2026-09-14 - City Council Workshop

00:32Thank you. Good evening. Welcome to the

00:34city council workshop. It's Monday,

00:36September 14th, 5:15. We are in the uh

00:40council chambers

00:42and we have

00:45seven well actually six items on the

00:47agenda and then we will be asking for an

00:50executive session to end the workshop.

00:54So, first on the list, well, we'll go

00:56around the table. We have um city

00:58manager Le

01:03Council Carson, Council Walker, Council

01:06Loom, Council Vet, Council Leonard,

01:08Council Malor, Council Fish, and I'm

01:10Councelor Hos. So, we're we will start

01:14with the city manager updates, and I

01:16assume you're going to do your own.

01:18>> Me?

01:18>> Yep. Um, I just have two small items to

01:22mention today. The first is I'm sure you

01:25noticed when you were reviewing your

01:28agenda

01:30uh with respect to one of the previously

01:33passed school budget resolves. So when

01:37the school department was sending those

01:39certified resolves um to the state where

01:42they need to go, they realized that in

01:44one of the resolves it had listed fiscal

01:4726 when it should have listed fiscal 27.

01:51So you just have on your agenda anive

01:56council order that will change the year.

02:03um that will go through two readings

02:06because it's a appropriation resolve. I

02:08have not for I have not referred it to a

02:11committee um I figured this discussion

02:13would be sufficient to um to clarify why

02:18that's being um corrected. no change to

02:21any number and it's just a change to

02:27and then the second item

02:30is something that I'm sure after last

02:33Monday's 10:30 p.m. and time of

02:37committee meetings will be exciting to

02:38you. Um so going forward uh we're going

02:42to try something new with

02:44purelyformational

02:46items that we're bringing to council.

02:49So, we're going to try to start

02:50scheduling those during the day. Um, I

02:54think a good example of that would be a

02:57presentation from the students for when

03:00the um

03:03the waterfront concerts came and

03:05presented on the economic impact of

03:07their work. We'll still do it here in

03:10person and it will be on Zoom.

03:14Counselors can come if they would like

03:16to. um but won't you know if you're

03:19unavailable for whatever reason they'll

03:21all be on YouTube to watch back. Um we

03:24thought that this would be a good way to

03:27try to prevent us from having those

03:3010:30

03:32uh p.m. meetings. Also I sit here and

03:34grumble through these presentations

03:37because they're taking too long and I

03:39know it's just going to make us, you

03:40know, late at the end. Um, so I think

03:43you know having that not having that

03:45time crunch might also actually allow us

03:48to actually

03:50listen more and internalize the messages

03:53because we're not looking at a six-hour

03:55night ahead of us.

03:59Manager there an observation

04:02some of our committee meetings it's

04:04happened more than once. um a lot of our

04:08members and chairs and whatever are

04:11constantly thinking ahead as to other

04:13topics and things that they would like

04:15to see. The problem is is if we start

04:19the topic conversation

04:22then it expands and expands and expands

04:25where if we just said okay I want to

04:27talk about electric cars at the next

04:31meeting you can ask the chair to be

04:34recognized and would you be able to put

04:36this on the next agendas item for that

04:40committee or an upcoming one because we

04:44well there was one that we lost about 20

04:46minutes because you get started once you

04:49start into what they want to talk about

04:51at the next meeting. We've gone into 15

04:5420 minutes of discussion time. So, and

04:58then you you feel like you're shorting

05:00the actual item that's over there. Of

05:02course, just something to think about. I

05:04think we've all done it and said, "Hey,

05:05why can't we talk about blah blah blah?"

05:07And then you go on further and if we can

05:11just through the chair ask them to put

05:14it on the next

05:16committee meeting. Thank you.

05:21>> Those are my two updates.

05:23>> We have plenty of other items.

05:27>> Okay.

05:29The next item is the 2026 Popovskot

05:33County Budget Committee Caucus.

05:36>> Yes. So on September 16th, so that's

05:38second Wednesday, um at 5:30 p.m. there

05:42will be the county budget committee

05:45caucus where they will elect members to

05:49the budget committee. And I was pretty

05:53green when this happened last year. I

05:55was only a couple months in, but my

05:58recollection is that it was sort of an

05:59informal process whereby folks sort of

06:02raised their hands to indicate their

06:05interest in participating in that budget

06:08committee. So, I was hoping we could

06:10have a conversation about that tonight

06:12who might be interested in serving.

