City Council - Regular Meeting

go, you'll see this scenario uh, which seems to be where we landed at the last at the end of the last meeting. Uh, a house currently valued at $100,000 will see an increase of about $358 to their tax bill for FY27. A $150,000 valuation, uh, $531. Uh, and at a house that to a property at $250,000 valuation, $876. So, uh, that's with the the city, um, moving to tier three. Uh, and our bill increase, but obviously, as everyone knows, we still have the county at a 20% increase, uh, and the schools, uh, at approximately 11% increase also. So, uh, that's kind of a recap for, um, the numbers. Uh, Bill Healey will be joining us shortly also. He's finishing up, uh, a public session, uh, to talk more about the current valuation, um, and where it stands this year versus last year. Since we basically decided or I think there was consensus to do a one-year delay with the revaluation process and go with this year's current numbers, though I think there may still be some discussion, uh, on that point also. Uh, as far as what we've also been doing internally, um, since the last meeting, we did meet today with our legal counsel, our employment counsel, to discuss the process, uh, if we are moving with tier three and sticking with that, the process for notification, uh, of those employees. It also does involve a number of collecting bar- collective bargaining agreements, um, and the process laid out there for notification. So, we're working through that. I do just want to caution again, um, before this moves too far down the road, um, we need to make sure, I think there is adequate support, firm support on the council before any employees are notified that their positions publicly are being discussed for elimination. I think that's very important, um, for us, uh, in city administration. I think it's

very important for the morale of everyone that works across the city that we are absolutely sure and are supportive of moving forward with with layoffs, with tier three cuts, before those employees are notified. So, uh, the other, uh, I think small wrinkle in this, and maybe Director Roy can talk about it more, is, um, depending on where the budget numbers come out, it may take five votes, uh, to pass this budget, a supermajority. And if that's the case, I'm not certain of the numbers if there are five votes to go with tier three cuts. Um, so I think again, we need to be very sure about where we are, um, before we have to go forward and actually meet with these people to tell them that they're going to be publicly discussed for elimination. That's a significant step. I don't want to minimize that at all. Um, before we have firm support here to go ahead and do that. So, uh, Director Roy, do you want to talk about the the five votes in the supermajority? So, the CPI on the sheets that you have, you have, um, tier three, the very first one, is the original 367 367,000 added for the police vehicles. That brings us at 8.5. The CPI as of December was 3.3, so that means we will be 5.2 over, um, the CPI, which will require, as he mentioned, five votes. Your second tier sheet that you have is with the 400 and 39,836 added back in for the police vehicles. That will bring us to 8.6, which is 5.3 over the CPI. And then your last sheet, your tier three with the take-home vehicles, will be 8.8, which will be 5.5 over the CPI index.

Thank you, Director Roy. Administrator Cainrath, uh, Councilor Harman. Thank you. Um, can you remind me what the difference is between the two amounts added back for the police vehicles? So, the original, the first one, the first sheet you have, is what we originally had for the 10 SUVs with the take-home PD then had changed, um, and sent another memo out to you stating that they would need the 439,836. So, you have both options there. Okay, thanks. Other questions? Uh, Director Cainrath, I'd like to go back to, uh, the potential cuts. Um, I want to make certain that we all understand that we are not discussing individual people here on the council, um, that if the council decides as a body that it does want to go with tier through three, resulting in eight layoffs, I I understand. Um, that that decision would be entirely administration's decision. Um, we may want to know what departments those cuts are coming from, but it's certainly not our purview to talk about individual people uh, or even individual positions. Am I mistaken in that? Um, we've had different requests from from different councilors, and we want to make sure that we're able to honor all those requests. So, in order to produce a list, you know, even just by position without names, but it's obviously fairly easy to figure out what name is attached to that position. Um, we would need to notify these individuals before they're going to be discussed in this setting, um, for possible layoffs. So, that that's the the issue we're having is in order to in order to produce that information, produce a list uh, to you, we would first have to notify these individuals.

And as I said a moment ago, uh, we also want to make sure for, um, for these employees, um, and for for them as people that before they're discussed in a setting like this for elimination, that we make sure that we have adequate support here to move forward with that, um, rather than notify them and then walk it back later that we weren't really serious. This is, um, again, not something that's great for employee morale. Thank you. Uh, comments or questions from the council on, uh, layoffs or on the budget, the tiers? Councilor Martello. Thank you. Um, Director Cainrath or, um, Roy, uh, excuse me, Administrator Cainrath. Can you explain the the the direct cause and effect is there? I've received some emails, people feel like take-home cruisers for the PD is going, if we were to approve that, that that will directly have an impact on layoffs. What I I believe it was 400,000 is going on top of the budget if we don't do them, so it's going to go up by 400 or can you help me understand just literally with with and without and if that impacts layoffs or not? So, originally, if you remember when we first started the budget, we had removed all capital. So, that meant we removed all of the police vehicles that they normally buy out of the budget. So, when we started this process and if you decide not to do the take-home, they would need vehicles, so that's when we had to add that back in so that they would have that in the budget. So, if you look at your sheet that I had originally given you, um, back at the last meeting, it has the breakdown of the different tiers.

So, let me let me make it real simple. Is the budget going up or down if we approve take-home vehicles? If we don't approve them and we have to do the 10 or 14 cars, doesn't that actually increase the budget for this year as far as capital and and general fund is concerned for taxpayers? So, if it's not approved, it will increase the budget for the vehicles that needed. If it is approved, the items are already in there for their gas, their maintenance, all that is already in there. And again, we won't be bonding that, so the the principal and the interest payment will not be in for another 2 years. Correct. So, if we approve the take-home, the budget goes up this year for the taxpayer. So, it would be a difficult stretch to if if we do have to make layoffs, uh, I would they be it wouldn't be because that we approved the take-home cars. They the budget will be less if we approve the take-home cars and more if we don't. So, if we don't approve them, it might reasonably indicate that we might even have to make more cuts to make up for that 400,000 if we wanted to get to zero. So, the take-home vehicles, as I mentioned, have $490,000 in the actual budget currently right now. On your sheets, you with the without the take-home vehicles, that's a credit because you're removing that. So, that 490,000 is in there. If you add back the vehicles that they're going to need, it's 439. So, you're reducing the the budget by 60,000, basically, for the add and the removal. Okay. I'm just trying to I've gotten several emails that are associating the take-home vehicles with the need to make layoffs, and I I just want to make it

clear to the public that at least in my opinion, that that's not how I see it. I believe these cuts are due to to spending and tax increases and, um, I just wouldn't want to see a false correlation made between these the take-home cruiser program as presented and uh potential layoffs that may need to happen from the council. So, thank you. I I appreciate that and helping me work through that with you. The words are impacts of the future death service. I understand. Councilor Harmon. Thank you. I I would just point out that of the three scenarios that we've gotten here, the one with the take-home vehicles is the most expensive of the three budgets. Councilor Nadeau. Uh thank you, uh Council Chair. Um the reason why with the tier three with take-home vehicles, um we're seeing an increase is because of the fuel and maintenance or why are we not seeing the reduction of 439 836 from uh the total uh for fiscal year 2027? Because if they if you agree on the take-home vehicles, that 490,000 has to stay in the budget to cover the gas, the maintenance of those vehicles, um the insurance. So, that needs to stay in the budget if you approve the take-home vehicles. If you don't, then that can come out of the budget and save 490,000. Okay, thank you. Councilor Longchamp. You've just made that really confusing, Director. [clears throat] Sorry. Um It's tier So, if your answer is correct um that you just shared with us, you're saying that the we would save 400 and I'll wait till she's done.

Could you repeat that again? Sorry. Okay. So, if you look at the sheet that you got last week with the breakout, the take-home vehicles have less things to remove out of the budget if you do the take-home. That's why it's higher if you look at the tax rate. Because there's um less items that are removed. So, the comparisons that we did on that sheet, you'll see without the take-home, you see that additional 490,000. With the take-home, that's removed off. So, we had to adjust and take level two tier two and move it up to tier one to get to that million dollar um number. So, basically the 400-plus dollars is basically for maintenance that has to stay in the budget and gas that has to stay in the budget for vehicles that are not brand new. If we are to accept um this uh and allow the take-homes, we're basically getting all brand new vehicles. Whether we accept this deal or not, we still need new vehicles. And how many is that again? They are requesting 10. So, they're requesting 10, which would roughly about be how much?

It's 439,836. That's your option two sheet. Okay. So, either we have to have 400-plus dollars to maintain vehicles, we're going to need they've requested 10 more vehicles, which if they're requesting them, clearly they need them. Um so, again, I've been a big supporter on um the take-home vehicles mainly for recruitment, but hearing this again, um either way, we we have to spend money on vehicles. So, it seems like the better deal would be the take-home. Is that correct? Dollar-wise? It's it comes out that you have your tax rate is um three three 39 with the take-homes. Um sorry. My numbers stopped. It's okay. 345 with the take-homes. And then if you're going to do the 439,836 option, it's an increase of 342. So, it is more with the take-home cuz there's less reductions with the take-home. So, now that now it's more. It's 3 cents difference. 3 cents

have the take-home vehicles, it's $3.45 increase. If you do without the take-home vehicles, it's $3.42. So, you're talking 3 cents difference. A 3 cent difference. That's really

what uh the Director Roy has done is the total tax rate without the take-home vehicles is a 10.4 for total with everybody involved. Um and with the take-home, it's 10.5. So, it's 3 cents. It's a 3 cent difference, guys. And we do have uh several members of the police command staff here if you'd like to ask them any questions concerning uh the take-home vehicles. I think if Sergeant Brown wouldn't mind coming up and just giving us a very quick rundown on the benefits of it and um you know, why you guys have really uh are trying to push for this would be greatly appreciated once again. Yeah. So, when it comes to the tax rate and percentages, I don't have those numbers. Uh what I can tell you is that the numbers that I gave you guys last meeting that I was here, so it was two meetings ago, the $526,000 is the actual number that we need to get the 10 vehicles. I believe um I'm not sure who did this, but somebody took out $86,500 from the changeovers and moved it from I believe the line item in here to our drug forfeiture. But it's still going to cost us $86,500 Correct. to do the 10 cars. So, I think that's another number that isn't being factored into all this that

