City Council - Regular Meeting

Hello, and welcome to our Tuesday evening special council meeting. I appreciate your being here. We're going to kick things off with the Pledge of Allegiance. Our administrator has graciously agreed to lead us.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

Thank you very much, Administrator Kainrath. I would like to note for the record that we are running on a skeleton crew this evening. We have our Deputy Administrator filling in also as the clerk. Deputy Administrator, I believe we're ready to begin.

Yes, Mr. Mayor, we have one item on the agenda tonight. That is a public hearing and first and final passage for an extension of the moratorium ordinance requiring rent increases for lots and mobile home parks Requested action that the proposed moratorium ordinance regarding rent increases for lots and mobile home parks be effective September 29th 2026 received first passage by a roll call vote.

I have a motion, please So move counselor Chittum second by councillor Nagin Deputy administrator, please call the vote

Will counsel from Ward 1?

Yes.

Counsel from Ward 2? Wait.

Point of order. Yeah, sorry. I jumped the gun there. Thank you. Sorry. We're motion is now on the table All right here so quick explanation about why we're here tonight Are we in consultation with our city attorney? They recommended that we extend the moratorium So there is not a gap in coverage as we continue to work on the lot rent stabilization I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF RUMORS AND A LOT OF QUESTIONS, BUT IT'S BASICALLY THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FROM COUNSELORS? WE WILL NOW HEAD TO PUBLIC COMMENT. EVERYONE WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

ARE YOU GOING TO READ THE RULES? AM I GOOD TO GO?

YOU'RE GOOD TO GO.

Erin Sol, Ward 5. I want to start by saying something very plainly. If you support this ordinance, I understand why. Rising lot rents are a real burden and families all over Lewiston are feeling strained with the cost of living in Maine today. This isn't a debate about whether people are struggling. We are. The question in front of us is whether rent control is the right tool to fix it. So here's my concerns. Rent control caps what a property owner can charge, but it doesn't cap what it costs to maintain that property. Insurance, repairs, infrastructure, taxes, and unnecessary government regulations. When those costs keep rising but revenue is frozen, park owners have two choices, cut back on maintenance or get out of the business entirely. We've seen this pattern play out in other states and often parks get sold off for redevelopment and the very residents rent control was meant to protect end up losing their homes altogether. Not because their rent went up, but because the park closed. We need more affordable housing and more competition. Rent control will discourage what Lewiston needs right now, and that's new investment. If you're an investor deciding whether to build or maintain affordable housing here in Lewiston, a rent controlled market sends a very clear signal. Your return is capped, but your risk isn't. Over time, that means fewer parks, less competition, and less affordable housing solutions. I believe the better long-term path for protecting residents is through strong enforceable lease terms. This includes real notice periods before rent increases and making it easier for residents to purchase their own park lots by giving residents right of first refusal if the park owner decides to sell. Lewiston and Maine also need to expand the supply of mobile home lots by cutting the tax costs that drive rents higher The goal should be more competition and more ownership at lower cost in Lower, I'm sorry at lower cost a rent control ordinance will not achieve this the cost of living in Lewiston and Maine in general continued to skyrocket and we must address the underlying causes that actually fix the problem and I believe there's a way to protect our neighbors that doesn't risk the parks themselves disappearing out from under them due to increasing costs but not revenue. So thank you for listening, and I hope you all really take this into consideration before you make your choices. Thanks.

My name's Lisa Jones, I live in Ward 2 and I own and operate a business in Ward 7. I have comments to deliver tonight that I do not expect to change anybody's mind, but I still find it important that they're said out loud. I sent a Freedom of Access Act request to the Assistant City Administrator in an attempt to piece together how this meeting came about. We just heard that it was advised, apparently, from the city attorney. We know there's more than one city attorney. We know that one doesn't know the legal meaning of the word shall and thought Iman Osman should be on the ballot. So I wouldn't listen to that city attorney, personally. You guys are in charge of what the city does, not the city attorney. The public notices that when a city councilor requests a special meeting due to increased violence in our city, they're denied. But a special meeting popped up out of nowhere to further your socialist agenda. The fact that it's happening under the new city council president who espouses transparency is especially disappointing. You've all been well educated on the inner workings of mobile home parks. Owners of one of them locally have provided you all with more information than we've gotten from them when they're up here at public comment. But they've spelled out very clearly what will happen. to their business, to their livelihoods, and to the people who rent mobile homes in their parks if this goes through. We need Lewiston to be business friendly, and government interference into the running of a private business is not business friendly. It's no secret that I own an operated business here in Lewiston. I don't feel like it's a far-fetched fear to wonder when you're going to try to create an ordinance that will impact how I run my business. Is state representative who has me illegally blocked slash counselor Harriman going to decide it's up to him how much I charge families to care for their children? How far over the line of inappropriate behavior is this council going to go? What makes you think it's within your purview whatsoever to meddle in the inner workings of a private business? Lewiston residents want a safe city. We want taxes we can afford. Those are your jobs. Stay in your lane.