06:16I think it's really important as you

06:19know just because of the impact that it

06:21has on ultimately

06:26>> last year's it wasn't really raise your

06:29hand it was several of us were asked to

06:33do it so we get there and we just are

06:36told we're on it and

06:40[laughter]

06:41about quarter way through that meeting

06:45leans over and she said, "If I had known

06:48[laughter]

06:50by it's getting later and later so it

06:54really is something to think about and

06:56if anybody is interested then we should

07:00sure if they want to sit on the budget.

07:02Um,

07:04we can promote that, but it isn't just a

07:08hand raise usually over there.

07:10Somebody's been behind them saying, "Oh,

07:12well, this this and this is going to

07:13happen.

07:16So, I'll just add, yeah, we were asked

07:19um I was asked by one of the

07:21commissioners and I think some other

07:23folks had been asked and weren't able to

07:24do it. So, but it was

07:29it ended up being and I was under the

07:31impression. All right. So, the first

07:32night we were there for like five hours.

07:34So, it was again talk about your 10

07:36o'clock nights. Um, and there was

07:38actually a joke that they'd try to get

07:39us out before 10:00 and we were there

07:41till 10:00 and then we got called back

07:43because we didn't finish. And I think

07:47and then there was some talk about them

07:49doing it a little bit differently and

07:51meeting more regularly during the year

07:55so that people weren't just coming in

07:58and kind of not knowing what was going

07:59on. And that has not happened. So, I

08:03like I don't know I don't know how it's

08:05going to go down this year, but just

08:07yeah, it was pretty interesting. And

08:09then, of course, last year there were

08:11some real budget issues that I don't

08:13think have been entirely resolved. So,

08:16all that said, I just wanted to give a

08:18little more info so people knew what

08:20they were getting into if they chose to

08:22do it. And I'm not, you know, jumping up

08:25and down to do it. But if nobody wants

08:29to do it, I will. [laughter]

08:33>> I was just going to point out that it's

08:35going to conflict with personnel. We

08:36have meetings in both the 15th and the

08:3916th.

08:45>> That's true. But if there's

08:48if there's someone here that's going to

08:50be at the personnel committee that is

08:52interested in being then having their

08:55name brought forward for the budget, it

08:58can be done that way, too.

09:02You don't actually have to be in person.

09:04Council M.

09:05>> Well, I go to most of the meetings of

09:08the county. I was last year said no. I

09:12didn't think I should do it because I

09:14had a close relative who was an elected

09:17county official, but I

09:20checked with her and everyone else and

09:22it's not a problem. So, I've been glad

09:24to where I already go to the regular

09:27meetings and know somewhat what's going

09:29on.

09:34>> Yes.

09:34>> Are we looking for more than one or is

09:36it just one sufficient?

09:38Last year, I think it was just one, but

09:41then other folks attended. Is that

09:43right?

09:46>> There were two of us.

09:47>> Oh, there were two. Okay.

09:50>> Yes.

09:50>> If I'm still here, I'll uh volunteer.

09:54>> Okay. So, Council Leonard and Councelor

09:57Mel.

09:58>> Great.

10:00So I think you'll have to raise your

10:02hand in anticipation of you still being

10:04here and then we'll if you are not still

10:06here

10:09we can come up with an alternative.

10:11>> Sounds good.

10:12>> Okay. Perfect.

10:18>> Okay. Well I

10:24>> that's it for that.

10:25>> Okay. So the next item is the

10:26legislative committee update and that

10:29will be I assume

10:32>> city manager later. [laughter]

10:34>> You're not

10:36um yes. So I I offered to just summarize

10:40what happened at that very late

10:42legislative committee meeting. I gave um

10:46the committee a rundown of a meeting

10:48that Jen Gutman and I had with some

10:52folks from the state about Dorothia

10:55Dicks and that property and

10:57[clears throat] what's happening and we

11:00sort of went on a map um lot by lot and

11:03explained how it's being used or not

11:06used. Um currently there are um in the

11:10neighborhood of 60 to 70 patients

11:12receiving services there. Um the sort of

11:16long-term state level plan is to

11:20actually build a new facility there to

11:24house folks receiving services with in

11:27what is currently very old, outdated,

11:29and probably not great facilities um for

11:32them for them to be receiving treatment

11:34in. But that's a very long-term plan

11:38with no commitment so of timeline or

11:43funding for that new facility. So one

11:45thing that the legislative committee

11:46talked about was maybe you know maybe

11:50starting with more information but then

11:52maybe applying some pressure to come up

11:56with a firm plan for when that new

11:58facility would be constructed. Certainly

12:01having resources for mental health

12:04services within the city is important

12:06component of our community's overall

12:08health and wellbeing.