[clears throat]

that's a huge chunk of our asset forfeiture that again we use whenever [clears throat] we need, you know, new guns or something comes up unexpected that we don't get into our budget, that's what we use drug forfeitures for. They're supposed to be kind of like emergency funds, funds that are above and beyond like typical budget items, which outfitting a vehicle is a typical budget item. That's something we've always had in the budget ever since I've been doing this. Um I believe this is always been in there. This is the first time I've seen it taken out. So, that number of 400 and 39,000 is actually $526,336 is what we would actually need to get the 10 vehicles if we did not do the take-home program. And the benefit to the city? Well, the benefit to the city is the said before, we have officers from other areas that are inquiring and looking into this program. If we get this, there's at least three or four that have been pretty overt about their wanting to come over here if the take-home cars happen. Um State Police has no openings. They have take-home cars. Androscoggin County Sheriff's Office have take-home cars, also have no openings. Lewiston Police, we do not have take-home cars and we have a lot of openings. So, I think it's tried and true across the state, across New England, and even across the country that take-home vehicles do add to recruitment. That's one of the things that officers look for. It's quality of life. It's easier, lower maintenance costs. Um obviously a huge recruitment for the younger guys. Thank you. Councilor Nadeau. Um thank you very much. Um so, what I'm looking at between uh tier three with the take-home cars at 439 uh without the take-home

cars at at the the take-home cars with the additional cost for fuel, it's actually $60,000 is the difference between the two. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Um there's a few things I'll just I didn't think we're going to start with the take-home cars, but um there's a few things I'll just comment real quick. Um one, um and and just really quickly, how many how many vehicles do we have operational right now? Patrol vehicles or police cars total? Patrol vehicles. There is 17 cars active right now. And okay, and they're all able to be taken on the road. Yep. They're all they're all I'd say patrol ready. Okay. Um one of the things that comes up often is um operational readiness, being able to respond to an emergency, being able to respond to um situations that we see in our community that I I know that in the past we've we've waited uh for cars to get returned to to the station. So, that's one piece. Um I think also when we talk about the take-home model versus the continual 550 to 650,000 dollars per budget, um we're extending the life of these vehicles from two to three years to between five and seven. Is that correct? Uh seven and upwards of 10 years plus. Uh some of the admin cars, some of the detective vehicles, uh mileages are usually pretty low on those. Wear and tear is usually very low on those. There's no reason why 10 years. I mean, they're probably going to rust out cuz of Maine weather before they're actually going to need to be traded in for mechanical issues. Okay. Um you know, just as a note, obviously the police department is our largest municipal expenditure. Um and it can as far as the department's concerned. Um and it continues to be, but we're also not man How many people do we have right now

on duty? Like in the department. In patrol or just in general? In the in the department. Seven officers Adam Yeah. Right now for patrol officers, they should be seven seven minimum and sometimes there's eight, but there's probably seven on most nights. Seven beats, seven officers. And and how many patrol officers do we have total? Right now? Yeah, maybe 42-ish. Okay. Okay. Yeah, that those are my questions. Thank you. Councilor Martel Thank you. Sergeant Brown, how many applicants do we have right now for the academy? We have We have one person that's in the police academy that right now. That's correct. And depending on when they get into the next academy, best case scenario 18 to 24 months.

we have one person that we have that's going to be ready to go to the police academy in August and that's it. So, they won't even hit the academy till August and that's the one person we've got right now. Yes. And we can bring three to four pretty much instantly. Let's say six

that's what the hope is and that's what the that these people are saying that they're kind of waiting to see and then if we get blue pins, we can start them right away. They go through a very short FTO program to learn the city and our policies and such and then be on the road in weeks. And then they're dispatched. Yep. Responding to calls. Correct. And the one applicant you said best case scenario, when are they going to be able to do that? Well, academy's 18 weeks and the 3 months, so it's almost a year from the time they go to the academy to time they're on the road by themselves. I would just for the public's sake, like I get messages uh we'd like to see better more police response, moving violations, stuff like that, some of the lower-level things and the only thing I'm left with is that I imagine you guys must be in a situation where you're triaging calls to a certain degree. Like Correct.

you've got shooters and dealers and stuff like that. It it makes it a lot harder to run down someone on bad tags or without an inspection sticker. Correct. Our proactive policing is definitely going to be down with short of manpower. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other comments, Councilor Najarian? Um just on the 65 cars total, we wouldn't be purchasing cars for unfilled positions or would we? No, I don't I don't believe so. No. I can speak to the numbers if you want. He has the numbers the best. Yeah. So The 65 cars plus our current fleet right now would put us with seven spare cars. So, we'd have seven extra cars for guys that came in So, those four that came in Because the outfitting process is so long on these cars, even if we do it in-house, it's about a month per car. Outfitting, outsourcing it, if you can get in, I mean they can turn a car over in about 3 to 4 days, but there's agencies all across the New England that need vehicles outfitted, so having seven on hand, car breaks down, a guy can take another car. Having extra guys, you know, having guys apply that we end up hiring that can be ready in a month, perfect, there's a car for them. So, we would have seven with the 65 plus what our current fleet is ready to go. Thank you. Yep. Other questions for concerning take-home vehicles for the police? Okay, let's go back to tier three. Director Healey has joined us, our tax assessor. Do you have anything to share with us, Director Healey? You just had a an open house on the new assessment and the revaluation. Can you talk about that for a bit? Yes, it went went quite well. We had about 40 people that joined the Facebook live event. A lot of good questions. Um a lot of uh unknown, you know, a lot of people wanting to know the tax rate.

And as I mentioned, until we know how we're moving forward, also budgets and taxable valuation, we won't know the mill rate until then. Thank you and just to confirm, letters to all taxpayers are going out on Friday uh advising them of the temporary or the new assessed value. That is correct. Valuation notices are going out Friday. The taxpayers or property owners should receive them early next week. Uh it's going to have their old value and the new value on there and it's also outlines the process if a property owner disagrees with the assessment that they can reach out to Tyler. And I also encourage people, even if you don't disagree with your assessment, you can still reach out to Tyler and talk to them about the evaluation and the process. Okay, they we've paid for that service already. They're not charging us for the phone call, are they?

They are not. No, that's part of the process. That's good to know. So, any questions about your new assessment uh for folks out there, uh the information on how to reach Tyler Technologies is in that letter. That's correct. That letter does not have any information about mill rates and and tax rates because that's yet to be determined by the folks sitting up here. That is also correct. The one uh caveat that it does have is please do not multiply your new value by the current tax not. That that that that could develop some real shocks. Absolutely. Are there any other questions or comments, Councilor Longchamp? Um not about the revals right now, but I think it's important that we as our city administrator mentioned at the beginning of our meeting uh to make sure that we have a majority vote for this tier three, you know, so we can either continue discussing Super majority, sorry. Answer up, but we do need to confirm I think we have five votes. Yes. I didn't realize that until he mentioned it, so I I'm not exactly sure where we left off. Um so, I think it might be a good idea to maybe go down the line and uh make sure we have a super majority vote. Um if I could, I'll get to you in a second, Councilor Martel. Um we're going to need a super majority anyway if the mill rate I mean I'm sorry, if the increase in in tax levy exceeds 3.1. 3.3 3.3 Um none of the scenarios that we've seen so far get anywhere near that value. So, I'm not certain what happens if the council can't if five members of the council can't come together and agree on a mill rate or a a tax increase that's greater than the 3.3% uh CPI.

Councilor So, I guess the concern that I have now um is our administrator needs to move forward with uh advising the folks whether they're going to lose their jobs or not. Um so, I think it is pretty pressing that we make sure that we have the votes for that uh just for that reason alone. Uh if I could push back a little on that, there is no scenario that's been been presented to us, any of these budgets, that will allow us to pass it with a four a simple four-vote majority. Every single budget we've seen requires five councilors. I'm not sure what happens if we don't have five, but the fact is that for us to get down to 3.3, uh we're going to need to eliminate the city budget entirely. I think we need to uh to get to even to get to a 6.3% increase, which still requires a super majority, my calculations indicate that we close the city up and we fund only the school and the county and that will give us a 6.3% increase at the present budgets. So, we're we're stuck. We we don't have a choice. If we cannot get a five-vote majority, then does does the budget revert back to last year's budget the way the school does? Administrator, you have a thought on

we have to pass a budget by the end of May. Uh if we we cannot pass the budget, I think we have to go back and refer to the charter, but Director Roy, do you have It reverts back to fiscal year 26. It's actually, if I can interrupt, um I just got this from the city attorney this afternoon. If the council shall fail to adopt a budget prior to the end of the current fiscal year, then the administrator's final budget shall be deemed to be automatically adopted. So, whatever uh um City Administrator Cainrath gives you, if you don't get a vote on it and we continue to have meetings and can never pass it, that's what becomes budget. So, we'll be back to tier one. So, to clarify, it would not be last year's budget, it would be tier one, which was your

be what I presented this year. Right. Your initial budget, which gives us a tax increase of Do you recall offhand? With the current valuation? I think we'd have to get that number.

Well, it's I mean not an increase, but a levy. Yeah, the net tax levy you're talking about? Right. Um and unfortunately, I don't have the pre-tier 1 2 3 sheets in front of me. So, the tax rate would be $36.57, an increase of $3.79, which would bring us to 10.7. We'd be 7.4 over CPI. Okay, so that would not require a council majority. That would be if the council cannot pass a budget, which now at this point requires five councilors to agree. Correct.

If we don't do that, then we end up with a an increase that's exceeding what we would have with five votes anyway. Um these are these are the the realities of the costs that are imposed on us that that we really have no control over. So to your count to your point Counselor Longchamp, um you want to know whether we have a five-vote majority for any of these tiers. Is that correct? I'm just concerned with if the city administrator has to go and address these uh the issue of letting people go and we don't have that vote up here then that's that's not good. Then you have to go back and say, "Oops, sorry. That's no longer happening." I just don't think that's very professional.

And that was my that was my concern at the outset that unless it appears we have a strong consensus, we have five votes to approve this budget at tier three, which is where we left off at the last meeting. Um unless we have that, it makes it uh I think um it's ill-advised to go forward and notify employees that their positions are up for elimination in a public way if we're not serious about doing that. So I think you know and we are we are ready to go forward and do that. We prepared with our attorney today to do that based on last week's meeting. Um but if we do need a supermajority, which we do, it requires five votes. Uh I guess we are strongly saying that we need to make sure that we have a consensus of five votes before we go and approach these employees and talk about their positions with the city and their livelihoods. Um that's extremely important. So uh this is a very good point and I think hopefully uh you know, we can come to some sort of consensus if not tonight by by Thursday night maybe because if we are moving forward with tier three, we uh to put that in play to notify these individuals um and to get that process moving forward. But uh we need to make sure there are five votes to do it and we can't just go back and say, "Just kidding." Um from a personal management standpoint um from someone who cares deeply about the morale in this building and about our city employees, uh I don't feel like it's it's the right thing to do. Uh I don't think you know, any of you would agree with that uh either. So um I think we just need to make sure what direction we're heading in and if there's consensus for tier three cuts and the five votes. Okay. Um if I could restate that, if we cannot get a supermajority, then we revert back to the uh administrator's original budget,

which contains no cuts and contains a tax um increase of what percent? Uh we were we are now talking uh roughly 10 10 and 1/2%. On the net tax levy. We're not talking about the city operating budget. You're talking about the net tax

levy, that's right. Right. Um what what would the increase what would the corresponding increase be if we don't have five counselors? This is a very uh ironic situation because none of us up here want to cut jobs. But in order to do that, five of us have to agree to to keep the tax rate down. So it it's a counterintuitive situation. If we cannot get five votes up here, then the taxes go up. Well, the taxes are going up in all of these scenarios. The taxes go up more. Correct. Shall I say? And can I have the number? We're talking 10 and 1/2% more or less now.

levy. Uh Director Roy, do you have the the tax levy number for the original proposal? The tax levy number for the city would be 44,184,495. Which is 11.8%? The tax rate that goes off the CPU the CPI is 10.7. As I mentioned, it would be 7.4 over. Okay. So we're talking 11 and 1/2 versus 10 and 1/2.