Hey, guys. Janet Bowden, Ward 2. I'm actually speaking for a constituent who asked me to raise concerns about extending the mobile home lot rent moratorium. I understand why residents want protection from the sudden rent increases. Many of them own their homes and they rent the land beneath them. So moving is an expense and for some it really isn't a realistic option. But I would also like to remind the council that mobile home parks are privately owned businesses. Park owners have expenses, taxes, maintenance, insurance, infrastructure costs, and they have the right to receive a reasonable return on their investment. Any ordinance we adopt must respect those realities. Residents deserve protection from unreasonable increases, but park owners also deserve a fair process and the ability to keep their properties operating. So I guess all I'll ask of the council tonight is to make the financial and legal details public, set a firm timeline, and ensure that both residents and property owners receive a fair hearing on this. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Craig Saddlemeyer. I live in Ward 4. I am chair of the Housing Committee. Speaking at this podium tonight as the chair of the Housing Committee, but not as part of any presentation, primarily to just clarify something that was printed in the agenda packet, which is that the Housing Committee did not request the item tonight. The housing committee was not informed that it was happening prior to it being published. So it did not have time to discuss it. And at this time the housing committee has no further information to provide. So the committee felt it was important that we just clarify that. And other than that, we are continuing to work on the ordinance that council asked us to prepare and look forward to presenting that for our first hearing sometime in the near future once legal has completed that review. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Erica Robert from Ward 7. I'm also a real estate agent that was representing Sunset Gardens on the sale of their mobile home parks. I'm here this evening to oppose the rent freeze moratorium extension. I understand and respect the concern behind this proposal. Housing costs are a real challenge and many people in our community are struggling. But while a rent freeze might sound like a simple solution, I believe it's going to create a bigger problem over time. A rent freeze does not address the root cause of high rents, which is limited housing supply and rising costs of owning and maintaining a property. The original freeze not only impacted my source of income, but it devalued their parks by 26%, causing the contracts to terminate. The rent freeze has a negative impact on marketing and prevented a sale for a local investor who actually cares about these tenants, which have been treated very fairly in these parks. I understand the intent is to save money and maintain affordable housing in Lewiston. However, this only is causing worse problems for tenants, owners and the city. The cost of property maintenance, insurance, taxes and more, they keep increasing every year. Why are you not freezing those? This is a private business sector that should not be dictated. How are the park owners expected to maintain prices with capital improvements when their lot rent is under market value and cannot be increased? If the park owners cannot cover these basic costs, the parks will fall into disrepair, forcing the owners to close down or reduce and eliminate affordable housing in Lewiston. Policies like this can also discourage investment in rental housing and reduce the incentive to build or improve units. this can lead to fewer available rentals less maintenance and even higher costs in the long run a rent freeze might sound like an easy solution but how long will this go on and what business is going to be hit next rent control is just that it shifts the consequences of low supply around rather than actually addressing it instead of a freeze on rent of a private business sector we should look at real solutions for affordable housing that do not break the housing market A housing policy should protect tenants and keep housing financially sustainable. If the owners cannot afford to operate, everyone loses. If we truly want to help residents, we should focus on solutions that increase housing availability and support those who need it the most. That could include encouraging new housing developments, reducing barriers for building, supporting workforce, affordable housing, and offering targeted assistance to residents who are struggling. I want to see this great city prosper and succeed, not to keep getting the horrible reputation that you keep building. We all want housing to be more affordable. I simply believe a rent freeze is a wrong tool and that it may hurt the very people it is meant to help. I urge the city of Lewiston to reject this proposal and instead pursue long-term solutions that expand housing and strengthen this wonderful community. Thank you for your time tonight and God bless.

I'm Lori Horton, Ward 2. My husband John was to have retired in May. We were to leave August 1st.

Sorry, one second. If we can silence our cell phones, that'd be great. Can we restart her time, please?

My husband John was to have retired in May. We were to leave August 1st for a trip of a lifetime, seeing national parks, a trip we've looked forward to for 40 years. Our dreams were shattered when this mobile home lot rent moratorium that's in place currently went into effect. Those parks were for sale. You saw that documentation. That December offer fell through because of the moratorium we're here tonight about. Now you're looking to extend that moratorium, which means the sale will remain elusive. We are not selling because of the timing of this moratorium. The parks have been under the same ownership of the same five people for 18 years, owners who reside and work in this neighboring community. Their owners are minimized lot rent increases because they recognize what community means. The owners are ready to retire. The state implemented new laws in September that already set demands for park owners. They restricted the amount lot rents can increase annually, have stipulated what happens when equity firms purchase the mobile home parks, require a two-year waiting period prior to change of use for the property, require disclosure of the sale contract to tenants via certified mail, and that affects the timing of the sale, having to wait for tenant first right of refusal to purchase the park. With all of these state laws, why does the city of Lewiston think it needs to be involved? We do not need to extend a moratorium. Was it even necessary to begin with? That's on this council. You failed to perform due diligence. You believed people that came to this podium spoke truth. You didn't ask for receipts. who wouldn't complain about increase i'm not happy about my new tax bill i have a choice or move no different than a tenant at a mobile home park Other items impact a person's monthly wallet more than a lot rent increase. What's next? Are you going to go tell the grocery stores what they can charge for produce? The convenience store how much money they can charge for a gallon of gas or how much profit they can make on it? The pharmacy about the over-the-counter meds prescriptions? Hold insurance companies to a CPI plus 1%? Are you willing to hold the city of Lewiston taxes and utilities to that? Why not? Because it's not sustainable. The grass is not always greener. Your ideas may have the opposite impact you desire. Park owners may decide other options with their land are more profitable with less hassle than mobile home park spaces will decrease, defeating the very thing you're here for, more affordable housing. Thank you.

