project for the lo through the loan.

Thank you.

Now, taking a look at how we compare to some of the other municipalities. the slide we're looking at the per pupil cost and we're looking at the per pupil cost that um does not include the debt service. So I want to make sure that I make that point with these numbers because there may be some articles in the paper or there have been articles in the paper where the per pupil expenditure includes the debt service. For the purpose of this analysis, the debt service is not included. And our per pupil cost in the fiscal year 25 was $15,75. And this is well below the state average. And this ranks Auburn number 227 out of 259 districts. This puts us in the bottom 12% for per pupil spending. And on the right side of this slide, you can see the cost comparison. If we look at other municipalities and I believe these are the same municipalities that our city manager shared with you for the purpose of tax comparisons. So you can see on this Auburn is second from the bottom and this tells us that Auburn spends less per student than nearly every comparable city in the state of Maine. We basically turn over every stone to save money. So here we're talking about ongoing cost control and efficiencies. Every time we have a vacancy, we examine that position to make sure that we need to fill that position. We're always looking at when people are retiring or resigning. And we're always looking at

every way that we can possibly save money. Whether it's, you know, reallocating a position or combining positions, looking across buildings, sharing staff across buildings, it's a focus every day in the work that we do around the budget and staffing. In terms of our budget overall, we are very, very conservative. This is a needsbased budget, so there is nothing extra here in our budget. Um, sharing services with the city is something that has saved us money and we're going to continue to do that. And then the fourth thing, there's the alignment with our long-term master plan for facilities. With all of this said, the return on investment is substantial here. Um, we have one of the highest graduation rates in the state of Maine. I have top five in Maine for the large high schools, but we are definitely number one in our region for our graduation rate this last year at 97.4%. And then what we have to offer our students, these are just some highlights. We have the expanded career and technical education center at the new Everl High School which is really preparing students for careers outside of high school and for success beyond high school. And then the Donald M. Gay Performing Arts Center is a gem and something we want to mention and highlight. This has really become a regional hub for statewide events and student talent. We just hosted the OM state state meet there and I'm very proud to say that our middle school and high school teams won first place. And then in terms of an our return on

investment, we have worldclass teachers and staff here. We have extremely dedicated professionals who support our students in many different ways and especially with learning and with achieving success. So when I think about the budget this year, this is a statement that I would make. This budget allows us to meet today's needs while making responsible decisions that strengthen Auburn schools for the future. So, we're addressing the needs in front of us today, but we're also looking ahead to say, you know, what can we do to make sure that we can have a stronger system down the road? And with that, I will open it up to questions that you might have.

Questions from the council? Council Plat,

thank you. Excuse me. Thank you. Um, great presentation. Um I I have two comments. My first is an appreciation for the budget that you guys that we've all put together. Um I think it's pretty responsible especially um you know you can look at increases I've talked about increases in the operational budget and decreases in debt but let's not forget the increases in revenue as well which helps offset that and that's why we're seeing such a low increase to the public um the public's portion of this. My question though is u in efforts to be so lean and with new no new services, no new headcounts, what do you think are some of the areas in the school department that are taking a hit because of this lean budget? Uh for example, you know, I see the discontinuation of the diversions pro the um suspension diversions program. I have no idea what the efficacy of that program was, but as a headline that's a difficult thing to see go away. So

what are some of the things that we're seeing? What are the some of the pain points of a lean budget like this?

The pain points are that you you're you're not really able to provide any kind of extra support to students beyond the core. And so we know that our students have needs beyond the classroom, social work, guidance, those areas. we we can't really go any further to help our students in those areas because we have to focus everything on the core of instruction. So we need to make sure that the classroom you know we have enough classroom teachers we have enough teachers you know for the core and then beyond that it's you know it's not possible right now to add any more.

Thank you. And I I just asked that question. So, we're all we hear that a lot on the city side. We understand the impacts of a of no new services and what that does in the municipal side. I think it's important for people to understand that on the school side as well. Um a a quick second question. I was curious if you had any thoughts on the pattern that we're seeing or not a pattern but an influx of high school students and kind of a outflux or a decrease of elementary age students. My question is um do you think that's something that repeats for a number of years with this new high school of ours with the closure of St. Dom's um and if so what's a long-term impact of something like that on a school system especi financially?

I think that the increase that we're seeing is partly a result of St. doms closing and some of those students coming here and I don't think that we're going to continue to see an increase in our enrollment over time. I think we've been very lucky two years in a row to see our enrollment going up, but it's mostly at the high school level. And you know, if you look at the trajectory and the current enrollment at the elementary level right now, it's not increasing, it's decreasing. So, that's something we really have to think about long term because that's going to impact our state subsidy and it's also going to impact our ability to keep all of these facilities open.

Other questions from the council? Council. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, Dr. Doris, thanks for great presentation. Lots of really good information. Um one my question it relates to the the information and reminder of uh information you presented at last uh meeting um and reflecting on so the AMS project the the the total cost you have on slide 13 um is 11.2 2 million,

but that includes some things that needed to be done anyways. That was part of the study. And you made a comment that um if you did nothing, cost would go up. But can you wait on some of those things that were already in that study or are those things that you need to move on whether or not you consolidate six through eight? That's a great question. I'm going to have Miss Couture take a stab at that and then I'll add in if I need to.

Yeah, the capital improvement projects that we identified last last time which totaled 6.2 million. All of those items are items that really need to be done in the first 5 years of our study that was done which was in 2023. So we're really looking at we have two more years where we need to fix that roof and we need to we have a fire alarm system that needs to be replaced. So, unfortunately, the CIP items really should not hold off anymore.

I I think it's important to note um Mr. Cousins is here and he could probably follow up on this for us for the next meeting, but when you undertake um substantial um construction projects, um there's certain code requirements that that you're then required to meet when you undertake that. you just because they're not directly related to the purpose for the renovation doesn't mean that you can defer them. Yeah. And and my thought was if we didn't do this project, we still would need to do h more than half of that 11.2 million anyways. That's correct.

Is okay. Um thank you. And the other thing that you know congratulate you on the the graduation rate um it's phenomenal. um and reflecting on that and cost of students and then even our demographics of your students. So just some to help me understand and put in perspective, you know, six I think it was 60% economically disadvantaged. Where where does that fall relative to some of those uh municipalities that you cited in terms of cost per are we in the middle? Are we is that pretty average? Are we high? You mean in comparison to graduation rates?

No, I'm sorry. in terms of economically disadvantaged ratio, you know, are we seeing is that pretty similar across all those? No, I I would say that we have a very needy population of students in comparison. Mhm. And then also related um does that is that true as well for special ed or is that more consistent across school districts? 25% is a lot. I would say special ed percentages might be more consistent across the school districts. All right. Thank you.

You're welcome. To follow up on the special aid question though, um from prior discussions in the mayor's coalition, it seems that um there is often an inmigration to the larger communities that offer a broader range of uh special education services for families that are in need. they they tend to move to the places where they can get the best services for their children. Could could you comment on that at all?

That is true and I would say Auburn is a service center and that we do have families that move here for the services that their children can receive. And in large part, these uh if I recall from last year's conversation, in large part, a lot of these um requirements regarding special education are statutoily mandated either at the federal or state level. Um even though a small minority of the money is actually directly funded for those programs from the entities are required. Is that is that

that is true. That's why special education costs are such a driver in our budget. Council, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Am I remembering correctly or incorrectly that there's a larger portion of state funding coming down does address the needs for special ed as well? Yes, it does as well. So, less coming from tax levy. It's Yeah. Thank you. Other questions from the council. Okay. Council, um, just a quick question. when that cost per student um if you were to rank you know sort of town medium income next to that is the order the same or

I would have to research that I'm not sure city manager crawl if you so the the handout that we provided shows that median income for each of those top 10 anyway is what we provided so you could at least see where how we compare with those uh communities and that's the handout that we provided at the last I think it was the last workshop. Other questions? Council Walker, thank you. Uh, special education, do we do all of it in house here or how much is sent out?

I don't have those exact numbers for you. That's a great question. But we do have students that are receiving their education in specialurpose private schools. So, they're not in the the Arman school department. They're receiving their education outside of the Arvin School Department. Does that mean that we don't have the people to do that special education? Is that why we have to send them out?

Yes and no. I mean, yes. When students need a specialized program, we don't have that program within our district and we don't have the staff to deliver that program. Then they have to go outside of the district.