But that's only in the event that the council can't pass a budget by the end of May. And I I'm feel confident that the council will be able to pass a budget. Obviously, you know the legislative process involves compromise and amendments and and working things out and I'm I'm confident we can get there. So the scenario of it reverting back to my original proposal, I think is is pretty far off, but Well, that all depends as Counselor Longchamp has so astutely pointed out on whether or not five of us up here agree that cutting eight positions is necessary to keep the tax rate as low as possible. Uh if we don't have that and we only have a regular majority then we have not passed the budget Right. because we have not been able to keep the tax increase below or at the consumer price index. Therefore, we revert back to a tax base that's even higher than that which any of us up here are comfortable with. Wow. Mhm. Interesting problem.

there could be a compromise. Remember we talked about the the three tiers. There's a tier two proposal also. Uh so I think that's for the council to to sort out in the in the coming weeks. Um but again, I do just want to stress if we are going to move forward with tier three, we need to make sure we have solid five votes to go ahead and do that. Well, thank you for pointing that out and and and I agree. I don't think we have a lot of time left. We we can't take any formal action in a workshop, but um I I don't know. Do do we want to take a consensus as to whether there are five votes for a tier three either with or without the take-home vehicle?

vehicles. Let's throw that issue aside for the moment and simply concentrate on the loss of eight valued employees as a cost of keeping the tax rate as low as possible. Are there five five counselors who are in favor of that informally now? Counselor Harmon. No. I'm sorry. I thought we were taking a vote. Oh, okay. Well, we're not voting. We're just putting thumbs up, thumbs down. So are you in favor of the tier three, the eight position loss? Okay. Um Counselor Najarian. Um again, I would be in favor of keeping our operating expenses to the northeast CPI. So that'd be 3.3%. Um unfortunately. Um and I know I don't have support for that, but I'm naming this. This budget is absolutely unsustainable and this increase is absolutely unsustainable. So I'm I'm reading that as a in favor of tier three. Yeah, I would support

option of three given no other option.

Okay. Correct. Counselor Longchamp. Um no, I as I shared before, I I'm not in favor um of that at all. In fact, I I'm hoping maybe and and no one wants to hear this about the school budget. Um I've gotten many many emails. I've gotten maybe two um other than the school budget, but I'm thinking, you know, the school has I don't know over 10 million dollars in their fund balance. Maybe they could cut theirs a million um and use some of their fund balance to help us. Um I'm not sure how that works. I'm not going to act like I do, but I don't even know if that's an option. But I'm not in favor of tier three, no. Okay.

As I've stated before. Thank you. Thank you. Uh Counselor Harmon, I'll get back to you in a minute. I'd like to finish up to see if we have five votes here. Counselor Roy, I hate to put you on the spot, but I'm going to anyway. Oh, that's perfectly fine. I've already said it. I'm not in favor of cutting eight positions. Counselor Noble. I'm actually not either. All right, then there are and and I I am in favor of tier three to keep the tax rate as low as possible, but we do not have five votes in favor of that. Counselor Martel, I don't mean to ignore you, but you matter very much, sir, but I I do want to hear from you. [snorts]

Thank you. Um I know that with the vote, I don't make five, but I I do want to speak. So I was going to be against the five votes to cuz I I'm with Counselor Najarian that I would like to see us stay at the CPI. And um so I I I appreciate you for recognizing this, but I feel like I'm in a position where I'd have to vote in the supermajority to prevent an even higher tax increase than I than I than I want to not vote for the increase so that I can reduce it further. So I I would be inclined to vote for this, but only so that I can axe it more. And I I don't want to seem insensitive. And I I hate to have to put it like this, but we can't sit up here and virtue signal and say that we don't want to cut anybody's job, but that we also don't want to put anyone out of their homes. Those two statements are incongruent with one another based on this budget. This budget is unsustainable. There's another thing I want to point out. I know we're not talking right about the eval right now, but uh our illustrious mayor isn't here this evening, but normally six out of the eight people that sit on this dais, this will be the third budget that's been worked on knowing that this was coming. Okay? The can has been proverbially kicked down the road so many times and the spending, we never got spending in line. We never made a the councils before didn't make the hard decisions that would have needed to be made to prevent us from being in this position right now. Last year, instead of making difficult decisions, we spent the vast majority of the available available fund balance in order to soften the blow that realistically should have been saved for this year. Had we been forward-thinking and saying, "This reval is coming. We can't avoid it any longer. We're going to make some tough cuts last

year so that we can preserve the fund balance to give people a little bit of a break and soften the blow of this revaluation." But, that didn't happen. So, this will be the third budget that difficult cuts have been avoided at all costs, that the can has been continued to be kicked down the road, the fund balance was used, every option that is available to this council to try to soften the blow to taxpayers has been exhausted prior to now. And I would also like to point out uh if you don't mind me asking, how long is your service to the city been, Mr. Healey? I've been with the city since 2015. Thank you. And it still remains your professional opinion that we should not push this reval down the road. That's correct. It's been 38 years. Uh at some point, we have to implement a revaluation. So, you're the city pays you for this opinion. And if we're going to sit up here and kick the can down the road, we're going to do it in exact in direct contrast to your best advice. That's correct. Thank you. That's what I've got for right now. Thank you, Councilor Martell. If we could stick to the topic, which is finding out whether we have a supermajority, and it appears that we do not. Now, Councilor Harriman. Yes, I just wanted to address um the fund balance. So, the the school has around $10 million in fund balance. Um they are currently using about half of that for this year's budget. Um they have been using several million dollars each year for the past several years. Um so, that will they're already using $5 million approximately in this budget um to help reduce the the impact. And I believe the city currently has about 19 million in our fund balance, and we're not using any. Um just to compare the two. Councilor Najin. So, since it seems like tier one is what

we're moving forward with, um could I propose that the next budget session that we actually address line items and and the pieces that I would absolutely love to see uh explored for cuts. I'm not 100% sure that the budget that was put in front of me, um and I understand that everybody's worked on it very hard, but it's at certain points I have to ask, why wouldn't we just freeze all hiring overall? If a position opens up, why wouldn't we cut down on overtime? Why wouldn't we eliminate uh non-essential programs? Like, why would we not do these things in order to reduce the budget? If if if we're looking at a situation where um I think that this was handled in a way that was professional and had to be handled this way because we're talking about eliminating positions. But, if now we're not talking about eliminating positions, I want to gut all kinds of things. I mean, honestly. I I I you know, I I I apologize for taking that stance, but uh if it's offensive to to you know, the directors who have worked hard on their budgets, but it's this is just it we cannot continue to see an increase over the Northeast CPI. It just can't happen. And so, like we have to cut we we can't afford to pay for all things. And so, um that's just my position uh overall. And I would also say, just really quickly about the school um uh this the school operating budget and their uh their fund balance. By state law, you only have to have 3 to 5% of uh your fiscal year's um funds in that fund balance. So, if it exceeds 3 to 5%, I think you might want to look at it. Thank you. Administrator Kennebec. Yeah, just a a process question just to respond to Councilor Najin. So, uh this is not to critique our process here in Lewiston, but you know, after I

present the budget to the council, it is the council's budget, and you can uh offer amendments uh and go through that process to change, cut, you know, delete, remove, add anything uh you would like. So, uh I think that's perfectly fair what you're talking about. Um uh it's it's the council's budget at this point. Uh amendments can be offered. Uh you can gain the support of your colleagues and make, you know, what whichever changes, you know, you would like. I mean, my piece of this is uh is done. I've presented a budget. I've turned it over. So, uh just to say what you're talking about is completely fair and in line. Um and if there are amendments to be offered or or more than happy to work with you on whatever they may be. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Administrator. Um it ain't easy. Any other comments uh questions? There being none, I want to thank all of our employees and I'm sorry. I didn't see your hand. Councilor Longchamps. Thank you. Um I would just like to agree with uh Councilor Najin, I do think it would be a good idea to kind of um go same go through a lot of those items. Um and I'd I'd be happy to help in any way that I can cuz we definitely do need to cut the budget. Um I don't know exactly how that will look, but uh I think that's a good start. Thank you. Just to recap then. Uh we are now facing the administrator's initial budget, which came to us. Uh we are going to be working and looking at that as a council uh and recommending areas that we can cut. I will I admire your your uh your goal, Councilor Najin, but as I said before, in order for us to get even down to 6% increase of taxes with the county and the school, we're going to have to eliminate the city completely.

Completely. So, we can make progress in it. Um and I think we're still going to have to have a supermajority to pass a budget that exceeds 3.5 3.3%. Councilor Najin. Uh I'm just stating the operating expenses for this year clearly. Um if we can get the operating expenses for this year down to uh you know, 3.3%, which is the Northeast CPI, I would be I would be okay with that. Um but I think again, for all of us, you've all looked through the budget several times, identify the the the line items you have questions about, be prepared for the next meeting because I think we we don't have a lot of time. I mean, we we've got a month and and 10 days. Um but, it's not a huge amount of time to work through all of these pieces that we may be able to see savings in. So. Thank you. I would like to clarify that the city's operating budget is not the measure with the 3.3%. It's the overall tax levy. So, either way, even if we get even if we achieve the goal of getting the city's increase down to 3.3%, we still have to have a supermajority to pass the budget. Completely understood. I'm just hoping that we can get at least one thing in line with inflation. Just one thing.