Good evening. I'm Dash Padham, a resident of Ward 3 and now former member of the Housing Committee. I'm concerned about what the passage of this agenda would mean tonight. The passage of this actually contains three items, and one of them sets a very scary precedent, which is the waiving of a public and final second hearing. This sets a precedent that makes me concerned. We have an additional 30 days to hear from legal, get additional information from the Housing Committee, and review this ordinance. There is time for a full presentation and to get more input before a blind six-month extension would impact mobile home parks owners' ability to pay for infrastructure or predict what their books are. It holds them and their tenants in a locked state that doesn't reflect the volatility of the costs that we are all facing, including the pending tax increase from the city. The outright known misrepresentations and inflammatory exaggerations in this agenda are testament to the lack of thought and proper deliberation the author gave to the issue. The inflated urgency and willingness to disregard procedural standards and the rules of this city indicates that a single-minded agenda that feels it cannot succeed in a calm, thoughtful, informed and deliberative atmosphere. They would rather torch the garden than take the chance of groundhog, get a couple of carrots. As one of the longest serving members, I was proud of my tenure on the housing committee. I did not resign lightly. This damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead, rules to the wayside approach to a manufactured, unproven crisis will likely cause more harm to a much needed sector of our housing. We are all facing uncertainty and challenges. Please do not add to them.

Good evening. My name is John Geary. I'm a resident of Ward 6 and the Fox Run Mobile Home Park. I wasn't planning to speak tonight, but when I see that there has been basically The same speech given six different times by six different people all against the moratorium by telling us with crocodile tears how they all care for us. I decided I would speak. The basic argument, it seems, is that this ordinance, if it's passed, will give the wrong message to investors. But as we heard from Mr. Sattelmeyer early on in the process, there hasn't been any new mobile home investments in parks since 2003. So where are all these investors that we're going to scare off? The new ordinance, if it's passed as written, says that any new park or any new lots in an existing park will not be curtailed by this ordinance until the owner sets the market rate. And only then will it be curtailed. under the purview of the ordinance. So that isn't something that's likely to scare away any investors. If they can set the price at the beginning at whatever the market will bear, And we've heard from local owners, and I certainly sympathize with them, not having been able to sell at 26% more. But if you remember in the meeting on August 4th, the second part of that was that they did get an offer. They have received an offer since the ordinance went into effect. Indeed, it was 26% lower, but what it says is there are investors willing to buy mobile home parks and consider them a viable opportunity in Lewiston, even anticipating the ordinance that we hope is going to come to fruition. For these reasons, and to also validate apparently what legal counsel has told you, if there is going to be serious consideration for the ordinance between now and the next, say, 60 days, it makes imminent sense to extend the moratorium so there isn't that gap, because that gap will definitely produce legal issues. And you can spare yourself the costs of having to fight the ordinance in court if you pass this moratorium extension. That's time.

Thank you.

John Horton, Ward 2. I'm here today to discuss the moratorium and the ordinance. I understand there's a concern for affordable housing and prevention of exploitation. That said, this is not a homegrown situation. This was driven by the governor's office They sent out the ordinance to you folks, and then it was pushed by the main labor climate council, who went around knocking on doors and came in here and told you fabricated lies, and we know that from the facts that have been shown. This council jumped on the issue, but in five months, no one asked the first and most obvious question that should have been answered. Is an ordinance needed in Lewiston? You simply demanded that one be put in place. As a business, we have opened our books and we have tried to work with the city and the housing committee on all aspects of this. All the data collected actually shows that no park has been predatory in nature. Yet everything seems to be geared to push through an ordinance on its worst case scenario prediction. This creates the worst case scenario outcome. The ordinance is overly complicated, hard for lenders to manage, creates a massive drop in the park values, and keeps lenders inactive in the parks, creates insurmountable burdens on the park owners, and result in people divesting in Lewiston. The ordinance over time will eventually force all parks into financial conservatorship through the death by a thousand cuts Then once the parks have to come begging for the extra operating funds on a three year rotation, the city will virtually control every aspect of the business and the owners at that point become a manager who still bears all the risks and liabilities. As a business, we have run our parks for 18 years and kept our rates low. If this ordinance passes, we will have to consider whether to continue operating as a mobile home park or a change of use and subdivide the park into housing lots and create a whole lot of it and add storage units to it in the rear. We are not a non-profit and we will not be forced to act like one. If the city wants to protect and ensure affordable housing, then it should put some resources aside and do just that, not place unreasonable restrictions on owners. In closing, if you meant to help people, you did mean to help people, but there has been no proof that any resident has been harmed. I am the proof that your actions have harmed me, and you have stolen my time from my golden years that I will never get back. Thank you.