I guess my next question would be, have we ever thought that maybe we ought to have our own special school to do that? This number is is uh so big that I think we could almost build a new school for them. We have talked about that before. We have talked about can we build programs within the district so that we can keep all of our students in the district. The the main challenge to that is staffing and finding the staff that have those specialized skills to be able to teach those students.

Yes. Oh yeah.

Yes. Um we are we are in the process of incorporating what what has been known as child development services that is coming into the public schools and the Arman school department. So we will be responsible for students age 3 through five who have special education needs. So that is something that we are going to do within the school department and bring those kids in under our umbrella and we already have a couple pilot programs going and they're going very well. Other questions from the council.

Just to follow up on the debt service, could you remind me what um do you have the same floor and ceiling caps that the city does? I think we have different floors and caps, but I'll turn it over to Miss Couture to tell us what those are right now. They're different. They're the same. They're different. They're different. Do you recall what they are? No, I don't have those numbers in front of me, but I can get them for you. And so, the use of the 2.35 million, I I guess why I'm asking that is where does that put you in that range

in our fund balance? Yeah, because in the like I'll just use the city numbers because you know it's 10% at the floor and 14% on the ceiling and the fund balance has to hover in between that and there's there's uh directives in the charter about what the city council has to do if it's lower than higher. So, I'm just trying to get a sense if you apply 2.35 to the budget this year, where does that put you in that range?

Well, in ending FY25, we're already below our 9% limit. So, we looked at um if we're if we are putting 2.35 million into our revenue and still bringing a similar carryover, we're going to decrease below the 7.5%. Um it would bring us down just below 5 million. And it just depends on where we land at the end of FY26 though. And that's not something we can really identify just yet. Yeah. So, let me ask it a different way, right? because you have a you have a a cap at the top, right? If I if I recall from prior years, that's correct.

State statute that you have to stay below. Um, if you apply this 2.35 million, that's going to decrease your fund balance. Does that put you at any risk to be able to respond to any type of e situation that occurs during the year? It definitely puts us closer to a risk, but we're still within, you know, a 7% um fund balance. So, I feel like we'll still be in a safe, you know, range for what we'd have in our fund balance. Great. Thank you. Other questions from the council? Council Walker,

I have a just a comment. Uh last week the I think it was last week the city manager passed us out something for the 26 tax rates on the different towns. Most of them are the same towns that you used. The thing is that I have a problem with when you use these kind of things and these towns have uh homes that are worth like in Auburn for instance the average home is worth about 220,000. But you're using towns that you're saying that pay a lot higher for their pupils, but also you you take uh Scar Bro for one, their homes average $617,000 home.

Mhm. Their taxes for that home is like $6,000. You also have a circle the $420,000 average home

to our 218. So when you're using them kind of numbers that you use over here that they're not all in my mind true numbers and they don't they don't reflect the correct way. They make they make us look like we're not doing our share. So and I've mentioned this in the past when the other school superintendent has brought these numbers forward. I would feel a lot more comfortable if you didn't bring them forward, unless you're going to bring the rest of the numbers with them. Because when you got homes that are valued at 500,000 average, and we only got homes in Auburn at 218, we would have to raise our taxes to $44 per thousand to even catch up, which is totally unfair.

Okay. Well, ju just to clarify what the city manager handed out, I'm assuming you're talking about this fiscal year 2026 tax rate. Yeah. schedule. I see you have it there. So, that's comparing apples to apples because it's it removes the impact of the home value by using the median home value, which corrects for the mill rate. So I I I think it's valuable to look at that because it it's basically comparing comparing the median tax bill from each one of these communities against each other. Um I will say that having listened to quite a bit of the discussion at the education committee around the EPS formula that it's very clear that there is a disparity um in real dollars um in the per pupil expenditures. They they are what they are when you divide out your budget by the number of pupils. Um, you know, if I my recollection was Cumberland, I think was the highest in the state, which was around 29 um,000 per student. That's one of the basis for the education committee looking at the um the potential changes to the EPS formula to create a more equitable situation so that cities like Auburn who have um a more challenging population that require more resources to um have the same educational attainment as some of these other communities that tries to level set that. So, um I I think we just need to be clear that there isn't I don't think there's any intent in providing this information to to mislead anyone. I think it uh to me it paints a picture

that um I think the schools department is performing quite admirally given the tax rate that we have and the outcomes that that we're achieving at that per pupil um expenditure. Um other questions by the council, Mr. Manager.

Thanks, Mayor. Uh just a couple things to to echo. I think um Dr. Doris talked about the collaboration between city and school services. Um we gained traction on that constantly where uh as we've been working through that, we're finding efficiencies. We're finding ways that we should be at the same table together. I think a good example would be uh Dr. Doris and I meet uh every two weeks and uh so now I know that schedule. Um just this week we invited um Maine to that meeting and that's the manufacturers association of Maine and because we wanted to have a a broader conversation about student readiness in the workforce for manufacturing and so our economic development director was there. We got to have a good conversation about how do we how do we um introduce our current manufacturing uh facilities to our teachers so they know what's that environment for their students so they can talk about that how can they look at including that as part of their curriculum you know so that's that traction that we that we're gaining and I think to uh counselor plat's question regarding suspension diversion uh that was a joint effort between the school and and the city And uh there was a real need when it was implemented. There was well over 350 suspensions a year uh that they were uh working through and and managing. And now that number is closer to around 60, probably less than 60. So it met its need. I think it's demonstrated. I think a piece that we'll probably need to continue evaluate because this wasn't just a decision that by the way suspension divergence is gone. There was a conversation within with the school and the city regarding that because there's direct community impacts when a student is suspended and is just in the community with no supervision. And so um so one thing that

we talked about was what are the number what are the cases that we're seeing for suspensions now? And a lot of them have to do with vaping. And I think that goes back to council cowan will remember this back to our early days of of healthy indiscan when it was really tobaccof free LA. um we implemented a a smokeless Saturday program, right? So that's those are things that we should probably be talking about because if those numbers we're seeing those vaping numbers, then what do we need to be doing um to try to help address that and that might be something we want to revisit where it doesn't necessarily need to be an inschool type suspension. It can be an education program that a student must attend that we collaborate with healthy and to make sure that's happening. So, so we'll continue having those, but I think it's be really important to make sure we continue monitoring that. And if we start, we certainly don't want to see us back to the 300 plus numbers. I think you're you're always going to have some students that have had a bad day. They're going to get suspended. There's going to be, you know, but it's it's something that we can monitor, ensure that those numbers aren't creeping back up to those levels that we were at before. So, we'll continue doing that. I think the collaboration is happening. will continue working through this. I just want to commend Dr. Doris and her team on uh working through this budget the way they have.

Counc um city manager, thank you for the the information on that because that was a question I had as well in terms of of that program. Uh it's nice when you can turn it off because of success. Um, and I also just want to highlight um the the uh collaboration and the cost sharing between the city and the school is something that um I often will talk to residents about as a as an example of innovative ways you're trying to save money in the city. I don't know how often it's done in other municipalities, but I can say, you know, it is something that people are, wow, okay, great. You're looking for ways to do it. So, I commend you all from doing that. And then a final huge thank you to the school committee for your hard work on this budget. So, councelor Duval,

yeah, just a quick question I think for the city manager on the cost savings. Um, what what's the net for the city, right? So, if the school department saves a lot of money because the city's now doing a lot of the things that they used to pay for and do. What? So, if you look at the whole pie to what extent did that actually help us? Yeah, we probably would be able to provide you uh the value gain on what we're what we're currently um collaborating on, but we know that we're the the school is offsetting some of the city's expenses. And when I go through the manager's recommendation, I can show you what that number is as anou that we have. It's offsetting that. It's probably just under $200,000 somewhere's in that ballpark. But um so we can show that and that's that's by not adding any additional staffing. Um it's supervising the staffing that the school had as it pertained to their school maintenance janitorial services um but then leveraging our supervisors and some of our teams regarding some work orders. So we we've moved this school into a complete uh work order system when it comes to um needs that they have which has been really beneficial not just for um for our team to be able to track that but also for I think the administrators in the schools to know that their work order has been placed. They can get an update. They can see where that is. There's a lot of value to that time and efficiency that's taking place that we probably don't capture well. Um, but we can provide you a a good summary of some of this. Um, and then it's it's the but one thing that we don't capture now because now it's just the program is in place. Um, what we're not capturing is the school working on a project and renting a piece of equipment that we already own. You know, that's not happening anymore because we're part of

that discussion. We're part of that process. And so, um, so we don't really see those any longer, but we're certainly seeing a great deal of efficiencies. Other questions from the council? Not see anything. Appreciate you coming in and giving us an update. Look forward to working with uh you and the school committee as we go through the budget process. Thank you very much. Did you want to provide us with any further direction as we head into finalizing our budget? And we have a meeting next Wednesday where the school committee is going to be voting on the budget.