Every penny counts, and I'm I'm I'm with you on that, Councilor Najin. Any other final closing comments, Administrator? No, thank you. So, uh just again, it appears we're in a posture where we are at least pressing holds on uh the layoff piece and notifying employees in unless there's, you know, further discussion from the council. And I do also want to add, if you are looking at specific amendments, uh cuts you'd like to make, changes, uh please um reach out to finance and myself, Tracy and I, uh and we can um help you navigate some of that um if you'd like some assistance. Uh and again, I haven't been through a budget process here in Lewiston yet, but the the normal process I'm used to is councils offer amendments. We're help we'll help you work up those amendments. You offer it to the body, uh and we we see where they go. So, but we're more than happy to help help work with you on on those amendments uh and what you'd like to see done. Um just please reach out to um Tracy and myself. Thank you, Administrator. I have one question for Director Healey. Um I know at the last workshop, the council expressed a strong desire to delay the implementation of the revaluation for 1 year. Uh I know that was against your recommendation. Uh at what point do you need to have formal action by the council to decide that delay or not? I I Ultimately, it's going to be my decision based on recommendations from the city council. The statute is pretty clear on that. Okay. I I I I misspoke then. We we don't direct you in this. You you you are your own boss here. Um but, you will listen to the council as a recommendation. And my my question to you is, what is the last date that the council can offer you its final recommendation? I we need to work on our valuation. So, what if if we delay the reval,

then my staff has to go in and update values in the old database uh based on new construction and permits and what have you. So, if it would be a couple of weeks. I've already directed my staff to start looking at that and start uh getting numbers together. If we don't implement, then we need to increase the valuations, uh, for what there would have been had not been the reval. Mhm. So. Okay. And that's new construction, uh, building permits and what have you. So, sooner rather than later. Sooner rather than later. I'm holding out a fill still faint hope that I can convince at least one or two other counselors that implementation this year is appropriate. Councilor Longchamps. Uh, yes, thank you. Um, I should have asked this question already, but I know you said you've been here since 2015 and the revals haven't happened for 30 plus years. When did we start this? I started recommending a revaluation in 2017. You started recommending. So, when did you actually start? I start So, I my first day here was February 15, February of 2015. Uh, my council meeting that I came to in 2017, I started recommending that we needed a revaluation. Because at the time you could see that we're already slipping Mhm. and it would have been a lot better to have done it then than to have waited. Now, no one could have foreseen what happened with the market the way it went, um, over the last 6 years, 5-6 years, but there was a trend that you could see that our our assessment to sale price ratio was getting closer to the minimum of 70%. Mhm. When I came to the council, it was always we needed the funding. I think I meant Well, I don't I mentioned this to the last time I came. I can recommend a reval. You can say I'm The council can say we're not going to give you the money. So.

what happened over a period of 6-7 years or so. When did council finally approve it, if you don't mind me asking? I think it was 2023. So, 2023. So, we've really only been at this a couple of 3 years? Right. So, it hasn't been 30 years. We've been at it for about 3 years. Well, right. But But it's been since the last time the revaluation process was completed, it's been 38 years. Right. No, I know that. Right. Yeah. Right, but um, we really started making, uh, the public aware that we were doing this back in 2021. 2023. Oh, 2023. discussed that we needed to do it, but, uh, the process and timeline were outlined.

2023 and we're in 2026, so. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Councilor Najarian. J- Just for a point of clarity, we keep talking about 38 years, but that was when the reval was actually due, correct? Actually, we're actually talking about the last time we had a citywide evaluation was 48 years ago. It was in 1988. Last time there was a full implemented revaluation. It There was one done in 2006 and [clears throat] at the time it was decided not to move forward because the market was changing so rapidly at the time. Values were dropping significantly and the assessor at the time determined it wasn't a good point to move forward at that time. Okay. Yeah, so that's 48 years ago was the last time we actually had a full

38. 38? Okay. Councilor Longchamps. Sorry. Um, yes, so it's been 38 years since we've had that, but the public, even though, yes, people are aware that it hasn't been done in 30 plus years, but the public was really made aware that we were going to move forward with this in 2023. Correct. So, I know that I had accepted your one year that you were willing to maybe push the button and say, "Okay, I'll I'll do this for uh, citizens of Lewiston." But, I'm going to actually take that back and and I hope you would delay. I I'd like to see it delayed for 2 years. That's That's what I would strongly suggest, um, and I don't know if we'd have the votes, but that's what I'd like to see. I'd like to have it delayed for 2 years. Thank you. Thank you. Anything else on this workshop? I will declare the workshop closed. We will reconvene in a short 5 minutes for our regular, semi-monthly meeting. Let's take a break.

Good evening, Lewiston. Now we're on the air. Um, it is 7:00. My clock says 8:00, but I know to subtract an hour. Uh, it's 7:00. Welcome to the regular, uh, Lewiston City Council meeting uh, tonight on April 21st, 2026. Um, thank you all in attendance. I am going to, uh, start the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. I would ask Sam Chamberlain if he would lead us in the pledge. 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 justice for all. Thank you. Um and I will call out Mr. Chamberlain for having put together a wonderful dashboard that is available to citizens. Uh remind me of the name of the site. Uh budgetdata.net. budgetdata.net. Uh Mr. Chamberlain has put together a wonderful tool that helps people understand how the budget works, what its components are, and so forth. So, kudos to him. Um I think we have minutes of the April 7th meeting. Um yes, we do. Those have been distributed. Do I have a motion? So moved. Second. Deputy Clerk We're off to a good start. Thank you. Uh would you please call the roll? Yes, the roll call starts tonight with Ward 1. Councilor from Ward 1. Yes. Ward 2. Yes. Ward 3.

Yes. Ward 4. Yes. Ward 5. Yes. Ward 6.

Yes. Ward 7. Yes. Motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Um thank you. Uh we're now up to public comment. The mayor normally has a scree which he reads outlining the rules uh of public comment. I will simply simply uh paraphrase those by saying this is my first night presiding at a city council meeting. So, please be gentle. Please be kind. Please don't raise your voice. And please behave. I'm not using I'm not using the mic because the mayor's not here and he complains that I talk too loud. Um first of all, I I've got a few things. Martel School, I'm still

please identify yourself, Ronnie? Everybody knows me. [laughter]

Ronnie Paradis, Ward Ward 6. Anyway, Martel School, I'm really concerned again we're not paying attention to seniors and seniors out there, please please. I look at across the street on Pine Street and all those buildings that are going up and we've been working on Martel School since 2019. Are we paying attention to our seniors? We're not paying attention to our seniors because I feel Ward 2, 4, 6, and 7 is not getting paid attention to. And then the other populations There's two populations and I'm not going to say them in Lewiston that gets paid attention to and listened to all the time. One is Bates College. Okay. Second, communication director. W- where's our system for communication in this city? We had two things. Water main break, we didn't know I didn't know where to do it. And uh thank God for Brent that put it over social media about Bates College and that shooting. The communication director should be let go. She's not doing anything. I'm sorry. Uh the comments about individuals should be addressed privately to the administrator rather than in a public

I said but I'm saying about communication. There's somebody's not doing it. Uh suggestions, advisory committees. They should be doing more. You guys should be asking advisory committees for input. Public health, senior advisory committee. These people are sitting around talking and they're not You guys are not using them to what they should be using. And this way you could save money by using the advisory committees and their their knowledge and everything else then thing We wouldn't have to go through that needle thing for a year and a half if it wasn't. And by the way, I heard about um the water main break through Ren Soul. She's published the streets over things. And you let her go. Thank you. Any other public comment? Hi, my name is Cara Courchesne, resident of Ward 1. I don't think it's a surprise to anyone that Lewiston is full of division. Some of our disagreements are understandable and healthy because Lewiston is full of different people with different beliefs. But some of what we're seeing goes beyond healthy debate. It becomes personal and at times cruel. I'm grateful to hear Councilor Harriman speaking openly about autism and his diagnosis at the last meeting. And he shouldn't have to. Neurodivergence, of which being on the autism spectrum is a part, is not rare. About 1 in 5 people are diagnosed somewhere on the spectrum. My extended family is full of n- neurodivergent people, myself included. My partner's son has ADHD and is autistic. And like parents of special

needs kids, most of them know that it takes a village to make sure he has what he needs to be a successful in a world that is not built exactly for people like him. That's why it matters how we talk about people, especially when they act outside of narrow expectations. Some things as simple as doodling or knitting or fidget spinning are tools for focus, not signs of disrespect. When we assume the worst or publicly shame those differences, it sends a message that Councilor Harriman or Cara Courchesne or my partner's son or over 1,000 students in Lewiston's public schools are different and that different is not okay. If someone serving Lewiston feels pressure to explain or justify a diagnosis just to be treated with basic respect, that's not a disagreement about how we solve our community's problems. That's a signal about who we are becoming as a community. And if you don't think that that contributes to our public image, which I know every single person in this room is concerned about, think again. Lewiston should be a place where people don't have to shrink themselves to participate. We can disagree, even strongly, about how we solve our issues and still choose to treat each other with dignity. Our kids are watching, as they should be, and they're learning from us how to behave. Thank you, Councilor Harriman. Thank you, Ms. Courchesne. Any other public comment? Robert McDonald, Ward 6. About two w- I haven't been since I was mayor. The first time I had stepped into this

place, really, was uh 2 weeks ago. And saw this barricade here. This is a public meeting. I don't understand why barricades are up there. I don't understand why everybody is so afraid to uh eh talk with the public. I think that should come down. I really do. It's It's very It's not something that we should be proud of. That being said, Mr. Healey, he's gone. When I was mayor, we hired Mr. Healey. I hope that when the budget comes through, you you run this by him. Because this man knows what more than anybody else up there knows of what how the how this is going to have to be put in place. So, please listen to him. Lastly, as I'm listening to the budget, we could cut that budget down very simply. All we got to do is bring in ICE. But we can't do that because, my God, the people in Augusta would hate that. And probably we'd lose a lot of some people would lose a lot of votes. But you bring in ICE, welfare is going to go down. That school budget, God knows how much money is being spent to to educate kids these kids. They don't speak any They don't speak English. Uh

i- it's just I'm sure it's a it's a very big cost factor. But I think that if we looked at that, I think most people would be very very satisfied with what the tax rate will be. Uh but again, I don't think anybody here has the intestinal fortitude to to bring that up. And I hope I'm wrong cuz I'd love to see you do that. Uh and thank you. Thank you, Mayor McDonald. Any other public comment? Good evening. My name is Destiny. I'm a survivor of the Lewiston mass shooting. The mayor altered the rules to [snorts] grant speaking rights exclusively to Lewiston residents.

Pardon me, Destiny. Would you identify where you're from, please? I'm from Windham. I'm sorry. This public comment is for Lewiston residents and taxpayers only. I'm a Lewiston survivor. I was almost shot and killed it in this city. You You have my most sympathy. However, the council rules require public comment to be limited to Lewiston taxpayers and residents.

we would ask that you allow us to I would ask again that we allow I I move that we suspend the All right, there's been a consensus on council to allow you to continue. Please proceed. Thank you so much. Okay, so back to what I was saying, the mayor altered the rules to grant speaking rights exclusively to Lewiston residents. I've been speaking at this meeting for the last couple months. This presents a problem for me. I'm a victim of a shooting incident in Lewiston that nearly claimed my life. The mayor's stance suggests he wants us to leave us and leave and go away. We plan to continue attending meetings and voicing our concerns until we get the answers we seek. Survivors [snorts] and victims' families did not request the city's council assistance in addressing their needs. Instead, our focus has been on seeking accountability for the 1.9 million awarded to 29 nonprofits that were not at Schemengees or at the bowling alley on October 25th, 2023. We specifically asked for an investigation into the allocation of these funds. It's worth noting that the Root Cellar, one of the 29 nonprofits, has stated that it returned the Lewiston shooting funds they received back to the victims. Given your current partnership with the Maine Community Foundation, it seems reasonable for you to ask the Maine Community Foundation to return the remaining of the 1.9 million to the victims and their families. While we cannot undo what happened the night at Schemengees or at the bowling alley, we cannot erase the fear, the loss, or the trauma, but we can demand accountability. We can insist that when money is raised for victims, the victims come first. I escaped to the kitchen of Schemengees. Others didn't make it out at all. The [snorts] least we can do now is ensure that their names and the support promised in their honor are treated with

fairness, transparency, and respect. Thank you. Thank you, Destiny. Any other public comment? Seeing none, yes, sir. I'm John Boucher. I was here last time. And so, I'm back again. Um At first, I had a lot to say, but a lot has been said already. So, um I just want wanted to know what was taking so long. It's been over a month. And, you know, we're still dealing with what we're dealing with. You know, I started to get a little ticked off as you would, too, if you were in my shoes, you know. Sitting in the cheap seats don't seem really nice lately. But, uh I I just want something resolved. I don't care how it happens or what's going to happen. I had a whole bunch of stuff I wanted to say tonight, but after tonight and talking to a few people here, um I'm really not sure what to say right now. You know, um I just don't want this to just be forgotten about. So, um That's about all I got to say right now. I'm not even sure what to say right now. So, I appreciate it. Thank you, sir. For the public, you're referring to the Waterman break on Orange Street and the damage to your home on Diamond Court. Is that correct?