My name is Chris Roy Ward one. I'm one of the owners of the Sunset Gardens mobile home communities. You know this moratorium and the proposal of the ordinance. seems to assume that landlords are consistently taking a cut of profits and are flush with cash. However, as John mentioned in the past, we've owned these mobile home parks for 18 years. Not once in 18 years has there been a distribution of cash. Rather, all the profit has been reinvested into those parks, into infrastructure, improvements, And our business model was to pay down the debt and then reach a point where we sell the parks and that would recoup our investment and reap our profit. However, this moratorium has created an unpredictable environment that undercuts that return and potentially the future of the park itself. It seems to be a premise under which landlords have to operate that we're all rich, greedy, and predatory in our business practices. And that is simply not the case. You know, John hit upon it, but this moratorium was put in place to pause lot rent increases, to study the problem, or whether or not there was a problem. of excessive lot rents in Lewiston. But in the five months of meetings, the question has not been asked whether or not an ordinance is required or rent stabilization is necessary. But rather, it's full steam ahead to place an ordinance. We seem to have had a parade of residents and activists, as John mentioned, present information to the committee and to the city council, some of it misleading, some of it false, demonstrably false. Yet real information seems to have been suppressed. This leads me to believe that there was never an honest evaluation of the need, but rather an agenda with one goal, and that's to put an ordinance in place regardless of the consequences. I believe that this agenda was born from a genuine desire to help residents, was not born from a genuine desire to help residents, but merely a political endeavor, irregardless of who it helps and who it harms. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Nicole Penfield and I am the regional manager for Boa Vida communities. We operate three parks in Lewiston and I am asking the council to seriously consider the consequences of permanently regulating what private private businesses are allowed to earn. There have been false statements shared about rent increases in our communities. We purchased Country Lane in Stetsonbrook in 2024, two of the biggest parks in Lewiston, and since then, we have issued one rent increase per year, averaging $37, not the $100 increases or multiple increases per year that were previously reported. The average lot rent in these two communities is $473 per month. Compare that to roughly $1,650 per month at minimum for a two bedroom apartment. I struggle with the argument that $473 is unaffordable. Running a park is also more than collecting lot rent and these communities are expensive to operate. In many ways, we operate a small town. We maintain private roads, water and sewer infrastructure, electrical systems, drainage, landscaping, and common areas. We provide trash service, handle repairs, resident concerns, rule enforcement, inspections, and emergencies. We also maintain an after-hour emergency call center for utility emergencies. Country Lane alone has spent more than $80,000 in paving and electrical repairs so far in 2026. We also carry approximately $25,000 in delinquent rent and have spent over $7,000 in attorney fees trying to collect money already budgeted to operate these communities. We work with residents who are struggling through payment plans and referrals to assistance programs. But a private business cannot absorb every individual financial hardship. The city doesn't want to determine how much profit a grocery store, restaurant, contractor, or gas station is allowed to make, so why should mobile homes be treated any differently? Owners invest substantial private capital, assume risk, pay taxes, insurance, and debt service, and remain responsible when a water main breaks, an electrical system fails, or roads require repair. A reasonable return isn't excessive. It's what allows a business to remain financially healthy, reinvest in its property, and continue operating. Capping revenue doesn't cap our expenses. Eventually that results in delayed repairs, fewer improvements, and less investment. We have land available, but we're not going to invest significant money to develop new lots and bring in new homes if our ability to recover that investment is restricted. The ordinance will discourage investment, reduce opportunities, and put existing affordable housing at risk. Help those who generally need assistance, but don't make park owners responsible for individual financial hardships by limiting our ability to operate a profitable business and continue investing in the city. Thank you.

We can have it quiet in the chambers. Thank you. Please continue.

Good evening. My name is Katie Losey, Lewiston resident and member of the Housing Committee. I just want to say that the views expressed in this statement are my own and may or may not be reflective of the committee as a whole. I have lived and worked in this community for nearly 40 years and am proud to call Lewiston my home. I've served on the Housing Committee for the past two years as one of the multi-unit owner representatives specializing in affordable housing. I believe housing is a human right. and that all people should have access to safe, clean, ethically priced housing. I refuse to purchase any building that precludes me from accepting voucher holders and never charge above the HUD fair market rate for a given calendar year. Housing access and affordability is deeply important to me, which is why I became a member of the Housing Committee and why I urge Council to seriously consider my unique and balanced perspective on this issue. The Housing Committee has worked diligently for months attempting to thread the needle of creating policy that includes proactive protections for tenants and prevents unfair shifting of cost burdens to small business owners. I have been actively and fully engaged throughout this process. Here's what I've learned. We say we care deeply about data, but refuse to look at current data from current park owners about the current problem as evidenced by some of the public comments you've heard tonight. This data shows a very real very impactful systemic affordability problem. However, it does not support the leap we have taken that claims park owners are the cause of this problem. According to recent statewide data, along with all research completed by the housing committee, park rents are fair and within market rate. there is no evidence of exploitation by park owners. From a process perspective, we have engaged with the community and mobile homeowners, but we haven't partnered in good faith with park owners. They have shown up to the table time and time again, fully engaged in the process, but we have not afforded them the same consideration. This moratorium along with discussion of rent stabilization ordinance has already caused actual measurable harm to small business owners in our community. Continuing it puts affordable housing units at risk as parks struggle to remain solvent. Additionally, it will have a chilling effect on real estate purchases as property owners wonder if our investments will be next. A rising tide lifts all ships. We should be focusing on programs that provide support to those in financial need, excuse me, rather than harming our small businesses who are the backbone of our local economy. For these reasons, I urge you to vote against the continuation of this moratorium. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Michelle Ames, Brookside Mobile Home Park. Whether a local rent moratorium should continue after a state law passes depends on whether the state legislation fully addresses the specific housing needs of the community or if local conditions require additional safeguards. I believe the state law has addressed that on multiple levels. actually probably more restrictive in my opinion because I am a park owner. My husband and I have owned mobile home parks for the last 28 years across the state of Maine. We've been in the rental business for 31 years. Over 28 years of owning mobile home parks, our lot rents have only increased by $440 over 28 years. So that's only an average of $15.72 a year. Of course, our increases have not gone up yearly because if we didn't need an increase, we didn't increase the lot rent that year. Most of our tenants live on a fixed income. We understand that. We respect them. We care about their needs. We are there for them when they call. We are the 24-hour phone line. So wages have increased sharply. Insurance, workers' comp, liability insurance, equipment, utilities. And I'd like to just say that every year we've made improvements in our parks. We've paving, water, sewer, electrical poles, services, adding concrete slabs, paving driveways. Parks are like little towns. You just started a new trash service in Lewiston. None of my tenants got any of those trash cans. We actually have to have a dumpster on site or they have to go to the transfer station. So they don't get any of these perks, but yet they pay all the taxes and we pay taxes. Our assessment in Lewiston for a 30-unit park just went up a million dollars. increased by a million dollars. We have no way to deal with that million dollar increase when that tax bill comes next year. That's pretty disheartening for a small business. We have to plow and maintain our own roads, water, sewer, underground infrastructure. The city, we had a problem with a water main last year. They wouldn't help us. wouldn't even give us equipment to help us or even put us in the right direction so we spent more time and more money because it's not what we do on a full-time basis so that was kind of disheartening as well we're responsible for the storm drains street lights i think a better way to approach this growing issue because it is an issue is to create a program to subsidize lot rents for individuals that need it because not everybody in a park needs it rent control causes long-term shortages in housing lower property maintenance no incentive for growth and unit conversions in the end. And I will say that we are considering that because I don't feel like I would want to work underneath a condition like this rent ordinance for Lewiston. It's bad enough. The state level is bad enough, but this one is way more constrictive.