Uh I don't think we have any guidance at the moment. Um a little later here in the work session. That topic's going to come up when we have some further discussion here about the FY27 budget. So we may have some guidance for you before the end of the evening. All right. Sounds good. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Uh we'll move on to the next item which is a discussion of the opioid settlement funds. I think there's a couple items to handle here. One is the um uh Mr. Holmes um and the manager are going to give an overview of what the opioid settlement funds are and what they might be used for. And then we have several um requests for uh opioid fund utilization to discuss. Mr. Holmes,

uh I'll jump in first. Thank Thank you, Mayor. Um just for the council, just a little background. Um this process regarding Auburn receiving these funds started, I think it was in 2018. Uh we had to uh do a great deal of data collection on our community and provide that data as part of the um to to the attorneys that we had signed on with um regarding uh funds to come through uh some of the pharmaceutical um lawsuits that were taking place. And so, uh, we we signed on independently, but then also the state had also, um, levied a lawsuit with other states. Um, so we receive funds as an individual receiver. U, but we also receive funds as a result of also being part of the state of Maine and funds that come in. There's a few different uh, hoops we have to go through as far as what's required of us at a federal level, but then what's also required of us at at a state level. and uh and theou that we have regarding receiving those funds uh from the state. I think one thing that we really are looking to capture from you tonight uh because even though we've been collecting these funds, we really haven't gone to the council yet to uh dispense these. We've been we've been carrying a number in the budget the last few years um for the PSY program and it's been about $60,000. We haven't spent any of that. So, we've spent zero dollars in and um and these funds uh because we've had other grant funds that have covered PSY and we're still doing that. And so, uh so you'll if you recall, if you go back to taking a look at revenue, um we did not allocate any funds uh for PSY through the budget process uh because we knew we were going

to be having this conversation regarding uh allocation of opioid funds. So, what we're really looking for on the council is uh some direction. Other communities have done a various different approaches to to uh dispersing their opioid funds. I think that um we're at a good place now to start identifying how do we uh how do we interpret uh certain programs that are coming forward, what programs make sense for us as a community and um and then what our allocation um should look like. I did provide for you with Glenn and we we put together a workshop that information sheet rather that talked about where we currently are with funds and then what we think we'll be at by 2030 uh based on what we're receiving on a on a quarterly basis. And um so for the council consideration really needed to decide do you want to adopt a um an evaluation criteria for us to um award funds. And and your evaluation criteria might be you must meet the national and state uh requirements to receive funds for opioid. um whether it's intervention, prevention, whatever whatever category we want we want to draw from and we recommend that we think that that's the best way to do it so we don't have another layer of um consideration that must be given. And then and then the other piece is you want to you know is there an annual amount you want to allocate. And the challenge with that is um that you might have a program that has some startup costs and you want to be able to provide the startup costs money so they they can launch the

program and then there will just be uh uh an annual allocation after that. So that's going to be something uh to consider. And then um you know some communities have done a citizen advisory committee. Uh those are challenging just you know we we see some challenges with that because it's who will be at the table. Is there conflicts with those that are at the table because you want that community uh voice in that process and they might also be applying for funds and those would be the people that you would actually have the ta at the table to evaluate it. And so um because we have the criteria, it really can be decided here at the council. Staff can go through and vet the applications. Do they meet all these qualifications? And we could check that through. And if they do, then they come to your level for consideration. And then um and then do you want to consider a multi-year request? And I think this is really important because it's challenging for an entity to say, "We're going to put all this effort in. We'll stand up this program, but we don't know if we're going to see funding next year." And so giving consideration for a multi-year, I think, demonstrates a better opportunity for success uh for our partner. And that's really what we're doing as a community. We're partnering with an entity to say your program we see value in. It meets all the criterias at the national and state level and we want to see you succeed. So you need to plan beyond just a one-year allocation. And uh so those are the the the considerations. I'm sure you know Glenn and his team and and Jennifer have been working through this, but I just want to frame that out for you based on going back to 2018 when we started really identifying everything that we needed to submit to where we are today. It's been a little bit of a a road here that we've

journeyed with. And uh just so the council knows, we did look and we we tried uh to do this um in a regional approach with county and Lewon. In the initial phase, we we brought both of those entities together. We said that this could be really legacy changing opportunity uh for us as a region. Um and we didn't get any traction there. There was no interest. We hosted a meeting here uh for that. um each entity has been distributing their funds as they as they see fit and that was just the the will of those communities uh when we we began the conversation. So our goal was we knew we needed to build that up some and uh so that you can now apply that. If we had just done it year one it would have been you know a very minimal amount of money to be able to apply and no one would have really been able to start a program. You now have with just under 700,000, you now have some a good starting point to launch something that can be long long lasting, impactful for our community and uh demonstrate the results you're hoping for. So Glenn, anything we need to add to that?

No, I think you've covered it well. I mean, we are really looking for direction. And we do have some people that came tonight that have put in some requests in if you wanted to hear something about what these programs might look like, but really for the department, what we're looking for is some direction on how you'd like to have these things come back to you and be presented. Um, I think you'll see in the information we provided kind of laid out some of the key points we think are important. Questions from the council? Council Gary.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Should we set a time of the year where people can submit their request for funding or are we going to do as a needs basis anytime anybody needs some money for to start up a program that's going to meet these criterias that it just comes in front of us? That that would be up to the council to make those determinations. I mean for the for for my team it doesn't matter a whole lot. We can either have a once a year we get sit down with everything or we can do them as they come in. Yeah. Whatever the council's happy with.

I think there's value in doing it during the budget process because I think as we see programming we want sustainability, right? So there's there's going to be a time where you're starting these pilot programs are starting and then is there a supplemental that goes with that? Because we're seeing such great results. Is there a need that might come from the city to help sustain these beyond what you know this money is not going to be here forever? So is there is there uh an opportunity to to add to that based on our other budgeting um process. So I think during the budget year makes sense. Other questions? Council PL.

Thank you. Uh yeah just to echo I guess some of the comments you brought up. I I would be in support of at least a discussion of some creating some sort of framework, some criteria, whether it's a national standard or a state standard. Um I think that's very smart. I would want to also understand the nature of the request monetarily relative to what is available and I I think we'd want to know that context every year and perhaps the limits that we could give away are relative to that amount that we have, that balance that we have. So other than that, yeah, I think we need to create a consistent structure that gives everyone who's, you know, qualified a chance at the funds. Council Dwall.

Yeah, I think I concur with councelor Plattz. Um, so things that I would want to see would be, you know, just written out what you think a good process is, like what are the pieces and I would want to see some sort of rubric for evaluation. um we have of course the the statute so I don't think that's very difficult um and then you know is as proposals come in I would want to see the scores and evidence uh stacked up against that rubric and sort of how you think each one and um what the impact on the fund would be of course um and also about assessment and monitoring. So, how do we know whatever is being proposed is actually going to work? And um how are we going to monitor that? And then as I think uh city manager was saying, how how can that be what are the what's the potential for institutionalization of of these programs that start up with with this money? So, that would be the kind of framework I would want. And I agree the timing should be now during budget time. So when you say institutionalization of it, you're talking about the fact of that the city may eventually start to pick up that tab long term or that they have the ability to get funding in other places so they can be ongoing without our support.

Yes. Other question council

just I agree with those comments. The criteria I think are really important. Keeping it simple state and national criteria be great. I'm sure that those include evidence-based programming in there. So, I'm good with that. Uh, you know, I think that makes it simple, but the the rubric is really important. It's a fair and equitable process to anyone that's coming forward. I think the one additional piece I would say is um I would welcome um some discussion by uh the council in terms of uh that question of a second bullet which I think in a broader sense, how long do we potentially want some of these funds to be around? you know, are we thinking, you know, what's been proposed here today, it's getting close to half of what we would expect by 2030. So, you know, is that good or not? But just having that conversation um so that we have that as a framework of it gets to what council plat was saying what's left but I think maybe even in the beginning saying how how how far out would we think we want to try to have some funding in order based on what we see is how long the the problems we're trying to tackle are going to take.