12:11The other thing we talked about was that

12:14there is sort of one

12:17building slated for demolition that

12:21hasn't yet been demolished yet, but that

12:23that potentially could be a future

12:25location for some sort of state

12:28supported um services for uh folks in

12:32need within our community. and the

12:35legislative [clears throat] committee

12:36asked that I sort of get with department

12:38heads in house and come up with some

12:41ideas about what we might like to see

12:43there. And then you know once we sort of

12:45talk about that embed it um reaching out

12:49to the state and encouraging them to

12:51think through some

12:54property.

12:56Anything to add on the edict that I

12:58missed.

13:02The other two things that the

13:04legislative committee discussed was that

13:07sort of as as councelor Carson went down

13:10his running list of um items he's been

13:14um inventorying,

13:16it was clear that several of the

13:18recommendations that have come up are

13:21very aligned with things that the

13:25property tax relief task force is also

13:30working into a recommend commendations

13:32to the legislature. So the legislative

13:35committee thought that it would probably

13:37be most efficient rather than to come up

13:40with independent proposals. For example,

13:43um councelor Beck, you had mentioned the

13:44county tax credit for service centers.

13:47There's going to be some sort of

13:48recommendation from the property tax

13:50release task force about getting more

13:53money to service centers. It may be

13:55revenue sharing as opposed to a county

13:57tax credit, but we talked about maybe

14:00rather than doing our own thing,

14:02piggybacking on those recommendations

14:03once they come out, which I expect to

14:05happen in the fall.

14:08And then the [clears throat] last item

14:10was the uh an idea that we've talked

14:13about previously, which is connecting

14:16with peers and brewer. Do you want to

14:18take that one? So this was related to um

14:21[clears throat]

14:22the emergency response manager that we

14:25decided to forgo in this year's bud. Two

14:27things came out of that discussion. Um

14:30and one was to pursue um or to to

14:34research and find out if there was state

14:36funding available for something like

14:38that. And the second idea was that

14:41because we're tough river, we would

14:43share disaster that we collaborate with

14:45the city of Brewer and potentially see

14:48what options may exist to share that

14:52type [clears throat] of a

14:52responsibility. And so we saw that both

14:55of those things kind of together, but as

14:57a possible division of labor. And so

15:00with that, um, I wanted to bring to this

15:03workshop and the legislative committee

15:06thought it was a good idea that we went

15:08that direction and and at least

15:09[clears throat] reached out to Brewer

15:10and started communication. So wanted to

15:12bring that to this workshop to get the

15:14council's permission

15:16to move forward. I think that's a good

15:19idea.

15:27I would make a motion to move forward

15:28with that

15:30>> second

15:35move forward with many years.

15:41So, who who do you plan to meet with?

15:44>> I haven't [clears throat] I haven't come

15:46up with a strategy yet. I didn't want to

15:47do anything without getting the full

15:50council's permission to approach the

15:52question.

15:58comments, questions,

16:00council back, and

16:01>> I'm assuming both uh city managers on

16:03either side will also be involved in

16:04these discussions.

16:05>> Yeah. Okay.

16:16Opposition.

16:19It doesn't have anything to do with

16:20Bangor Brewer, but we have a

16:24whatever you want to call it. We know

16:25what the county emergency preparedness

16:28people are supposed to be doing. We have

16:30a list of their

16:32>> I mean, I don't have a

16:35>> Yeah. Well, you know, I think that's a

16:38important component of the conversation

16:41and it's very stale in my mind from

16:44budget conversations, but I know that a

16:46component of the conversation I had with

16:48Chief Low at the time was what the

16:52capabilities and limitations are with

16:55the county. And you'll recall that one

16:57of the things we actually talked about

16:59was a proposal from the county that they

17:03formally made to us that they would hire

17:06a new person to put on their staff. We

17:09would fund a portion of it and they

17:11would serve in a dual role. And

17:14ultimately my judgment at the time was I

17:16wasn't really comfortable moving forward

17:18with that because the cost that we were

17:21going to pay for our portion of that

17:23role felt like only a nominal savings

17:26compared to just hiring it in house. Um

17:29and so I wanted to do more evaluation to

17:31figure out whether it really made sense

17:34to to fund a position at the county like

17:36that.