That's time. Thank you.

Matthew Agron, Ward 4. I urge you guys to vote against this because this sets a horrible precedent for the city to start regulating what businesses can own, operate at. Can we or do we start limiting what grocery stores can charge here in the city? Do we start limiting what gas stations will charge? You start going down a very slippery slope. Do we operate our own grocery stores? All of these things are undermining the small business owners that make up the majority of Lewiston. The rents, we've had multiple people say it tonight, the rents here in Lewiston are not off the chart. Yeah, everything has gone up. Look at our revaluation. Will you limit that? You can't. How are they supposed to pay for all their repairs? How do you keep things going? If you cap this, can you cap our tax rate to that same rate? You guys can't. You're not going to be able to keep affordable housing. They're going to become storage units. And that's what they're basically going to become. Thank you.

Further public comment?

Good evening. My name is Adam Kranz. I am the Assistant Regional Manager for Boa Vida Communities, owner of Country Lane, Stetson Brook, and Fox Run here in Lewiston. I'm here tonight to ask the Council not to pass this ordinance or its extension in its current form. The moratorium that led to this ordinance was meant to answer two questions, whether rent stabilization is actually needed in Lewiston, and whether owners can still earn a fair return under it. I don't believe it has answered either, and that concerns me for the city, for owners, and for residents for several reasons. First, we've seen no evidence that this is even necessary. No data showing that residents are being overcharged. No data showing that the protections that already exist in state law are not working. Second, this ordinance doesn't let rents keep pace with inflation. Our costs such as taxes, insurance, water, sewer, road repairs rise every year. If income isn't allowed to keep up, that will not create a smaller return. It will create an ongoing loss for owners. Third, at turnover, in most cases, this ordinance keeps previous rents in place indefinitely, even for a brand new resident. That goes beyond protecting residents that are already there. It sets a permanent price on this unit, disconnected from its actual worth. Fourth, the process for requesting relief is only available once every three years and asks more of park owners than of any comparable business, specifically in the housing industry. This isn't being asked of private landlords, of apartments, commercial property owners, anybody but us. It's asking for full financial and lending records with no guarantee of even being approved. Say, for instance, a park plans a road resurfacing in year one of this cycle and then in year two faces a major utility failure that requires significant investment. There's no way to recover that emergency cost until the next request years later, and that kind of uncertainty is exactly what discourages investment and pushes other improvement projects farther down the calendar. When owners can't recover their costs, continued investment becomes harder to justify, roads go unrepaired, infrastructure ages. Over time, that affects property value and the city's tax base. I'd ask the council to hold off on adopting this ordinance as written and not extend the existing moratorium. Thank you.

Further public comment? Public comment is now closed. Yes, Councillor Longchamps.

Thank you, Mayor. One of the speakers tonight raised a good point regarding the housing committee. And I did notice that in our agenda packet, which is, again, I wrote this down. From my understanding, the housing committee did not reach an agreement to support this moratorium and I think it's important that us as council really let that sink in because in our agenda packet it says it states on the fifth page if you want to or need to go back and look um that the housing committee made a recommendation but they didn't I would ask that any statement in the agenda packet suggesting otherwise that that just didn't happen and should be corrected for the public record. So I would ask our administrator, since our city clerk is not here, how you plan to address that.