Council Gary. Thank you Mr. Mayor. And question in my mind is do we do we accept proposals from newly formed groups that have that have formed to basically try to qualify for this money? Or do we also have to should look at the track record of whoever applies for this money so that we know that they're not a fly by night and that they've got a history something behind them to build off of.

Yeah, take a stab at that. I I think both I think that I think it's a great point. Um I think you need to create criteria that give space for all of that. you know, you get points for experience, but you also get points for passion, you know. Um, I think that in looking at the three requests on here, I think it's also important that we as a council embrace that there are different entities trying to tackle different objectives. You've got entities that are more independent that might, you know, partner with the city. You know, we have the PSY program here. That's a that's a city program or at least a grant-f funed city program. We have Spurwink, which I think the background behind that is our partnership with Spurwink through the school system that's wildly underfunded. So, some of these have direct ties to taxpayer funds. Some don't. Um, I don't think we want to choose now that one of those is better than the other. I think we want to, you know, look at these based on merit and based on impact. So, as as you create a rubric, again, I would say merit and impact. Council Randall,

for me it's about setting um clear and consistent approach and um being able to move forward with measurable outcomes. Um I support moving forward with clear expectations and maybe some consideration for reserving some funds for later use.

Council count it. Um I'm also one of the things that I looked at um it's following up on council platis I even with a with the great falls youth corp it's partnering with an existing program we know is um supported valued by the the the community you know so I think that could potentially be another criteria is you know are we linking to established programs that we that uh would enhance you know it's it's a uh win-win situation type of thing.

Other questions? Uh, so a few comments. I think that um um just from the comments we've heard, it's unlikely that anyone on the council's actually read the criteria. So, we'll have the manager circulate it. The criteria is based on a legally binding document that the state of Maine signed in a in effect an interstate compact that outlined the settlement agreement regarding the opioid funds and what the uses were. It's very very detailed. The city of Auburn has no authority to spend any of these funds outside of those directors. Right? So there's lots of choices within the scope of those directives, but there may be all kinds of good things that uh could come before the council for which you're not going to have authority to allocate funds to. Um big picture I think what you'll get out of that if you read through theou is that the fundamentally these monies have to be used for something that has a direct impact on um opioid addiction and um some of the associated um impacts that that uh brings forth. They have to be evidence-based programs and depending on the category, some of the categories require not only they be evidence-based, but that the evidence-based program has to have had a prior demonstrated effectiveness in mitigating opioid addiction. So, it's fairly um uh there's some significant restrictions around these funds. The other thing that I

would say is a just a couple uh follow-up comments. As the manager said, we tried repeatedly probably over a year and a half period to try to do something regionally that didn't work out. I I just want to make sure it's people don't think it didn't work out because people didn't want to cooperate on a regional basis. There were some significant drivers at the county. Uh they're using their opioid funds for uh medically assisted treatment at the jail. Something that's required for them to do for which uh very little funding was provided. So this is how they're trying to meet that. And that's clearly one of the uh objectives in theou the the medically assisted treatment. And then um Lewon is um allocating their funds um uh for a variety of programs. Um and um at least one of these programs uh one of these applications that's that's before us now uh is a partnership with Lewon um uh funding um their share of that. The other thing I would point out is that the the funding for this is not consistent on a year-over-year basis. There's many of these lawsuits. They all have different terms about the payments. Um, our uh uh the the uh distribution factor that's applied for Auburn never changes against the pool of money that comes in. But the amount of money that's coming in each year is not the same. Um we've also acrewed um a substantial amount um uh of what we're going to

receive. A lot of this money was in some ways front-end loaded so that the annual amounts you were getting up front um they weren't the same year to year but they were higher than in a lot of the outy years. Um, and I guess the last comment I would make is I think that the given the um, nature of these funds and that they're um, there's a finite amount of resources here that we should treat these like we do with a lot of grant programs. And the council should look at expending these funds not for ongoing programs but for either projectbased programs or things for startup. And that the um there's there's not going to be the bandwidth in this funding stream to fund programs, you know, on a long-term, you know, basis five, six, 10 years down the road. there's not going to be that type of money available. Um, so other other questions from the council. Um, we only have about um 20 minutes. So my suggestion would be that we um circulate the guidance from theou the manager can send that around to the counselors and that um at the next um council meeting we'll um take a look at the three um proposals after the council's had a time to digest you know the underlying requirements for these types of programs. Um, is that uh sense of the council to proceed in that way? Council

devote. Sorry. Would would that be in a workshop setting or in Yeah. Okay. That would be a workshop. Any other questions on this item?

Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Holmes and Miss Edward. Um, we'll move on. Um and um we're going to talk a bit here about the uh continuation of the budget process. Um just for the public um to catch everybody up, make sure everyone's on the same page of where we're at. So the manager um at the request of the council at the at the last meeting presented impact statements of um achieving excuse me achieving the benchmark the council had sent of a 7.5% tax levy. Um um that would be reducing it from the 12.95% that would have required round numbers $4.4 4 million in um reductions on the city side. Um the uh I think we heard from six six of the councilors. Um I guess I give um councelor Gary an opportunity to weigh in here. Um the the at the close of the last meeting the the question that was uh put to the counselors was were they satisfied with the 7.5% in the 4.4 million in cuts? Did they think the 7.5 was too high should be lower? And how we would go back to the manager for additional impact statements for additional cuts or um was the cuts proposed at 7.5 too deep and we should adjust the target the benchmark upwards and reduce the cuts. So I know councelor Gary you didn't have a chance to weigh in on that uh to close the last meeting. Any thoughts that you have on that?

My ultimate goal is try to look out for those Auburn residents and taxpayers that are on a limited income. I mean, people that don't have exorbitant incomes and that we may affect them. these the seniors that are on a fixed income and will have to cut their cost, their expenses even more than what they have today or even the young families that have just started out. Whatever we do, it's going to affect their mortgages, those that have got mortgages, because everything changes if and I mean I don't want to lose employees and I don't want to cut services to the point that we don't have services. And I mean like for instance the the senior center cutting that down I mean to non-existence does not make sense because right now there's not a whole lot of staff there that the senior groups that are come in there they do everything that they need to do. There's I mean when I was going to First Auburn uh the president and volunteers of the groups and the volunteers they set everything up everything ready. They did everything they had to do for the whole time that the seniors were there, which was usually from about 8:39 in the morning till maybe 2:00 when they would do veno. So to cut a program that we have minimal to no staff does not make sense.

I appreciate your response. I'm not sure I'm clear on the answer. Where where are you on the um on the benchmark of 7.5%. I still think that's high, but I understand the ramifications of the cuts we do, but I can support going up to 10%. So your your your thought is that the 7.5 you would stay at the 7.5 with the 4.4 million in in service reductions.

I may come up to eight, but that's not giving you much wiggle room. But I'm sure as heck is not going to support 10 or 11%.

Okay. So I appreciate you weighing in with your thoughts on that. So, um I think where we left then with the council is that um the the sense of the council was that the 7.5% with a $4.4 million in service reductions was too deep of a cut. and we asked the manager to um uh relook at this with a different target of around 9%. Um I think the manager will go through the handout that he's provided here. Um I guess I would say that um it's kind of a two-edged sword. If you have a smaller cut, in some way it's easier to do the impact statements and in some ways it's harder because when you get down to smaller cuts, you know that you you can't cut sometimes a half of something and have anything left. So, uh I think big picture the manager will go through um some numbers where they are. They're in the process of working through this. I think uh next Monday we'll be able to have um some additional thoughts about um what the differential would be. Um as you'll see on the chat uh what where they are right now is at 9.86% with some additional thoughts about um the reduced impacts uh of what that would be on the budget. Um, and after the manager goes through this, I think we need to loop back around um to discuss the um what the ask might be of the school committee. Um there's a there's a number built into this um chart, but I think we need the council to weigh in and um give

some direction to the superintendent and the school committee so they can discuss that on Wednesday night and come back to the council uh for our next meeting about what the impacts of that might be. So with that, Mr. Manager. Thank you, mayor. So as you look through this uh slide, this is the only slide I have for you tonight. um basically a highlevel look at where we currently are at uh with the budget. That first column is what that's our base, right? That's that's what was adopted last year. So that's our our fixed column uh for the council adopted FY26 budget. The blue uh this is the tax levy, correct? Sorry, these numbers are the tax tax levy.