Yes. My understanding is that there there are actions taking place behind the scenes. Um From what I gathered tonight, Okay.

I'm I'm starting to see that. And, um I didn't see that before. You know, and it's like it's starting to get a little frustrating on our part because of the fact that uh I'm I'm sure it does, but your your time is up. I recognize that that you are you are heard. What? You You have been heard. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comment? There being none, let's move along to agenda item number one. I understand, Madam Clerk, that we have a consent agenda. I'm sorry. I You know, Mayor always forgets, too. Don't feel bad at all.

I Now I feel really embarrassed. Thank you, Administrator. You got to advocate for yourself all the time, you know. It's okay. All right, thank you. I appreciate it. Um we have a public engagement opportunity Lisbon Street study. Lewiston Public Works is partnering with the Androscoggin Transportation Resource Center on Lisbon Street safety and on a Lisbon Street safety and mobility study. The purpose of the study is to improve safety and accessibility along Lisbon Street from Cedar Street to the I-95 access road for pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders, and motorists. ATRC will gather public input at the Starbucks location 857 Lisbon Street on Saturday, May 9th from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. with additional events and an online engagement opportunity to be announced. So, this study is expected to be completed in July. We're encouraging all residents, especially those impacted along that corridor, to please attend again May 9th, 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Uh Director Healey had another uh Facebook live session tonight. As he mentioned, we had some good attendance. About 40 individuals attended there, but we do have two upcoming uh in-person sessions to find out more about the reval uh process with our city assessor. The first one will be on Monday, May 11th, 1:30 to 2:30 at the Lewiston Armory Senior Center, 65 Central Avenue. The second one will be on Monday, May 18th, 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. Also at the Lewiston Armory Senior Center, 65 Central Avenue. Encouraging everyone that would like to have some in-person dialogue um with our assessing team to please attend uh and get your questions answered. Also, as noted, um new assessments, new values will be mailed out uh the end of this week to all property owners. So, please look for those in your mailboxes. Uh Community Development Block Grant. Um the city is required every 5 years to submit a consolidated plan that describes how CDBG funds will be spent. For this year, the team will present the plan during our May 5th uh council meeting, and the public can access a

draft of that proposal at lewistonmaine.gov/cdbg26draft for more information there. Reminder uh upcoming um there was a a nice piece in the Sun Journal also yesterday. We have the Busking Festival uh coming to Lisbon Street back again this spring, May 1st, May 8th, and May 15th on Lisbon Street uh between Ash and Main, 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Encouraging everyone to get down there uh for this new and exciting event, the only busking event of its kind in the state of Maine. Uh again again, May 1st, 8th, and 15th, 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. Uh looking forward to that event. Uh tomorrow, uh Wednesday, April 22nd, is Earth Day. Uh in recognition of Earth Day, we'll be joining Lewiston Public Works and its annual citywide cleanup effort. Um all LPW hands-on deck. Uh this initiative reflects our shared commitment to community pride, teamwork, and the maintaining a cleaning cleaner and more welcoming city. So, my thanks to Public Works for putting uh this on, and uh everyone please go out and and celebrate Earth Day. Um chip into your community, and let's keep Lewiston a cleaner, more beautiful place for for all. Uh public art project opportunity. The Public Art Committee is issuing a call to artists for a public art installation. The project intends to bring color and vibrancy to a highly visible alley location for both motorists and pedestrians. Plans call for six to nine wall uh murals to be painted uh on the alley-facing brick wall of 140 Lisbon Street. The deadline is Monday, May 4th at 4:00 p.m. For more information, uh please visit lewistonmaine.gov/publicart, or you can also email our community uh development manager Catherine Ruth at kruth@lewistonmaine.gov for more information. Uh Memorial Day is coming up, and continuing a valued valued Lewiston tradition, the Lewiston-Auburn Veterans Council invites the public to attend its annual Memorial Day observance ceremony on Saturday, February 23rd at 10:00 a.m. at

the Veterans Park located at Main and Lincoln Street. Uh this year's program will honor the four chaplains and recognize the addition of nine new names to the granite monuments. I'd like to thank Gerry Dewitt and the Lewiston-Auburn Veterans Council for continuing to lead this meaningful tribute, and then of course, invite everyone there again, May 23rd, 10:00 a.m. Uh lastly, uh Central Avenue. Reminder the Central Avenue rehabilitation project work begins this week. The project includes drainage improvements, new pavement, curbing, sidewalks, upgraded crosswalks, and other safety enhancements. Work will extend approximately 1,500 ft along Central Avenue between Russell Street and Campus Avenue, and is expected to be completed uh by mid-September. Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you, Administrator, and again, my apologies. Um I think we'll put this in bold uh in future agendas so that neither the mayor or I will miss it again. Now, we have a consent agenda. Madam Clerk, there are seven items on the agenda. Would you do your thing, please? Yes, there are seven items. Item number one, amendments to the athletic field use policy. Item two, amendments to the city business license fee schedule policy regarding the fees for the packet pre-packaged food sales. Item three, biennial appointment of election workers. Item four, amendments to the personnel policies to clarify the language regarding employee termination. Amendments to the personnel policies to clarify the catastrophic leave policies. Number six, amendments to the personnel policies to add Maine State Surveillance Act law. And item number seven, order authorizing the transfer of funds from water utility bond premium and interest proceeds from 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 bonds to the Lake Auburn intake study projecting project project

totaling $150,000. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Do I have a motion? I I move that we accept items one through seven as a slate. Thank you, Councillor Najin. Second? Second. Councillor Longchamps. Please call the roll. Councillor from ward one. Yes. Ward two. Yes. Ward three. Yes. Ward four. Yes. Ward five. Yes. Ward six.

Yes. Ward seven. Yes. Motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Uh item number eight, uh annual appointments to the Lewiston Auburn Railroad Company Board of Directors. Requested action, to review the applications and to nominate two members to serve on the Lewiston and Auburn Railroad Company Board of Directors. We have the applications in front of us. I will readily admit that my name is on that list. Um we also have an application from Alexander Alex Pine, uh whom you may know as a long-standing member of the Planning Board. Um I guess the council has had an opportunity to review these uh and offer any comments it wishes. Councillor Harriman. I would just like to make a motion to appoint David Chittum and Alexander Pine as Lewiston directors on the Lewiston and Auburn Railroad Company Board of Directors for a 3-year term, said term to expire April 2029. Thank you. Is there a second?

I would second that. Moved and seconded, Councillor Harriman and Najin. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Um Councillor from ward one. Yes. Ward two. Yes. Ward three. Ward four. Yes. Ward five. Yes. Ward six.

Yes. Ward seven. Yes. Yes. Motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Thank you. Uh agenda item number nine. Resolve appointment of a proxy to vote the shares of the Lewiston directors of the Lewiston Railroad Company as a single block as determined by the majority of the Lewiston directors. Requested action, to approve the resolve appointment of a proxy to vote the shares of the Lewiston directors of the Lewiston Railroad Lewiston Auburn Railroad Company as a single block as determined by the majority of the Lewiston directors. Thank you. And that proxy would be the uh ex officio member, uh acting director John Blais of the Economic and Community Development Department. Is there any discussion on the proxy? Seeing none, please call the roll. Point of order.

We need to have a motion. You need to go to the public. We don't have a motion. Don't we also have a We made a motion. a motion. We We've have a motion and a second. Okay. That was the other thing, but you're doing great. Do we need to go to public comment? That too. Yeah, we've got to go to public. Is there any public comment? I would prefer to avoid this, but is there any public comment? There being no public comment, back to the council. Can I just ask who made the motion and who seconded? So moved. Okay, we didn't Okay, so second. You now have a motion. Okay, thank you. Okay, are we all together now? We We are. All right. Councillor from ward one. Good job. Yes. Ward two. Yes. Ward three.

Yes. Ward four. Yes. Ward five. Yes. Ward six. Yes. Ward seven. Yes. Motion passed by a vote of 7-0. That was my fault. I'm sorry. I confused items uh seven and eight. Mhm. It's okay. Thank you for whoever corrected me. Appreciate it. Uh item number 10. Item number 10, public hearing on an application for a new liquor license for 5/5 East Africa LLC for 13 Main Street. Requested action to authorize the City Clerk's office to approve a new liquor license application for 5/5 East Africa LLC for 13 Main Street. Do I have a motion? Moved by Councillor Martell.

Second. Seconded by Councillor Harriman. Any discussion? Public comment? I think we're Back to the council. I apologize. I think we're we're moving to open the public hearing. Uh public hearing. I'm sorry. Thank you. I need all the help I can get. No worries, we'll get through this together. Yeah. All right. A team. Um so we are opening the public hearing now. Is that something I declare? I declare the public hearing open. We've heard from the public. I declare the public hearing closed. Now we can take action on the liquor license for 5/5 East Africa LLC. Any discussion with the council? I move that we authorize the City Clerk's office to approve a new liquor license application. Second. Councillor Najin, Councillor Martell second. Discussion? All those in favor? I'm sorry. Go ahead. Councillor Councillor from ward one. Yes. Ward two. Yes. Ward three. Yes. Ward four. Yes. Ward five. Yes. Ward six. Yes. Ward seven. Yes. Motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Aren't we having fun? Now we're on to This is indeed item 11. I wish I could claim the credit, but it's not me. Item 11. Item number 11, public hearing and final passage regarding an amendment to the business licensing ordinance regarding the annual licensing for pre-packaged food sales and inspections. Requested action, that the proposed amendment to the City Code of Ordinances Chapter 22, Businesses, Article 1, In General, Section 22-2, Definitions, and Article 2, Licenses, Sections 22-34, Inspection of applic- applicant's premise, merchandise receive a final passage by a roll call vote.

I will open the public hearing. And then we'll take a motion after we've heard from the public. Does anyone in the public wish to weigh in on annual licensing of pre-packaged food sales and inspections? Thank you very much. Now I'd accept a motion to uh adopt this proposed amendment. adopt the proposed amendment.