Believe this line was put together by our city attorney So I would want to I guess consult with our attorney about putting out something revised, but that's where this language came from.

I Think we could share with the public we did hear from Three committee members two that are still there and one that has left unfortunately but very clearly that They did not agree

Or did not make any recommendations.

So again, it is very important for the council to hear that. I do want to share with the public that I recognize and sympathize with people experiencing hardship due to housing increases. I believe the city should look at creating a system or program that can provide meaningful assistance to people rather than relying on a moratorium as the solution. We must consider the impact on everyone included. I do not support extending the moratorium. We should be working toward a fair, balanced solution that protects residents while also protecting property owners that invest in our city. My position is about fairness, accuracy, and responsible governance. I would ask my counselors, the other counselors, to seriously consider voting against this moratorium. Thank you.

Councilor Nijing, yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Really quickly, the wording in this document mimics the wording from the original moratorium request.

Councilor Longchamp, you have not been recognized. Please continue, Councilor Nijing.

That was done, I believe, in error as the mayor requested this meeting, as is his purview, with what I think he felt was a consensus of council. This information, as far as the reason for this request, is incorrect. This was correct when the first moratorium extension was requested, just to be clear. So the way this is set up right now is per the mayor's request from what was believed to be a consensus of council. That said, the moratorium that we're proposing, that we're putting forward right now, whether it passes or not, is in expectation that there is an ordinance that comes before us. That ordinance also is not guaranteed to be voted up or down, to be completely honest. AND IT ISN'T GUARANTEED NOT TO CHANGE. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY EXPECTS THAT RENTS WON'T GO UP. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY EXPECTS THAT PARKS ARE SUPPOSED TO SUPPLEMENT COSTS FROM running a business, that's not the proposal that's put forward. If you look at other communities who have simply said, yeah, we're going to say you're going to stick to the CPI plus 1% or a 5% increase, or CPI, period, SOCO, Kennebunk, Auburn, Waterville, all of these places have put forward ordinances that did not account for the actual operations of mobile home parks and their costs. The concern that I have, without having an ordinance in front of us that we can discuss logically, without extending this moratorium, we'll see rent increases. We absolutely will. And there's nothing. I know that Lewiston feels very, very special to some people. But there's nothing that's going to keep this community, one of these mobile home parks, from increasing their rents 50%, just like they did at Colebrook and Elliott. It can easily happen. The promise is wonderful. But the guarantee is not there. WHEN WE LOOK AT THE STATE LAW, THE 5% INCREASE, IF 51% OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE MOBILE HOME PARKS mediation within 90 days, that's what happens. Do you know what happens with mediation? If they don't come to an agreement, nothing. The rent increase just occurs. There is no guarantee for any mobile home park on a state level without a local ordinance that the rents cannot double, triple, quadruple. Do I think that's going to happen? I don't. Do I think a mobile home park could increase their rents by 30% in this gap? I do.

COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS FROM OTHER COUNCILORS? COUNCILOR HERMAN.

THANK YOU. I just wanted to offer my perspective. I'm also a landlord, albeit on a very small scale, just one building. When I set my rent, I take into account my costs, so that includes mortgage, insurance, taxes, repairs. I take into account the time that I spend working on the building. AND MANAGING THINGS. I ALSO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT SETTING MONEY ASIDE FOR FUTURE EMERGENCIES OR LARGER REPAIRS OR RENOVATIONS. AND I DON'T GO BY THE MARKET RATE. I TAKE WHAT MY COSTS ARE AND WHAT SEEMS LIKE A FAIR AMOUNT TO THE PERSON RENTING THAT APARTMENT BASED ON WHAT IT ACTUALLY COSTS TO PROVIDE THAT HOUSING. I think that the people who live here are the backbone of our local economy and that they need to have access to affordable housing. I mentioned my approach to a local landlord when we were discussing this ordinance. He said that if he were me, he would just jack the rent up to the maximum amount that the market could bear. So I think it's just a difference in philosophy.

Councillor Chittum. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

I think it's important to recognize that the only question before us tonight is whether to extend the moratorium. I have had a chance to look at many drafts of the ordinance, but that's not under discussion tonight. I had initially voted against extending the moratorium because I believed that the 90-day required notice under state law would cover the gap. Our attorney has disabused me of that notion and told me that effectively when a notice is issued, that is an increase. so that the protection allowed by that 90-day period under state law is not what I thought it was. So the purpose of this moratorium, which I hope will be very short-lived, is to allow final legal review and discussion of the ordinance itself. THE ORDINANCE IS PREPARED, IT IS BEING REVIEWED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, AND I HOPE TO HAVE THAT BACK TO US VERY QUICKLY, AT WHICH POINT I WOULD MOVE TO, IF THE ORDINANCE PASSES, OR EVEN IF IT DOESN'T, TO CEASE THE MORATORIUM. SO THIS IS AN EMERGENCY STOPGAP MEASURE TO PROVIDE US WITH THE SMALL AMOUNT OF TIME NECESSARY TO TAKE ACTION ON THE ORDINANCE. THANK YOU.