These numbers are your tax levy numbers. Absolutely. Yep. And so the blue uh section, the uh manager recommendation, like I I've been talking about this through the whole process, those numbers are changing. As we continue to fine-tune where we're at, what we're looking at for numbers, new numbers are coming in, as we really start working this down. This is where I'm currently at. If you remember, I think the initial when we first had our conversation, I think Dr. endorse and I'd come and I think it was you know it's probably somewhere's around 15%. And then that number has moved a little bit since then. I think the last the last meeting we had you were at tw I was at 12.5%. Is where we we were sitting. Um when I do the city manager presentation on um next Monday night, that's when I'll officially give the manager's budget. um we're we're going to be around 11%. And so we'll continue working some of those numbers over the next few days. Um but I feel pretty confident that the numbers that we were waiting for uh changes that we were looking at will come in at that 11%. So then from there you have where I'm currently looking at for the for the council proposed to get to that around that 9%. Um definitely under 10 is some of the the uh comments I heard. So, um, there's some elements in here to get to that. The, uh, you'll notice that there are four line items here that don't change four. They So, if you look at the municipal debt, that's a fixed number. Intergovernmental operations, I've kept that at a a fixed number. I think you heard from 911 and you heard about the challenges with 911. If you make any changes there, what that looks like. So, I've left that as fixed and LATC is fixed. um your county tax is fixed. And so that's what's in that

intergovernmental line item. And then the school debt and the overlay, those numbers have not changed. The uh so the two two lines, municipal operation, um the manager's budget's going to be around 1.5 million and at 8.1%. And then uh what I'm recommending to help get to where we need to be is some additional reductions that get you to the 6.8% 8% municipal operation and then school operation is currently sitting at 700,000 that the superintendent shared during her presentation. To get to the 9.8 um part of the conversations that were happening at the last workshop, I've plugged in a reduction of 500,000 for the school operations side. So, um, to go back to where we were at for, uh, city operations, uh, at the 12.5, uh, we were sitting right around, um, just right around just over $3 million. And so now we're at the the 1.5 and then it'll go to 1.2. Um, so that's that's where we're at today. uh that you'll I'll have a full presentation on what's driving these I think uh where we can really get into conversations for the 9.8 8 is what's in what's in that those columns that change that number uh because I feel confident where we're at on the manager side programming again not reducing programming but finding efficiencies that's all in that blue column but I think we can really dig into what I'm recommending for you to consider uh to get to the 9.8. So questions from the council and thoughts about the um school number council plat.

Yeah. Um so my question is about the school number just so to make sure I understand this. So in the proposed manager budget with a 11.1% increase on the tax levy that's adopting the school budget that was presented today. That's correct. So the $500,000 increase a decrease. I do see that that is based on that's based on what you think may result from this convers uh it's a placeholder for what may result from this what came from the last meeting. Got it. So it's not based on costs that you see coming and you're you're making adjustments. Okay, I understand.

Right. It would be the a the 500,000 would be the ask of the school committee to come back to the council with an impact statement is if they have to reduce their operating budget by $500,000 from what the superintendent proposed this evening. Okay. So, okay, I understand. Um, I guess my then my question is so we'd be asking the school to decrease 500 from their proposed budget, but I'm looking at the municipal operation and it looks like between the proposed manager's budget and council proposed budget, we've only shaved off 240,000.

Well, I've already reduced um the municipal the manager's budget from where we were before. So, that's that's the number that I've been talking about that I continue to kind of work through, but we were um you know, the overall tax levy was at 7.3 million. Um, and you'll see we're sitting now at 6.4 million on the manager's budget. So, that's what's been reduced already uh from the last the last uh presentation to be at the 12.5. And is that because you have made discretionary decisions or because things are coming in at lower expenditures than we thought?

Yeah, most of those are discretionary. It's it's looking and saying, okay, can we can we do something different here? Can we create some efficiencies, reduce some costs, but still be able to deliver programming? I'm just I'm asking because I want to understand when to compare apples and when to compare oranges. And so we're going to fixate, someone's going to fixate on the number 500,000 for the school, and we just need to we need to make sure what we're comparing that to. So what I just said we're comparing that to is not correct. You can't just look at this sheet and say, "All right, 240,000 less for the city, 500,000 less for the school." That's not fair. We need to dig a little deeper to make those comparisons.

So it's around I think it's around 1.2 million. Is that right? On the city side. On the city side. Yeah. I think you that would be the comparative number to the 500,000 is around 1 point round numbers 1.2 million. Go to your your last comparison sheet that the finance director provided you. You'll see what the municipal operation number was at and is that the 2.56 tax le what you're referring to? Yeah. If you go down for school operating it was 2.3 right? Yeah. where we're at.

Yeah. What I'm seeing from March 30th was 2.56. Mhm.

That that was at the higher percentage. So when you when you go down to the 9.86, that reduces that amount. I I think it's fair to say that um that will there'll still be um reductions in the budget and um uh what what we're expecting Monday night is I think you know the manager looked at the impact statements before they're building off that with a lower number. Um what would those reductions look like? And are there some different ways to achieve those same reductions through, you know, other combinations of um efficiencies that could be gained um um it's still a work in progress. So, we won't have the details until Monday, but the it's important to get some sense of this um as a basis for the council to make the ask to the school committee. So, so thoughts on that? Council,

thanks, Mr. Mayor. I I I appreciate councelor Platz's question cuz that was what was going through my mind too and it was a good it was very helpful to be reminded you've already removed things city manager. So um in in with that new reflection I'm I'm more comfortable saying that 500,000 and ask of please provide us the impact of a 500,000 additional cut is comparable in size and what we're already cutting. I'm supportive of what we're proposing. And I So

yes, I mean in ratio like Yeah, it's their overall budget, but they get more money from the state. So in my mind, that felt good that 500,000 is good.

So I think the number the the comparison for the council to make is that the operating uh budget increase line, right? the the debt service is highly variable. Intergovernmental is uh for the most part fixed. So after you make reductions, um I think the operating budget increase is the place to make the comparison. Um I I think it gets very complicated if you start then trying to factor in revenue increases. I think that um those are outside the control of the council. Also, the operating budget number is a place to look. The reduction in the operating budget percentage increase would be um higher on the municipal side than it would be on the school side, even with the $500,000 um ask and and the five we're not we're not um taking some type of final action on this $500,000. We're just making uh requests for the superintendent to work with the school committee to advise the council on um what that type of impact would be.

Council Randall, some of the state funding that she was talking about um will that help offset this or just only the the um project at the middle school? The

the state um so uh to be clear, there's kind of two pieces to this. the the uh the the school aid that the the that the city will receive this coming year is fixed and it's already in this budget. The the superintendent has accounted for that as revenue and as she pointed out earlier um because of just the way it works there was a substantial increase that greatly benefited the city as a whole this year. What might happen coming forwards yet to be determined in the closing days of the legislature regarding the school funding formula. Uh how that works out. Um I think it's pretty clear at this point there's no possibility that there will be anything coming out of that to apply in FY27.

Mr. Manager.

Yeah. I think just a council plat um comparing apples to apples. I think it's just for the council to know when when you get your packet probably the best document to look at is the comparison uh data and yes we're looking at tax levy up here but if you go to just look at the the expenses I think that's where you're going to see where where are we currently at on increases and to get to the 9.8 8 you're going to see operating expenses on municipal is 4.1 intergovernmental 7.8 the county tax is 9.1 so those total municipal expenses is coming at 4.69 the tiff expense is something that even though it's I have it broken out as a separate line item because there's benefits on both city and school side when we allocate funds for the tiff. So you see a 10% increase there, but know that that's going to be a decrease or sorry, that's going to be an increase on the school's revenue and it's going to be a decrease on the um city's uh contribution to the county tax, but it'll also be an increase on our state revenue share. So there's a lot of moving pieces. When when you see that tiff amount increase, there's benefits on both sides of that. you're going to see the municipal side is increasing the 350,000 the the cost for us to pull that out, but it's really that's going to be a combination uh benefit across the board. And then total school expenses is at 6.39. This is just their expense line item. That's there's no revenue in

Is that after a considered $500,000 reduction or before? This is the This is after the $500,000. Yes. cuz right now it's it's 7.3. Yep. Yep. And uh yeah, this is all based on to get to the 9.8. And then your debt service and again this is collectively it's at 7 that that didn't change, right? So that's I'm sorry that's at 14.6 both city and school on the debt service. So, that might be a good document for you to take a look at and say, "Okay, expense-wise, where we at?" Because we all have drivers with revenues on both sides that's going to help reduce that number that you see up there regarding the tax levy itself. So

I understand that, but I I guess I would appreciate may I'll have to digest it a little bit more. But there's a larger proportion the the the amount of money when you look at the tax levy in in expenses is a different ratio for municipal to school than when you look at the total costs. And that's because there's a different ratio of a standard different ratio of of expenses coming in from the state. So, in my mind, I that's why I guess I say I'm comfortable asking for the impact on 500,000. I don't want it to be equal to the cut on the municipal because I don't think it's an equal I don't think that's a fair thing. I think the approach you've taken I appreciate the approach you've taken there.