Thank you, Councillor Najin. Second. Seconded by Councillor Martell. Any discussion? We've had a public hearing, so you had your chance. Any discussion on the council? Madam Clerk. Councillor from ward one. Yes. Ward two. Yes. Ward three. Yes. Ward four. Yes. Ward five. Yes. Ward six. Yes. Ward seven. Yes. Motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Agenda item number 12. Item number 12, public hearing and first passage for an amendment to the zoning and land use code Article 11, District Regulations, for the changes to the space and bulk table and the land use table regarding mobile homes, daycares, and used car dealers, and new dimensional requirements. Requested action, that the proposed amendments to Appendix A of the Code of Ordinances Zoning and Land Use Code Article 11, District Regulations, regarding mobile homes, daycares, and used car dealers, and new dimensional requirements receive first passage by a roll call vote and to continue the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Director Connor, would you look here to kick us off on this issue? Absolutely. Uh if you guys all recall, I know you guys have had a lot of meetings and been very busy, but back in January with the 20th meeting, uh we we brought a list of these ordinance changes to you. There was one uh sticking item in that that dealt with the minimum height requirements in NCB. Uh we brought it back to the Planning Board. They removed that portion uh of the changes and left everything else that uh you guys all had um Yeah. at least my impression were favorable to, and we're bringing it back to you now. Thank you, Director. Uh this requires a public hearing. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to weigh in on these proposed ordinance zoning ordinance changes?

Seeing none, I'll take it back to the council for a motion. Councillor Najin. Um I just want to make a comment before we make a motion. Or do we make a motion and then go have a motion to discuss the item.

I would make a motion to uh accept the proposed amendments to Appendix A of the Code of Ordinances. So second. Seconded by Councillor Harriman. Now Councillor Najin, you had a comment you wanted to make. Uh I I would just like to say that I'm I'm very happy to see the the lot uh minimums uh reduced. I think that's an important sticking point for some uh development that we haven't been able to see downtown. So uh overall bang-up job. And I'm curious as to who voted against uh the uh favorable recommendation and why? Was it because of the substance of the of this? Do you remember? It's just it's 6 to 1 and I'm just curious. Uh you got me. I I don't know. I believe I know who it was, but I don't want to speak without knowing for sure. Well, it was still a super majority, so I was curious as to why they may have. I can go back and watch the video. The memo indicates that it was passed 6 to 1 with Michael Marcotte opposed. That's Shelly Shelly's memo of 2 3 days ago. Any other comments or questions from the council? There being none, Madam Clerk. Councillor from Ward 1. Yes. Ward 2. Yes. Ward 3. Yes. Ward 4. Yes. Ward 5. Yes. Ward 6.

Yes. Ward 7. Yes. Motion passed by a vote of 7-0. On to item agenda item number 13. Item 13, public hearing and first passage for an amendment to the zoning and land use code, Article 11, district regulations for changes to the No Name Pond Conservation Overlay District to clarify buffer language. Requested action that the proposed amendments to the Excuse [clears throat] me. to appendix A of the code of ordinances, zoning and land use code, Article 11, district regulations for changes to the No Name Pond Conservation Overlay District to clarify buffer language receive first passage by a roll call vote and to continue the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Director Connor. Good evening, Council President and members of the council. This item is a proposed amendment to the No Name Pond Conservation Overlay District. The Planning Board recently reviewed this matter and voted 6-1 to recommend these changes to you. The amendment is a technical correction designed to fix the linguistic flaw in our current ordinance. Currently, the language inadvertently treats man-made infrastructure like road ditches, backyard swales, and engineered stormwater ponds the same as natural streams. This creates a no disturbance buffer that technically makes it illegal to perform the very maintenance required to protect the pond. Excuse me. [clears throat] The three key goals of this update are one, to fall to allow essential maintenance. Engineered systems must be dredged and and cleared of sediment to function properly. Without maintenance, these systems fail leading to erosion and nutrient loading into No Name Pond. Number two, to correct impractical barriers. The current language can be interpreted to block standard development such as installing a driveway over a road ditch a roadside ditch even on previously approved lots. And number three, to maintain all natural protections. This change does not reduce the 50-ft buffer for any natural stream or water body. It simply clarifies that man-made plumbing

used for water treatment is exempt from these natural state requirements. This change ensures our local code supports environmental best practices and historical usage while maintaining the rigorous protections that No Name Pond watershed deserves. Thank you, Director. I'll open a public hearing to these ordinance changes. My name is Diane Chasse and I live at 56 No Name Pond Road. If you look at the subdivision of Waters Edge from the pond, my property sits to the left of the Waters Edge entrance and back approximately 300 ft from the road. My land is very close to pond level, especially since the level of the pond now has risen in the past 25 years. For the last 5 years or so, I have struggled with standing water and flooding in parts of my yard. I voiced my concerns on how I cannot mow my lawn and sometimes because water collects there and has nowhere to go and how the water runs right behind my shed and it is eroding some of the side lawn also. There's a CMP pole there that that now leans because water pools and sits there. I am not talking a trickle. I am talking streams. One of them is at least 12 in wide. It has become worse over the past 5 years. I cannot drink the water from the well. The well itself sits in a large pool of water. And my point is I believe some of it is coming from upstream at Waters Edge. I feel my property is one big retention pond. I I am concerned that the new proposed wording for the ordinance for Waters Edge will adversely affect the water runoff from Waters Edge even more than it does now onto my property. Any

increase in stormwater runoff, even a small amount, will make these conditions worse. I think the changing of the language will make it less restrictive. Um I know I don't have much time. I have I have been to three of the planning board meetings and the last one they voted to change the wording. I believe this should not happen. I and a landowner on Waters Edge met with John on this issue. Again, my concern is the runoff from Waters Edge on my property. Um I was told that maybe 1% of the problem was from Waters Edge and I was told to contact public works, which I did, which I haven't heard from yet. I am asking that City Council vote no to the language change for the No Name Pond Overlay. Will it take care of all the water from Waters Edge? No. But it would help greatly. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Chasse. My name is Dan Burnier from Ward 6. Um Ward 6 chair, members of the City Council, before anything else, I'm here to ask for your vote. If the ordinance does not directly concern you or your property, then it should not be changed. I am asking you to vote no and leave the No Name Pond Conservation Overlay exactly as written. Chair, um I'm also asking for your support. You led this you've led as a chair for many years. Um I want to keep the this exactly. I know you live in that district. Um This has been in place for 25 years. Consistent stormwater quality protection with no evidence on the record that it has failed. None. The vote question comes first because once the conservation ordinance can be rewritten for a single permit request, no overlay in this city is safe.

Now, briefly, here's why that matters. The No Name Pond Conservation Overlay was adopted as a precautionary ordinance. Stormwater runoff is one of the most well-documented source of pollution to surface waters and this overlay was intentionally written to require early interception through natural buffering across the watershed before runoff is concentrated, conveyed, and treated downstream. For more than 25 years, the approach has worked. There is no pond-by-pond evidence of system failure, overtopping, breach, or water quality or impairment caused by the existing ordinance. None was presented at the Planning Board and none is before you tonight. What is before you is a proposal described as clarification that would remove buffer protection from stormwater conveyance features exactly where runoff is concentrated and moving towards the pond. That is not clarification. It is policy reversal and it weakens the protections upstream in exchange for greater reliance on downstream treatment systems that were never designed to replace natural interception. This is not about opposing maintenance. Buffers are not prohibiting maintenance. They require controlled access, erosion controls, and restoration. Tools the city already uses. If maintenance standards need refinement, that can be done narrowly without rewriting a watershed-wide conservation rule that has protected the public resource decades. So, tonight, I'm asking you to choose precedence over pressure. Vote no. Keep the ordinance exactly as written. Preserve the protections this city deliberately put in place more than a generation ago. Mayor or chair, I respectfully ask again for your support. If this ordinance is weakened despite the absence of demonstrated harm, I am prepared to gather and document maps, correspondence, and community support including a petition to place the ordinance before the voters as it has stood for over 25 years now. Thank you very much for your time. If you have any questions, I put together a comprehensive packet

for everything. Thank you very much. Have a good night. Thank you, sir. Appreciate your comments. Any other comments in this public hearing on the draft ordinance change? Seeing none, there has been a motion, I believe. No. No. Okay, I'll need a motion then. Moved. Would you like to read the the uh language again, please, Madam Clerk? Sure. Requested action that the proposed amendments to appendix A of the code of ordinances, zoning and land use code, Article 11, district regulations for changes to the No Name Pond Conservation Overlay District to clarify buffer language receive first passage by a roll call vote and to continue the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Mr. Martel. What she said. I move that. Is there a second? Second. Second, uh Councillor Harriman. Discussion by the council. Director Connor, do you have anything you'd like to add after public comment? Um you know, we we've met with with uh those individuals. We've met with the neighbors. Um we we do believe that we're clarifying it for the future. We are not minimizing or reducing the amount of um clean water going into the pond. We believe that this is this needs to take place in order to do what these retention ponds are designed by engineers to do, which is to filter the water before it goes into No Name Pond. Thank you, Director. Uh discussion, Councillor Najie. Just out of curiosity, that so the the vernal pools that were created by the Army Corps of Engineers um that are out around the No Name Pond Pond area, does this also refer to those vernal pools or I guess they're retention ponds? This is This is referring mainly to the the the streams, the natural streams, the intermittent streams,

uh any of the the um the water coming out of those those um retention ponds. Um but it doesn't specifically state that the vernal pools, but I believe they're protected otherwise as well.

Mhm. Yeah, I would I would think so. Okay. Any other comments? Um I have comments. Um I would propose that the council table this action. Uh we've received a copious amount of information uh from Mr. Bernier just this afternoon. Um I would like I have looked at this area. I would like time to study it myself. Um you know me, I'm a I'm a details kind of guy and I would urge the council to table this. I do not believe there is an urgency uh for it, but uh I'll defer to the council. So, I I would make a motion that we table this uh until our next meeting. Councillor Najie. Till the next meeting. That's what I was looking for. I I would uh I would second that. Moved and seconded to table until April May 5th. May 5th? May 5th. It's the budget. Discussion on the motion to table. Mr. Council President, so May 5th is our our final budget enactment meeting. We usually leave all other business outside of the budget off of that meeting. Uh obviously the budget is in flux this year also. So, uh if it's uh if it suits you perhaps the second meeting in May would be a a better date to postpone to. Uh that would be May 19th. Correct. I my math works. Okay. Um so, the motion would change to May 19th. Um I would be amenable to that, but can I ask a question first?