COUNCILOR MARTIN. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

I have a few different points I want to make and touch on with this, but the first one that's important to me is We had executive session about this, and executive session is privileged. Open meetings like we're having tonight are for public transparency, which this body is providing none of this evening. The housing committee chair isn't here to answer questions from the council. He was in executive session. Our legal counsel isn't here to answer questions. He was in executive session. This exists for the transparency of the public so the public can be informed about the decisions your government is making. What I witnessed in executive session, now I'm going to say this, I know that the content of executive session is privileged, but it's not designed to provide cover for what I consider and perceive to be nothing short of legal gymnastics in order to accomplish a way to push this matter forward, despite the council voting 5-2 not to extend this moratorium just a few weeks ago. Behaviors like these are exactly what creates the perception that this body operates in shady backroom, non-transparent fashion when governing your city. tonight at public comment our housing committee chair stated the ordinance he said the ordinance council has asked us to prepare i have gone back and i have the minutes here in front of us on february 17th the council votes first passage of a moratorium designed to give council time to study the issue and explore options On March 3rd, the council votes final passage. Our housing committee chair, Mr. Stoudemire, says during the hearing that his committee would be able to work on a draft of an ordinance. I am not able to find anywhere where a vote from this council directed the housing committee to draft an ordinance. We are putting the cart before the horse here, looking for a reason. In my opinion, to solve a problem, we have no evidence exists. We are creating a false boogeyman in order to implement something, whether it's for political gain or whatever else. The simple fact is that this issue has no data to support it. that our park owners are going to double triple or even increase by 30 or 50 percent the rents on these park residents uh in march 2026 the city council placed 180 day moratorium and tasked the housing committee to quote work on drafting a lot THE CITY'S CURRENT HOUSING COMMITTEE WEB PAGE SAYS THAT IN MARCH 2026, THE CITY COUNCIL PLACED 180-DAY MORATORIUM AND TASKED THE HOUSING COMMITTEE TO WORK ON DRAFTING A LOT RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE. I have gone back, I have reviewed the minutes from the housing committee meetings, and that is not in there. There hasn't been a vote from the housing committee to recommend this. There hasn't been a vote from this council, as I said before, to direct the housing committee to draft an ordinance. We have significant legal fees already associated with this, and those are only going to go up. And it's you, the taxpayer, that's kicking down for that bill. The more that this gets addressed and the more that we bring legal in for it, the more expensive it's gonna get. In addition, we look inept and dysfunctional as a body when just a few weeks ago we voted five to two not to extend this moratorium. And now we're back in an emergency fashion to undo something we just did. It's just a lack of good use of time and taxpayer dollars. it's just all over the map at times we're getting uh comments from the housing committee that says they've been directed to do this i can't find that there's emails that i've read to the contrary that make uh statements like this hasn't this that the council didn't ask for this i am really trying to figure out why we're here tonight to do something that we've got no indication is going to happen. I believe that the person or the group that we're creating for this boogeyman is the big corporate Boa Vida from out of state and it's my understanding and that was confirmed tonight at public comment that their rents have gone up an average of $37 since they've bought their parks and the cost of everything is going up and I'm not going to get into the weeds about you know, the gallon of milk or the gallon of gas, that's very comparable and direct, and that's not something a governing body should be controlling. I do feel for people that are experiencing difficulty paying their bills, that's happening for all of us. And I think that we need to explore solutions to deal with that, but this just isn't the way to go about it. And the idea that we're projecting some behaviors that there's no evidence exists there was no limitation there was no ordinances or even state law that prevented these park owners from quote jacking up their rents for for years and they didn't So now all of a sudden, because there might be a several week gap between where the moratorium ends and an ordinance can be drafted and put into place and voted on, to project that kind of behavior on people that have invested millions of dollars in our community is disingenuous and really puts a chill on future investment. I can tell you right now that if I was looking to invest millions of dollars and I had my options of cities or towns where to do it, Lewiston would not be my first choice right now. And we are in desperate need of more affordable housing. This is a very organic means of affordable housing and we shouldn't be acting in a manner that deters further investment. We need investment, we need economic development in this city, and this action does nothing but discourage that. And that's my opinion. I will not be voting for this, in favor of this, and I would encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Councillor Noble, did you have something?

Tonight we're just voting on the moratorium, correct? That is correct. We're not voting on any type of ordinance, we're just pausing it, correct? We're extending the moratorium, yes. Okay, so I agree with Brett that the executive sessions make us look shady. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A FIX FOR THAT, BUT I KNOW THAT I WAS NOT HERE TO VOTE TO STOP THE MORATORIUM. I WAS SICK THAT NIGHT. I DID RECEIVE A LOT OF EMAILS FROM PEOPLE WHO WERE UPSET THINKING THAT I HAD VOTED TO STOP IT, AND I DIDN'T. AND SO I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT TONIGHT WE'RE JUST VOTING TO EXTEND THE MORATORIUM. WE'RE NOT VOTING ON ANY TYPE OF ORDINANCE WHATSOEVER, CORRECT?

AS I SAID BEFORE, YES.

OKAY. I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR.

We're very clear. So just to recap, this is why we're here tonight. So we had hoped to wrap up the work on the ordinance long before now. Things have unfortunately taken a little longer than we planned. And so in order for there not to be a gap, we voted or tried to vote at the last meeting to extend the moratorium. And the council voted that down. I happen, you know, as Councillor Noble just said, she was absent. I voted to extend the moratorium. I was outvoted. And then since then, we've heard from our council that we actually really need to do this. And so that's why we're here tonight. This is the, once again, the long and short of it. Well, I recognize councillors again, and then I plan to vote. Councillor Noble. Councilor Longchamps, thank you. Sorry, I apologize.