Other questions or thoughts? the sense of the council to ask the school committee to review the $500,000 uh reduction and come back to us with impact statement. And and just to be clear, we're at approximately 1.2 on the city side based on napkin math to reach 9.86. It's not going to be any less,

right? But okay. Yeah, I'm in support of that. I I I think again I'm focused on the increase in the operating budgets of each department. I I agree with you, Mr. Mayor. I don't think you can look at the revenue because to me that state subsidy, it's a subsidy to the taxpayer, not to the municipality, right? So I I agree with where we're at

except that in some ca of course this is the same on the municipal side too. I am I I think I'm understanding correctly that when you think of things like special education, you're you're not going to be able to cut as much there as you would from general education if we're asking to cut, right? So, so similar to what we're talking about with, you know, the kinds of the certain things that we can cut from the individual side. So, I just and a large portion of that's coming from the state. So, in my mind, I'm having a hard time completely separating them, but I'll work at it. Anything further on the school issue? So, Superintendent Doris, um,

you got what you needed. Great. Thank you very much. Um, so, um, we're a little over time here, so we'll wrap this up. Um we'll have a more detailed discussion next Monday about on the city side how we intend to get to the 9.86 um and proceed from there. So um with that we'll adjourn um and we'll take a uh quick break here for uh two or three minutes to let everybody get situated and then we'll convene the council meeting.

shows.

The April 6, 2026 Auburn City Council meeting will be called to order. Please join us in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. If we could have the counselors introduce themselves, starting with council Gary. Good evening, Belinda Garary, city councelor at large. Good evening, city councelor uh ward one. Rachel Randall. Good evening, Tim Cowan, city council for W 2. Good evening, Matthew Dubala, city council, W three. Good evening, Jeff Harmon, Mayor. Good evening, Kelly Butler, city council, ward four. Good evening, Leroy Walker, council w five. Good evening, Adam Platt, city councelor at large. Good evening, Brennan Edwards, student representative. Phil Croll, city manager.

Thank you. The first item on tonight's agenda is the consent agenda. There's one item on it. Appointing the election clerks for a two-year term for May 1st, 2026 to April 30th, 2028. Is there a motion? Motion to move. Been moved by council Walker. Is that second? Seconded by Council Cowan. Vote will be by show of hands. All those in favor? Seven. Having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, the motion is adopted. The next item is approval of the minutes from the March 16th, 2026 regular city council meeting. Are there any errors or corrections? Not seeing any. Is there a motion to adopt? Motion to move. Moved by councelor Walker. Is there a second? Seconded.

Seconded by councelor Platt. The vote will be by show of hands. All those in favor? Seven. Having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, the motion is adopted. We'll move on to the first open session of the evening. If there's any members of the public that would like to address the council regarding 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 moved on to unfinished business. The first item is ordinance 0503162026 amending chapter 60 zoning of the city's code of ordinances regarding protections for important farmland and natural resources. This is for second reading and a public hearing. It's a reminder to the councelor and the public uh that the council took this up uh at the last uh meeting at first reading. Um this is um uh amendment to the ordinance that uh in effect substantively uh prohibits the sighting of solar arrays uh in the A zone on um land that is prime farmland or soils of statewide importance. Is there a motion?

So moved. Moved by councelor Gary. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by councelor Platt. If there's any member of the public that would like to address the council on this item, the public hearing is open. Please approach the podium and provide your name and address. Not seeing any. The public hearing is closed. Discussion by the council. Council plat. I just had a question on the on the brief here. Um says total of 71 acres of solar projects have been constructed. Does that imply that they've been constructed on prime farmland or just just as it says in the a zone?

Um, where are you? I'm I'm at the uh the ordinance the link of the ordinance in the agenda in what section? Uh, I downloaded it off of the agenda. Um, sorry. Oh, you're unfinished business. You're you're in the in the attachment. Um, you're in the uh information sheet.

I'm in the um ordinance 05 file attachment on the agenda on the front page there. It just mentions um number of acres uh where solar projects have been constructed, right? And I was just curious, is that acres in the a zone or is that acres on prime farmland in the a zone? So this total of 71 is in the a zone. Um we don't we don't have an actual count of how much of that was on prime farmland or soil of statewide importance because no actual testing was required previously under the ordinance.

Okay, great. That that clears up my question. Thank you. Other discussion by the council. Council ready for the question. Vote will be by roll call. The clerk will call the role. Councelor Platz, yes. Councelor Gary, yes. Councelor Randall, yes. Councelor Cowen, yes. Councelor Duval, yes. Councelor Butler, yes. Councelor Walker, yes.

Seven having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, the motion is adopted. We'll move on to new business. The first item is order 300462026 approving on premise beer and wine license for CRL seafood doing business as always fresh LS shell seafood at 22 Mil Street. There will be a public hearing. Is there a motion? Motion to approve.

Moved by council Walker. Is there a second? Seconded by councelor Cowan. We'll open the public hearing. If there's any member of the public who would like to address the council on this item, please approach the podium and provide your name and address. Not seeing any, the public hearing closed. Discussion by the council. Council Walker, thank you. I just like to say good luck and I think it's something that's been needed a long time. Auburn. Other questions or comments by the council? Council Gary.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, does this mean that you can go in, sit down, order a meal, and order a drink to go with the meal? Sorry, certain procedures here, but I think we can answer this for you. You can order and if you see the diagram, there's going to be an expansion on one side of the building roped off where there'll be outdoor dining. Um, so, um, it's going to be the same as a lot of other places we have in the city where they'll be able to purchase their food and that, uh, beer or wine and then consume it on premise. Council Walker,

also I'd like to say thank you for the nice work that you've done to change the looks of that area and that building. Thank you very much.

Other questions or comments by the council. I I have one item to point out here and I'm going to have this on the next one as well. So, there's a there's an error uh regarding the nearest um church school. The clerk will know what all these categories are. It says it's a six it's uh Trinity Episcopal which would be over in Lewon. That's not the case. Sixth Street Congregational Church is closest. I don't think this is going the clerk could answer this for us going to make any material difference in the application, but I just wanted to point out um that um there is an error and I'm assuming this must come when they put their application in because there's an error on the next one as well

in the same field. Yes, that's correct. And there is no uh material it doesn't make a material difference for the application. Correct. Any further questions or comments by the council? Is the council ready for the question? Vote will be by show of hands. All those in favor. Seven. Having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, the motion is adopted. We'll move on to order 310462026. Approving an on-remise beer license for Lucador Court doing business as Lucador Tacos at 945 Center Street. Again, this will be for a public hearing. Is there a motion? Motion to approve. Moved by Council Walker. Is there a second? Second.

Seconded by councelor Randall. We'll open the public hearing. If there's any member of the council that would like to address the excuse me, if there's 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. Not seeing any. The public hearings closed. Questions or comments from the council? Again, uh, Madame Clerk, I'd point out here it it shows on the application High Street Congregational Church is the closest facility. It's actually Grace Community Church, which is uh quite a bit closer. Again, I don't I'm assuming it makes no material difference in the application. Is that correct?

Yes, that's correct. Any further comments or questions by the council? Vote be by show of hands. All those in favor? Seven having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative, the motion is adopted. The next item is order 320462026, adopting a 5-year CIP plan for FY27 through FY31. Is there a motion? So moved. Moved by council count. Is there seconded?

Seconded by councelor Platt. Discussion by the council. And if I would point out to the council, this is I'll find the tab in your budget book. It's uh if you put it under this capital improvement tab like I did when the finance director handed it out last week. I had it under title uh under tab five. It's titled the citywide 5-year capital improvement plan. Any questions? I have a quick question just I guess as to the structure of this vote.

Um I guess what is I mean what is it that we're voting on here? I I understand what the vote is but we can we can remove and or add items. We can change numbers. So really this is just a we support the five-year concept basically. So, so I think it's um first this is required by Chad and as the manager said uh internally they're going to be moving to a 10-year plan. I think this is really um a way to project out what's known at the time for capital improvements over the last 5 years. Obviously, the near-term things never get fully funded in here in a couple weeks when we vote on the budget, but it's trying to identify um priorities and timing for capital improvements will be coming down the road.