Certainly. Um is there an urgency to having this approved tonight? There's There is a um a potential delay. So, I know it's been commented on that this is for one building permit. It's not. The one building permit is what brought this to our attention. Um that individual is trying to build on a lot that this ordinance would allow them to do. So, it's it's merely just pushing that back and I don't know if it pushes back out of the building window or not. So, right now though, that that individual wouldn't be able to build. Correct. They cannot build until Okay. So, I I would be amenable to your to to the friendly amendment for two meetings back up. All right, and that's second is fine with you, Councillor Herman. Yes. Thank you. All right. Um discussion on the motion to table. And I'm not sure that's in order. Is there motion to table discussion? Something tells me there's not. No. So, would you call the roll, please, Madam Clerk? Coun- And we're voting to table. Moving to table. Okay. Count. We have a motion on the on the floor right now. Vote to table. Yes. Councillor from Ward 1. Yes. Ward 2. Yes. Ward 3. Yes. Ward 4. Yes. Ward 5. Yes. Ward 6.

Yes. Ward 7. Yes. Motion passed by a vote of 7-0 to table until May 19th. Thank you, Madam Clerk. You're welcome. Item number 14. Item 14, public hearing and first passage to contractually rezone six uh 860 Lisbon Street from the neighborhood business rezoning district to a contract zone to allow the commercial uses and bulk and space requirements for the community business district with the exception of smaller setbacks for pavement and structures. Requested action that the proposed amendments to Appendix A of the Code of Ordinances, Zoning and Land Use Code, Article 4, Establishment of Districts for a contract zone located at 860 Lisbon Street for neighborhood business zone from neighborhood business zoning district to a contract zone with the limitations proposed receive first passage by roll call vote and that the public hearing be continued to the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I'm not being very consistent here, but I've asked Director Connor if he'd like to kick this off before we go to public hearing. Absolutely. Thank you, Council President. Councillors, agenda item 14 is a request for a public hearing and first passage to continually contractually rezone 860 Lisbon Street, the site of the former Martel School. The applicant, Martel School Senior Housing LP, is seeking to move from the neighborhood business district to a contract zone that utilizes community business standards. This transition serves two primary purposes. Commercial expansion, it allows for retail and restaurant uses specifically including a drive-through option along the Lisbon Street corridor. And two, housing development, it increases the maximum building height from 35 to 50 feet, which is necessary for the proposed four-story phase three of the senior housing project. Uh related to the setback adjustments, the the proposal reduces front, side, and rear setbacks to 5 feet to accommodate the necessary pavement and building footprints for

these uses. Uh on April 13th, 2026, the Planning Board voted 6 to 1 to send a favorable recommendation to the council. Staff also supports the request as it creates consistency with the surrounding community business zones and advances the city's goals for the city uh for the Lisbon Street commercial corridor. A representative from Lewiston Housing is here tonight to address any specific questions regarding the development plan. Thank you, Director. Um I will now open this up to public hearing. The public hearing is now closed. Um back to the council. We have a motion. Uh thank you, Madam Clerk. Yes, I need a motion. I I would move in order to discuss. Moved by Councillor Najie, second second by Councillor Martel. Discussion by the council. Councillor Martel. Uh this is more just a general statement. Um I'm inclined to approve this. I just want to see something happen. I don't mean to be sarcastic or uh over the top, but I fear that Martel School may not be ready to house seniors by the time I need senior housing. So, I just think it's time to get this project going. Uh calling it a project indicates that there's some sort of progress and um it just feels like this this project has surpassed a number of councils and has continued to go on for some time and the city is in desperate need of of senior housing. So, I just would like to see anything to help move this this project forward. So, I'll be voting in favor of it, but that's just my general comment on the matter. Thank you, Councillor Martel. Councillor Roy. Um thank you. Coun- David

[laughter]

Coun- David I don't know what to do. Um I too would like to see uh some movement on this. It's been a long time. And I've got a question. Like I am not sure why we need a drive-through in a senior housing place. That's just I I don't know why we need to make that happen. Um everything was good up until now we're asking for cer- certain things, but like I like Councillor Martel, I would love to see this go. Um it's been too long. So, that's my comments. Councillor Najie. So, just a few things. I remember when this proposals were first came to us when it was just one set of uh one set of buildings instead of phase two and phase three. Um and I remember specifically uh the executive director of LHA saying that he didn't know how to do retail. And he asked Dave Gendron if he'd help him. Um and so, that was when we were talking about like a senior uh uh uh uh a senior center or possibly uh some type of medical services. One of the challenges that I'm going to have with all of this is that there's six lanes right there at that road uh including the slip lane that turns past Martel. Um the concept that we'd put a um and I'm going to allow the Planning Board to handle those pieces, but the concept that we would put uh like like a I don't I don't know an Arby's or something there um when already like it the development that I saw that was put forward, you still can't walk to Shaw's unless you walk out to Lisbon Street and then walk over. And so, you know, these are all things that that I think about when I think about a neighborhood that's livable, especially in this is this density. I would also say um we absolutely have to get this project off the ground. A shovel has to go in the ground. This is

I I can't state just how disappointed certain members of of my constituency are at the fact that this just keeps limping along in such a weird way and now we're talking about drive-through restaurants. Um we need senior housing. Um so, um those are all my criticisms. Um I I am inclined to support it, although I seriously think with the review that we're going to be doing for um Lisbon Street for street improvements, the street's got to be narrowed. Like you you're not going to be able to walk from across the street to pop- you can't do it now Um especially if you're in a uh you know if you're in a walker good luck. Um that you know that's a that's a minute minute long walk across the street right now. So um those are my comments. Councilor Herman Thank you. Um may I ask the representative from Lewiston Housing uh I guess how this proposal came about and is this to uh I assume it's to increase the amount of rent um you know on the on the property to help offset the cost of the housing um but if if somebody could answer that thanks. Uh good evening. Ben Lindsey with Lewiston Housing nice to see all of you again. Um

[clears throat]

let me uh start by saying that um we share your frustration in the slowness of this process but I'm excited to be able to announce tonight that we do have our uh commitment for financing from Maine Housing which is the final step in the process and we actually had our first closing call uh earlier today. What that means is that we expect to be closing and beginning construction in probably five or six weeks. Uh it may go a little longer than that but it may also be shorter than that. Um there's unknown but the point is it's happening very soon. There's absolutely a light at the end of this tunnel. Um so that's great news from our perspective and we certainly hope you agree. Um I'd also like to say that our plan for this property uh for quite some time and I know that the the parcel itself what has gone through a lot of iterations but since Lewiston Housing uh took over uh ownership of the par- parcel and uh had a plan it has always been for three phases of residential housing with 44 units each. We have phase one ready to go uh as I said in within a couple of months uh hopefully sooner. Phase two is already approved by Maine Housing and has a received an award of tax credits um because it is a second phase a lot of the decisions um that went into this program a lot of the value engineering that's taken extra time to get to this point has already been done. So we expect that phase two can move swiftly uh and be overlapping with phase one. We expect that phase two to close uh hopefully six or so months after phase one. Uh and then phase three will be going in for an application for low-income housing tax credits to Maine Housing in

their September 2026 round and so um if we are successful with that application uh phase three will follow along after that and probably will be you know six to eight months of of planning and then another year or so of construction after that. So that's the timeline on uh on Martel and I think that um we're we're right on the precipice of seeing affordable housing for seniors on this site. Um we have also uh made this application for a contract zone. Um we do we do need for the for the phase three this has always been the plan for the phase three the height restriction uh to be raised up to allow us one additional story. Um and we have proposed to put a commercial area on the Lisbon Street end of the site. Um as the director mentioned the idea here is to be consistent with uh the commercial corridor on Lisbon Street in that area. Um Anything that goes into that area will need to come back through for approval. So you know if there were a- and and I think the wording about um you know specific of a commercial um is a little bit premature. We don't have anything that is planned and approved or um you know signed up on that you know for that space but we are putting ourselves in a position to be able to uh look for and work with tenants in that area. When we do have that signed they will need to come back through an approval process with the planning board. Um so in terms of you know the the commercial parcel itself I think we're looking for uh the highest and best use for the space. Um and we feel and in conversations with the city um city seems to agree that

this is a commercial corridor and it does make sense and so that's why we're making this proposal tonight. Thank you. Councilor Herman that that answer your question? Yes thank you. Councilor Nadeau Najim And I would just say to that that ultimately obviously there'll be a process for whatever might get developed commercially you're right it is a commercial corridor. It is also going to be the site of how many senior housing units? 132 Mhm and how many uh units uh of housing are in the lot behind uh Bangor Savings? I'm not entirely sure. Okay. My point with this is there are probably appropriate commercial uses but hopefully they would be um suitable for the people who are living in and among them. Um and the the there are certainly age-friendly businesses um you know and we don't have a Tim Hortons anymore but you know uh end of the day all I'm saying is I'm getting concerned I am concerned about this concept that the footprint of the property is a living space for seniors um but I understand the point so and again what's the date that you're going to put a shovel in the ground? Well I can't give you a specific date but my estimation is about six weeks from today. And what's the worst case scenario?

[laughter]

Um the the worst case scenario is uh not something that I can define because I I can't predict the future but I'm very confident that we now that we're through this process of getting [clears throat] our firm commitment from Maine Housing uh that we are at the moved into the closing stage of that process which typically takes about six weeks. Thank you. You're welcome. Councilor Longchamps Thank you. Um Councilor Chittum I'm really excited about this program as as you know many people are it makes perfect sense that you would need a commercial or should have some sort of commercial space facing Lisbon Street. Um I would kindly ask that when you do the shovel um uh you know there you go. Thank you. Ceremony. Um that you would allow uh Ronnie Parady I know it's the mayor that usually does but Ronnie Parady and there's another lovely lady that sits here and has advocated for this for a long time. So

Samson Yes I would ask that uh they would be the ones that would help with that so thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Lindsey thank you for being here I appreciate that. Um has the footprint or the site plan for the three phases changed from its initial inception to what we're looking at today? The uh the site plan and specifically the footprints for phase one and two have not changed at all. Uh the footprint for phase three has shifted back slightly uh to allow for the 100 foot uh width of that uh commercial um uh parcel along Lisbon Street. Uh but what we have done is um you know made sure that everything works for the residential portion of this um without uh you know affecting the number of units or you know any of the other you know items planned for the site. Um the additional story on phase three um is that adding capacity to what had originally been planned uh because that would not be permitted under the existing zoning? And what that's one of the reasons for contract zone in this area is to add the fourth floor that phase three is that correct? Uh that is correct but we are not adding any additional units uh to what was originally um projected and planned. Okay. Um and phase three has not received planning board approval but phase one and two have? That's correct. We'll be going back to the planning board for phase three approval um after we get through this rezoning process um likely going back to the planning board sometime this spring uh maybe summer and then that will be in advance of the application going into Maine Housing in September.

Thank you very much. Any other questions comments? Councilor Nadeau Najim I'd [clears throat] be remiss if I didn't mention that this contract zone allows for commercial property development of a property that we actually gave uh LHA and then paid for the remediation on. Um and there was a second uh proposal that was floating around at the time that was a commercial developer. Um and so it is what it is um but it does feel that LHA is using some of its properties in order to back commercial development when we need housing. Um and so I just want to name that. Thank you, counselor. Any other comments? Madam Clerk, would you call the roll, please? Councilor from Ward 1. Yes. Ward 2. Yes. Ward 3. Yes. Ward 4. Yes. Ward 5. Yes. Ward 6.