By passing this moratorium, what we're actually saying to every investor and park owner here is that we don't trust you and we don't believe in you. I think you know how this vote's going to go, and I'm sorry. As a business owner and a property owner, I own one of two stores that provide food in the Tree Street area. Good, healthy food. We take a lot of pride in what we do for that community. And I'll be damned if someone's going to come in and start telling me how I should price things. So I'm sorry. If I owned a park here, I probably would do something different with it. And that is what this moratorium will be telling you, is that we don't trust you. We think you're going to jack the prices up. Your investments are for all the wrong reasons. But I want you to know from the Ward 2 seat, I don't believe that. and I'm sorry that it has come to this, and I hope that we keep you here. I don't know that we will, but I hope you hold on a little bit longer. Thank you.

Councillor Nijen, did I see your hand up before?

Yes, Mr. Mayor. I would simply say that the 500 some odd leaseholders within our community are also constituents and do have concerns. And my intention with asking for this moratorium to be extended or with supporting this moratorium to be extended is so that we could actually see an ordinance in front of us that we can work through. the gloom and doom scenarios are not necessarily the case. We're not going to up or down vote an ordinance that's put in front of us without discussion, possible changes. I mean, that's what it is. So again, and just to speak to the executive session piece, When I got an information from the lawyer that was that I felt everybody needed That's why I called you all and said we should have an executive session meeting on this. That wasn't shady That wasn't sneaky.

That was so everybody had the exact same information to base the to make base their decisions on that's all counselors I yeah as counselor shouldn't point out we're here to vote on the Moratorium and I don't want to go back and forth counselor noble and then counselor Martel

I DO JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT IT WASN'T EXACTLY THAT EXECUTIVE SESSION, BUT JUST EXECUTIVE SESSION IN GENERAL.

THAT IS NOT GERMANE, THANK YOU. THAT IS NOT MY WHAT? THAT IS NOT GERMANE.

IT'S NOT MY MAIN, BUT WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS EXPLAIN.

I APPRECIATE THAT, COUNSELOR, BUT WE ARE NOT GOING BACK AND FORTH. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ABOUT THIS ITEM? NO.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, so there was nothing shady about the way that we as councillors were informed about executive session. My comments were the fact that there's no one at that table right now that this council can ask questions of, so that the public can get the same information that we got in that room back there. That is my problem. secondarily and the reason that i had my hand up for a second time is i just want the public to know i've been approached multiple times by more than one person letting me know that the city is going to get sued lawsuits are prepared and they will be coming down as soon as any moratorium excuse me as any lot rent ordinance goes into effect which is only going to continue to drive up the legal fees that have already been put into this that will continue to be put into this and i just want to remind everyone that because the city only gets their money from one place which is your pockets this is going to cost you more money i would suggest that we stop giving tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to a law firm and take that money, put it into account, and use that to help people that are struggling with their lot rent, even if they're small increases. If we could give out $100 or $200 a month to an individual, that's $2,500 a year. We could do that for a couple hundred people for a year or two and alleviate these costs without having to give it away to a law firm. I'm not suggesting that we've got the power or ability to do that, but we're spending your money running down an issue that there's no evidence that exists.

Seeing no further hands, Deputy Administrator, will you please call the vote?

I'd like to read the motion one time, but Councilor Harriman had not come in yet, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate that, thank you. What we're voting on is that the proposed moratorium ordinance regarding the rent increases for lots and mobile home parks to be effective September 29th, 2026, receive first passage by a roll call vote. Councilor, from Ward 1?

Yes.

Ward 2?

No.

Ward 3? Yes. Ward 4 is on it. Ward 5?

Yes.

BOARD SIX?

YES.

BOARD SEVEN? NO. AND MR. MAYOR?

YES.

MOTION PASSES FIVE TO TWO.

ITEM NUMBER TWO.

ITEM NUMBER TWO, TO WAVE SECTION THREE OF THE RULES GOVERNING THE CITY COUNCIL AND TO ALLOW FOR FINAL READING AT THIS TIME.

MAY I HAVE A MOTION, PLEASE? SO MOVED. SECOND. COUNCILOR CHINNAM FOLLOWED BY COUNCILOR NAJING. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FROM THE COUNCIL? DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

COUNCIL FROM WARD ONE?

YES.

WARD TWO?

NO.

WARD THREE? YES. WARD FIVE?

NO.

WARD SIX?

YES.

WARD SEVEN?

NO.

MR. MAYOR?

YES.

MOTION PASSES FOUR TO THREE.

WE NEED FIVE VOTES FOR THAT, CORRECT?

I believe we do.

Yeah. So that motion fails. Yes. And then since that motion did not pass, the third item will be unable to vote on. And so that, unless you, I think we're all set to conclude the meeting. May I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. Councillor Chittum followed by Councillor Martell. Deputy Administrator, please call the vote.

Council from Ward 1.

Yes.

Board 2?

We're voting to adjourn.

Yes, thank you. Board 3?

Yes.

Board 5? Yes. Board 6? Yes. Board 7? Yes. And Mr. Mayor? Yes. Motion passes 7-0.

Thank you all for coming. Have a wonderful evening.