So, it binds us to nothing, but it it proves that annually we've addressed this issue and responsibly we've done our best to project out 5 years. That's correct. Other questions or comments by the council? Any comments, Mr. Manager?

No, I think I think you summarized it well, mayor. I just say, you know, there's also, you know, we we'll get asked questions regarding do we have a comp 5-year uh CIP plan might be something within our audit procedure. There's a category for that. Uh there's also a category when we apply for funding. If it's a grant funding and we're going after grants, they want to know, is this something you've even thought about as a city or you just submitting this application? And when we can demonstrate that, then that helps us with that funding. So that's a reason there might be items in there that aren't you're not necessarily recommending we fund them, but they're in there because they may have use for other purposes. Exactly. Yeah. Or they may they may show up in the budget, but they might not show up on the tax levy.

Right. Other thoughts or questions by the council on the CIP plan? Council ready for the question? Vote will be by show of hands. All those in favor? Opposed? Six having voted in the affirmative and one in the negative. The motion is adopted. The next item is order 3304062026. the annual report to the main state housing authority regarding affordable housing districts and the associated tax increment financing. Um, as background, I'm sure that the council and the public at this point is familiar with the tax increment financing program. There is a specific variant of that for affordable housing in which when the city adopts those um the uh community and business development office is required on behalf of the city to report annually to the main state housing authority regarding those tiffs. Is there a motion?

Motion to move. Moved by councel Walker. Is there a second? Second.

Seconded by councelor Platt. There's any member of the public who'd like to address the council on this item, please approach the podium and provide your name and address. Not seeing any public comment is closed. Discussion by the council. Is the council ready for the question? Vote will be by show of hands. All those in favor? Opposed? Seven having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative. The motion is adopted. The next item is order 34462026 amending the agreement with the Auburn Lewist Municipal Airport to refinance the outstanding principal on the hanger number five loan for 20 years at 2.58% interest. Um this will require some explanation and background especially for the new members of the council. So, let's uh we'll have a motion to get this on the floor and the manager and um transportation director can explain this. Is there a motion?

Motion to move. Moved by council Walker, seconded by councelor Cowen. Before we open this up to public comment, Mr. Leonte, um if you could provide some uh background, I know that we dealt with this last year, but things have changed. If you can provide the background to the council and the public, that'd be appreciated. Mr. Mayor, members of the council, good evening. Um, given how efficiently you're moving through your agenda, I'll give you the brief version of the of the events. Um, we gave you extra time.

Oh, there we go. I'll start a timer. Um, hanger number five. Um, also known by many as the Lufthansza hanger. Uh, it was built for the constellation Starlininer project of of Luansza Technic some time ago. um that was built by a private developer who leased it to the airport who then subleasased it to Lufansza um with no markup. So his debt service became the airport's lease amount became the subleasase amount in a triple net lease. All the utilities insurance in that case privately owned property taxes made all of that fell to um the tenant. Um that project ran into some financial challenges um as it continued on. Uh there was an approach to refinance to lower the lease rates. Uh one of the ways that was accomplished was for the two cities to direct the airport to buy out the developer and the two cities would provide a loan um to to finance that acquisition um not through bonded debt but through the respective cities fund balances. So the airport is a its own quasi governmental thing but it's really the two cities acting through a different legal vehicle. Um, so the cities had the airport by the hanger and agreed to um loan that money at a at a little bit more than what the fund balance was was getting for interest. It was in an era of extremely low interest rates. So the the 2 and a half or so percent was more than what those fund balances were achieving um from their respective banks. Um, fast forward a little bit further. Uh, Lufansza closes out the project um and Elite Airways uh from Portland um seeks a lease to open up a maintenance shop. Um again to align what the tenants willing to pay and what the airport's debt service would be, there was another refinance. So again the the cities loaned themselves in essence the money.

Um and that then further lowered what elite would have to pay. Uh in 2023 through non-payment around the time the city stepped in to run the airport um sort of in receiverhip um we had to evict Elite. Um there hadn't been maintenance. Utilities were coming back to the airport because Elite had been paying. There was no money to make the debt service payment. Each city agreed at the board's request to take fiscal years 23 and 24 loan payments and put them at the end of the debt service. So, we're still going to make all the payments, but the airport was not in a very good cash position to pay the two cities. Um, fast forward a little bit further along. Um, the reality was we don't have a tenant. We continue to hunt for a tenant at the airport that might want to use all of that space. Um, a couple of counselors are coming out tomorrow. I appreciate you making the time. If you haven't been in that hanger, it's a big space and we're using it uh at the airport to grow the number of base tenants. So, we have a lot of small aircraft in a hanger that was built for very large aircraft. So, near-term, it's good. More base tenants. We're increasing some of our fuel sales. The reality is that hanger is obscenely expensive to operate. Um during the winter, we're spending over $7,000 a month just on utilities. um heating that thing. Um the doors are on in essence railroad tracks to open and close. So we approached the cities last year um in the budget deliberations. The board supported my recommendation uh to recognize the principle. We want to pay this back, but could we do a 20-year no interest finance on the remaining debt, lower our annual operating costs, try to get the building to break even as we try to focus on other efforts. Um both cities uh were very generous in agreeing to that. Uh unfortunately uh two weeks later uh Lewon moved um without me being able to be at the meeting or being public noticed. They moved to reconsider

that action uh and then voted to add interest to the loan. Um neither city has build yet for this year's debt service payment. Uh but to me if one sponsor of the airport uh wishes to extract interest from the airport, both cities in the interest of equity should do that. Um, I'm not do I'm not coming to you excited. Uh, this will add a $16 to $20,000 dent into our costs. Um, you'll if you haven't seen yet, you will see a budget memo that I put together. I provided it to Lewon last week. Um, this will be five straight fiscal years where we've not asked for an additional subsidy beyond the 205. everything is more expensive and the board inherited an airport that had had not had preventative maintenance, let alone meaningful capital planning for a long time. So, we're we're holding together. We're trying to grow sustainably and every 510 $15,000 makes a difference. Um, but if Lewon is going to direct the airport to pay interest, um, Auburn deserves the the same courtesy. So, I'm I'm here tonight. I appreciate staff getting this on the agenda uh to ask for the same which is 2.58%. Happy to answer questions.

Um before we go to the council for questions, I just make one observations. So the 205 that the director is talking about is the $25,000 subsidy that each city pays under the interlocal agreement. Um the airport can ask the cities to raise that. the cities are obligated to fund that unless the airport board reduces it. The direction that they're headed in is to eliminate these subsidies, right? So, the board is trying to get the airport to a point where it breaks even and then further down the road actually makes money that it can reinvest into the airport. But at the current time, we're subsidizing them. So, in effect, we're going to charge ourselves interest to pay it through a subsidy. So, I'll just be blunt about this. The same thing I said when we decided to do this last year. This makes no sense to take money out of one pocket and put it in your pants in the other pocket. But, um, here we are. We're in it in it. um it's just going to prolong the day where we get to not having to subsidize the airport. So, um with that, other questions for the director or comments from the council council,

I I want to make sure I did my math right. I I heard you say 20 25,000 a five some sort of five-digit number. I just did a quick amorization uh calculator. says it's about $700 a month more than what you would have been paying with a 0% interest. Is that right? Is that the same calculation? Yeah, I want to say it was like $8600 bucks or so roughly per per year the additional. Okay. All right. I mean, I agree with you, Mr. Mayor. Seems like a we're adding a bunch of administrative work to pay ourselves $8,500 every year through two steps as opposed to zero steps. So, we But our hands are kind of tied. So then we can charge ourselves a subsidy to pay ourselves the interest.

Right. But if we don't do it, then we're just going to go back and forth and back and forth and back and forth. I think yeah, I agree with Council Platt and with Director Leonte that um you know, we're we're it's unfortunate we're here, but I think um like we do with most interlocal agreements, you know, we need to stay on the same everybody on the same page. So, I think the council should pass this, but um it it doesn't seem to have a lot of benefit. Seems like an amount of money not worth fighting over. Correct. Council Randall,

if we were to not pass this, does it go back to Lewon for them to consider zero again, or is that what you're saying? It would just go back and forth. I um Director Leonte can answer this, but my recollection from the past is this isn't this isn't like the 911 interlocal agreement where if we didn't fund something, they would have to reduce theirs. We could pay the interest to Lewon and not pay the interest to Auburn. But um you know, overall better everybody to stay in alignment. Yeah, it was unfortunate um as I presented the budget to or or at least the state of the airport to um Lewon last week, the board has adopted the a balanced budget. Um they did they provided a no interest loan to the buyers of the colise. So a fairly a fairly risky investment compared to a you know funding yourself through a joint agency. Um I the goal is to continue to improve the airport. um you know, Phil's leadership, um his support for me at the time, just as the city's transportation director to lean in. Auburn has has carried significant weight to get this facility on on more solid footing, which is why I wanted to make sure that we brought equity to the interest question.