Yes. Ward 7. Yes. Motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Thank you. On to item number 15. Item 15, request to approve a letter of support to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection regarding the water quality certificate. Requested action to review the proposed letter of support from Grow LA River working group and to determine a course of action. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Do I have a motion? So moved. Second. Seconded by moved by Councilor Nagine, seconded by Councilor Longchamp. Um there have been some questions about what effect riverly relicensing has on our city budget and the costs. Um I see Director Gagne is here and I don't want to put him in the spotlight unless he's willing to do that. Good evening. Kevin Gagne, Public Works Director. Um I did forward in some information um I think I'm I'm an environmental engineer. I've been working to clean up the Androscoggin River my whole career here in the city of Lewiston. So, I think supporting water quality and improving to its class from a C to a B is an actually an excellent thing and I I support every effort to do that and what you guys are trying to do. But I want to do it in a way that you and as well as the public understand that moving the river to a class B our public operated treatment plant our uh our sewer treatment plant down on River Road will then discharge to a class B river and there's increase in standards for that. So, looking at it, the window right now if it had passed

um we were looking at a possible new permit with LAQUA. Um right now where this failed uh coming up on the next triennial review, it looks like the timing on this maybe in 5 years. So, just understand I just want to get it out there that the public knows and it's it's not that it's not worth it. I think uh having clean water and and uh Androscoggin River being the impetus of the Clean Water Act moving to a class B is a a huge monumental thing for the communities. Uh but I just want people to understand that we are looking at a 15 to 20% uh rate impact for those treatment efforts to be able to maintain a class B license discharge. So, uh that's a a future thought. That's not pending um but I just want to make sure that uh we're talking about rate increases every year. We're talking about offsetting rate increases with tax increases uh and just being sensitive that I want to provide that information. So, Thank you, Director. So, if I could summarize, we currently have a uh Maine pollution elimination discharge license [snorts] for the treatment facility. Um that's based on a class C standard. The next review of the river qual- classification will be in 3 years, but our license is a 5-year license. Does that mean that our license would continue to be discharging as though it were a class C river even though in 3 years it may be upgraded to B and that we would be then waiting 2 years before a license revision would reflect the increased quality of the receiving water? That's a good summary. So, right now um LAQUA has a permit that's in review. They expect in the next 2 to 3 months to have it finalized. Um I'm I'm presuming that they might have been waiting on that to see what this

triennial review outcome was. Um but we expect that in the next uh in about 5 years would be when that discussion would come up for the next renewal for the treatment plant license. Thank you very much. Any questions from the council? Councilor Nagine. Um Sir, yes. Edmund Muskie uh was the uh reason why the Clean Water Act was written. Uh obviously Bates College holds his archives, which is pretty rare. Um it would have been probably a good thing when we were thinking about um upgrades to the facility 10 years ago, 15 years ago to be planning for a class B or a class A. So, right now what we're talking about is effluent runs into the river. Is that correct? Yes. The discharge the the clean water that comes after treatment does is discharged to the river within its permits. Yeah, ultimately we've seen that the water quality uh standards have met the class B uh between uh the falls and Rumford dam for the past decade. Um and I think the importance of having clean a clean river uh it's this entire community is affected by the fact that the river was so filthy for so long. Like it's it's something that we hold in our collective memories. Um and so, yeah, sometimes you do have to actually protect the environment that we all live in. Um so, that's what I want to put forward. I know that we have no control over whether Maine DEP decides to uh set the classification for class B or not, but if we get there uh I feel like we've achieved something. Thank you, counselor. Any other comments, questions? Thank you, Director. Thank you. Does anyone from the public wish to weigh in on our request to autograph

this letter to the DEP? Seeing no one, back to the council. No other comments, Madam Clerk? Just to be clear, the motion is to approve and endorse the letter to support the Maine Department of Environmental Protection regarding the Brookfield-Lewiston Falls relicensing water quality certificate. Correct? Correct. Councilor from Ward 1. Yes. Ward 2. Yes. Ward 3. Yes. Ward 4. Yes. Ward 5. Yes. Ward 6.

Yes. Ward 7. Yes. Motion passed by a vote of 7-0. She may have one without holes in it. Okay. You'll pass around one for us to sign. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Councilor Martell. Already looking at saving on the budget. Uh that takes us to uh final public comment. I am going to editorialize here and say that the initial purpose of the final public comment was to take care of any overflow that occurred if the 18 minutes of the initial public comment did not suffice for the number of people who wanted to speak. Uh it has become the habit to use the second public comment for anyone who wants to speak on any matter uh regardless except if they've spoken before. I am not going to open a second public comment, which I believe is strictly in accordance with our rules. Councilor Nagine. Uh Councilor Chisholm, one of my constituents and my neighbor is here actually to speak and did not make the first public comment. So, I would I would certainly hope that we would consider allowing second public comment since it was on the agenda to start with. All good plans. Yes. If there's someone here who's specifically came to speak to the council, please do for- do so. Good evening, Councilor Chisholm and other councilors. I actually came to speak on this topic a previous time, but so many other people spoke, there was no opportunity. And I do apologize that I was late and missed the first public comment session. So, in the remaining 2:48 I'm here today to say that as a resident of the second largest city in Maine I am extremely disappointed to know that what is going to happen this week. Androscoggin Bank is closing their

branch on Lisbon Street. That means there will be no branch no banking downtown after many, many years. And I know I forget exactly when Androscoggin Bank first started on Lisbon Street. I know it's been on both sides. And I've been a account holder with the bank since January 17th No, 14th slipped there. 1972. And like other account holders, I got a letter from the bank in February saying that they were going to close their their bank here. They are maintaining operations within the city, but they encouraged those of us who hold accounts to visit their other branches on Sabattus Street in Lewiston, Minot Avenue in Auburn, or when you want a day in the country just over the town line in Turner. I think this is really unfortunate not to have a bank downtown. I know we have credit unions. They are somewhat different different purposes. I have admired Androscoggin Bank for many of the services it has provided. Uh at one point they did have an ATM downtown, which I think was extremely useful. They closed that some years ago. Uh they showed their cultural sensitivity in a lot of ways in gradually not referring to the female tellers as the ladies in the bank and gradually promoting people of both genders and any possibly up to management positions. They showed their cultural sensitivity by providing Islamic-ly okay banking systems. Having a community fund and becoming a corporation B corporation. I think these have all been good, but I think a city without a bank on one of its main retail

street branches is very unfortunate. Thank you. Thank you. Did you identify yourself, Christine? I'm so sorry. For the record, Christine Holden, Ward 1. Thank you. No other public comment. All right, moving on to reports and updates. No one has reports and updates. Other business counselors or staff may have. Counselor Longchamps. Uh thank you. First, I'd just like to say you did a great job tonight, Counselor Chisholm. Um second, I just want to share that to the public that although I wasn't in favor of um the number three for our budget and eliminating jobs, it doesn't mean that I don't want to or don't have a desire to cut the budget and our taxes for our citizens of Lewiston. Um again, I just want to share that I have a desire and I know that all of us do to cut the budget. I am going to see if I can meet with our administrator to go through line items and I do think we will be successful at cutting the budget. I don't know exactly how that will look, but I just want the public to know that um I am aware that we do need to cut the budget. I just am not in favor of cutting positions. So, thank you. Thank you, counselor. Any other um business? Uh I have one for Administrator Caneright. Former Mayor McDonald asked about the barricade. This was put up as a temporary measure. Um I guess you would be looking for some direction from the council as to whether that remains or goes.

Correct. We are looking for feedback. It's been up for about a month now. Um I think everyone has an opinion about it. So, um if you would like to provide feedback, I think maybe we'll go with what the consensus would like to see and unless you like this to be a formal agenda item and discussion about chamber security. As you know, we did install some other measures including the camera in the back corner to keep an eye on the dais. We also have as you know a Lewiston police officer here at at all meetings and it could be two in the event there are going to be some particularly sensitive uh topics on the agenda. The third measure was also this uh stanchion barricade at at the front. So, I assume everyone is is good with uh the other two elements of the security plan, the camera and the officer, but I think this one remains to be seen with further feedback. So, if you do have additional feedback, we're happy to hear that or if you'd like a formal agenda item to discuss that, we can do that also. I would just as soon avoid a formal agenda item if we can come to consensus this evening. Um I I would like to see it removed. Maybe go down. Maybe go down. Sure. Counselor Martel, your position? Take it down. Take it down. Take it down. Get it away. Counselor Harmon? Um if people can continue to behave themselves, then I think that maybe it has made its point. Counselor Longchamps? Yeah, I think that's a good point. I think taking it down uh is appropriate now. Thank you. And Counselor Najarian? I would support removing the stanchion. I do have something else for new business, too. Okay. Um thank you, Administrator Caneright. I think you have I think you have an idea of the sense of the council. We will see if Amazon will take it back, return it. So, All right. Well, I appreciate very much you're putting it up as a trial run. It gave us a sense of what it can and can't do. And so,

thanks for that and thank you, council members. Counselor Najarian? Um just on the Earth Day and cleanups pieces. So, tomorrow's Earth Day. There's citywide cleanups going on. Um the 26th of April from 10:00 till 2:00 at 2 Oxford Street, which is the site of the Lewiston Farmers Market. They're hosting a a early market cleanup. The first market is May 10th and then healthy neighborhoods is running their bulky trash pickup on the 1st and 2nd of May, which is a Friday and Saturday. They are looking for some volunteers and then also if you live in the in the choice neighborhoods district, then you have the ability to take advantage of these programs. So, everybody's been complaining about trash quite a bit. I I see it. I drive around, I see it. Doesn't look great. Let's get out there and pick some of it up. Thank you, counselor. Any other new business? Council President, one more item. Just in terms of scheduling, I think we will need another budget workshop on Thursday evening. So, please plan for this Thursday 6:00 p.m. We'll be back here for budget workshop to continue our discussions. Thank you. Um there being no other business, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. We do have an executive session. I move we adjourn the regular meeting. Second. Moved and seconded to adjourn the regular meeting. We will be going into executive session and we will not be returning. Point of order. I believe we need to read the the motion for the executive session into the record and vote on it. Thank you, counselor. Yes. Madam Clerk, would you read the motion for executive session, please? The request and action to enter into an executive session pursuant to MRSA title 1 section 4056C to discuss an

economic development issue of which premature disclosure of the information would prejudice the competitive bargaining position of the city. The motion moved. Second. Second. Counselor Martel seconded. Moved by a Counselor Najarian. Madam Clerk? Counselor Ward 1? Yes. Ward 2? Yes. Ward 3? Yes. Ward 4? Yes. Ward 5? Yes. Ward 6? Yes. Ward 7? Yes. Motion passed by vote of 7-0. And now I'd entertain a motion to adjourn after the executive session. So moved. Second. I will second that one. Okay. Call roll. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. We did it all by ourselves. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all one and all for your tolerance this evening. I appreciate it very much.