The board could certainly take up Sorry, Mr. Mayor. Um if if the council wanted the board to revisit accepting having to pay interest, I could certainly work with the chair to have on the agenda um the board discussing whether or not there needs to be a fresh approach to the two cities in essence sort of subsidizing the interest, but it it does add extra administrative staff to come to these meetings and have you take up your your meeting time. Other thoughts or questions from the council? Council.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I just echo the sentiments mayor and counselor plat. It seems an unfortunate reality but I agree that being parody you know for parity and equity I appreciate you bringing this forward I'm in support. Any other thoughts or questions? Council ready for the question? Vote will be by excuse me uh yeah vote will be by show of hands. All those in favor seven having voted affirmative and none in the negative the motion is adopted. The next item is ordinance 0604062026 amended amending chapter 60 zoning of the city's code of ordinances regarding legislative document 427 an act to regulate municipal parking space minimums. Um for clarification for the public, um um LD427 was an adopted bill by the legislature that changed minimum parking standards throughout the state and required municipalities con to conform their zoning ordinances. What's before you tonight has been worked by the planning department and the planning board and the planning board has sent this forward for adoption um recommending the adoption as it conforms our ordinances pursuant to the statute. Is there a motion?

Motion to move. Moved by councel Walker. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by councelor Jval. Questions by the council. So just to the wording is a little confusing to me. So allowing more is it basically requiring more is that actually what the language is talking about? Uh Mr. Cousins I think could answer that. My understanding would be that um the way the statute works the city cannot require more than a certain number of parking spots. developers are free in their site plan to um propose any number that they want.

Is that that's correct? That's a that's yeah okay so the wording is just really the you allowing is just a bizarre word choice in that particular space but thank you. Yeah. So a good example of this would be Brickyard Circle. Even under the prior ordinance, um they proposed in their site plan more parking spaces than the minimum to meet what they saw was the market demand for um resident and visitor parking um at their complex. Any other questions on this item? Council ready for the question? This will be first reading. The vote will be by roll call. The clerk will call the role.

Councelor Gary. Yes. Councelor Randall, yes. Councelor Cowan, yes. Councelor Duval, yes. Councelor Butler, yes. Councelor Walker, yes. Councelor Plattz, yes.

Seven having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, the motion is adopted. We'll move on to reports. Um, a few items to report. Um, uh, because of the schedule, we've had a little bit longer period of time than typical. So back on March 17th, they had the um public forum for the issue regarding the mobile home parks, very well attended. Um um several counselors were there, staff, um folks from main housing. Um I think it was very productive and uh I think that uh the counselors got some really good feedback from the attendees. Um the status of this now is we've taken the feedback we've received um and um using the model ordinance is a initial framework. Um, we have this uh over to legal to draft a proposed ordinance that will be coming back to the council probably the first meeting in May um to look at that um see what the framework of the ordinance would look like and have a discussion about the policy issues that would be contained in that um and then um we'll move along um from there. Um on the 25th of March, I attended the main mayor's coalition legislative day um up to Augusta. Uh very well attended. We had an opportunity to talk with lots of uh legislators, leadership, people on um the appropriations committee about what was important to the larger cities. Um

the home forgood uh me cohort meeting took place on the 26th uh is an update. The plans for the home forgood facility will be in front of the planning board next week. Um and there have a tenative um um fall start date fall for start of construction. Um, I attended uh representing the elected officials. So, I should get lots of thanks from the counselors for the uh Auburn Water District emergency response tabletop exercise. It was a whole morning exercise on the 31st. It actually was quite interesting to as they work through some scenarios of um emergencies that affected um water quality. Um I was fortunate to attend a um tour uh and meet with the leadership at Good Shepard. Um if people haven't been there, I haven't been there for quite a few years. If you haven't been there, it's worthwhile to to at some point set up a tour and go and see their operation and um the extent of the um services they're providing for food insecurity across the state. Uh the PAL Center had their Easter egg hunt and barbecue on April 2nd. Uh big thanks to the PAL Center staff and their volunteers and to the Exchange Club. The exchange club did a great job providing the food and um really large turnout with kids and their parents and it was a really great event. Uh the last thing is the upcoming um comp uh comprehensive plan open houses.

So the um the staff and the um committee will be presenting draft um uh land future land use maps with the growth zones and the land characteristic zones. Uh there's four upcoming meetings. Uh they're all posted on the city website, but they're on Tuesday the 7th at 5:30 at Sherwood Heights School, Wednesday the 8th at 5:30 at the East Auburn School, Wednesday the 15th at 5:30 at the Pal Center, and Saturday the 18th at 10:00 a.m. at Edward Little High School. Um we're the committee is really looking for um feedback from the public. So, come by and um see the maps and um offer your opinion. Uh so, with that, um Council Gary,

nothing at the moment to report, Council Randall. Nothing. Thank you. Council Cowan, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just to reinforce uh would uh encourage people to come out and give us feedback for the comp plan. A lot of good a lot of good work, but we really want to hear from people. So, council Duval, exactly the same thing as councelor uh Gowen. The comp plan meetings will be really interesting and useful. Council Butler, comp plan has been very well covered. So, nothing this week. Council Walker, nothing at this point. Council Platt,

I just have I have to report um at the the nudging of of councelor Duval, the um Haramman facilities uh report has been posted to the school department site. So I know as we learn more about the AMS project um if you want to have a better understanding of um what according to the Haramman plan um is suggested for CIP in the next 5 years, that would be the place to see it. Thank you. Uh, Representative Edwards. Um, to start we, um, Edward Little is looking for volunteer opportunities for our EL gives back day. So, if you guys have anyone, let them reach out to Principal Aley. Spring sports have started and today marks 30 days until the senior's last day.

Mr. Manager,

not that anyone's counting, right? So, um, just, uh, to councelor Plattz, uh, regarding the Heramman report, I I will forward you that so you'll have it in a link, so you'll be able to find it pretty pretty easily that way. Uh, just a couple things, uh, to report out on. Uh, this is our season of non ice events at Norway uh, Savings Bank Arena, and what I'll be providing you is, um, a report regarding uh, the activity that's taking place there on the weekend. So, we've had the home show currently. Last weekend, this past weekend rather, we had um a cheering competition. We have an RV show that's coming up. So, we have we have a lot of events there that have an economic impact uh in the in the community. So, uh we met with uh the director uh today. We'll be providing you uh a weekend impact on what does that look like for us as a community. you'll have have that information and be able to uh kind of be aware of what's taking place in the community as it pertains to uh the ice arena. Um and that's it, Mayor. Thanks.

Thank you. We'll move on to the second open session of the evening. If there's any member of the public that would like to address the council, please approach the podium and provide your name and address.

Uh my name is John Cleveland. I live at 183 Davis Avenue in Auburn. I'm also chair of the infamous comprehensive planning committee. Thank you all for mentioning it. I just wanted to add a little something more on those meetings. All of the meetings that start at 5:30 and go to 7:30, we have those structured so you if you can't be there right at 5:30, that's okay. You can come any time during that 2-hour period. And we have it structured so that you'll have materials, you'll have individuals there and you'll uh the maps and so forth will be there and we'll answer your questions and walk through through. So if you have to finish your dinner in the evening before you come, that's fine. Come on over. You can still do that. Same thing with the Saturday one except a little different time. You can come anytime that we're open and we'll provide you with the information and we hope um as many of you as possible will come. Thank you very much. Any other member of the public who'd like to address the council, please approach the podium. Not seeing any, the open sessions closed. The council has two executive sessions this evening. Uh no um action is expected um after the executive sessions. Council move directly to adjournment when we come out of the second executive session. So the first executive session is pursuant to one MRSA section 405 sub6D for labor contract negotiations concerning the police department patrol unit. Is there a motion?

Motion to move. Moved by councel Walker. Is there a second? Seconded by councelor Cowan. Vote will be by show of hands. All those in favor. The council will be in executive session.