17:37>> And do we also know what the state

17:39provide? I mean the flow back is from

17:41the feds to the state to the counties.

17:44So what are the state supposed to be

17:46providing for services?

17:48>> Yeah. I mean we are certainly we meaning

17:52the city not me city is aware of what

17:55the state is supposed to be providing

17:57and if we have a more in-depth

17:59conversation about funding we'll have

18:02Eric here to um talk about that with

18:04you.

18:06[clears throat] I'd also like to see

18:07when when Eric comes, I'd like to see

18:09who we have mutual aid contracts with

18:12for EMS services because I'm thinking

18:15about it. I'm sure we're providing more

18:17service than they are to us. I just

18:20would like to see how that works out.

18:22>> Sure.

18:33Anything

18:36else on your committee?

18:40>> No. The only other thing I promised that

18:42committee that I can repeat here is that

18:44the legislative policy committee of the

18:47main municipal association is still

18:49completing its work um for the bills

18:51that it's going to support for this

18:53section. Um that meeting happened,

18:56second meeting happened on Thursday. I

18:58was there and we'll go ahead and draft a

18:59memo about that to detail the ongoing

19:01work. Okay.

19:07Next item is project.

19:10[snorts]

19:11>> Yes. Um so as Jen walks up to the table,

19:15um you have a memo in your packet about

19:19this topic, you'll recall that this was

19:21on her second reading. Um I think the

19:26last council meeting, which at the end

19:29of August, actually, a while ago. um and

19:33we delayed final consideration of that

19:36item due to there being some unanswered

19:39questions. The two that I recall during

19:43that conversation were questions about

19:45whether there were other sources of

19:48funding as well as what would happen

19:51after the pilot program if it was

19:54discontinued.

19:55I'll hand it over to Jen sharing her

19:57memo sort of addresses those questions.

20:00>> Absolutely. And that's what I heard as

20:02well from either public comment or the

20:04questions that I heard that city council

20:07had. So the memo addresses two of those

20:09pieces and happy to answer any other

20:12questions. So the first question of what

20:14could be other potential matching funds.

20:17We sort of uncovered, you know, turned

20:19over every stone that we could to

20:21determine what would be other potential

20:24sources. So in the original order, the

20:27opiate settlement funds, the unspent

20:29opiate settlement funds, not the new

20:31ones that are arriving, um was proposed

20:33as that match. Um in talking with um

20:38economic and community development, the

20:40community development block grant funds

20:43can be used as match. Um and this order,

20:48this memo lays out what that would look

20:50like. in talking with um Robin who is

20:54our representative that is the steward

20:56of those funds um it fits into the

21:00category of public services

21:04of the funds that we receive from

21:05community development block grant only

21:0715% of those funds can go towards public

21:11services so while those funds can be

21:14leveraged we have to be very mindful of

21:17the cap that we have and any funds that

21:20are used as match match will then

21:22eliminate the opportunity for those

21:24funds to be used in for public services

21:27in other ways. Um so pros and cons to

21:31that. One of the things that we spoke

21:33about is the possibility to sort of

21:35balance both not taking too many of

21:39those funds, not taking too many of the

21:41opiate settlement funds, but do a 5050

21:44in terms of 50% from community

21:46development block grant, 50% come opiate

21:49settlement funds and community

21:51development block grant could then

21:52spread that 126,000 over two years

21:56um as long as the pilot was successful.

21:59So, this was another consideration for

22:02you to ponder around those matching

22:06funds if you felt the program was

22:08beneficial to the community.

22:10The second piece around sustainability,

22:13that's that's the nature of our business

22:17in public health and community services.

22:19For anyone who's worked in this type of

22:21field, you are looking for the next way

22:25to fund this your programs. And even

22:28when in our work when you're said this

22:31funding is for so many years things can

22:33happen and so you always have sort of

22:35what do we do next in the back in the

22:36back of our mind. If this pilot did not

22:39go well and the decision was to not

22:42continue the program then we would work

22:44with our clients to provide a warm

22:47handoff to services that were

22:49appropriate and what they would what

22:50they what the client would accept. And

22:53so that is something that we always

22:55build into our programs that are very

22:57client focused.

22:59In terms of financial sustainability

23:01going forward, there's different ways of

23:03potentially doing this that we would

23:05explore throughout this first year. If

23:08we looked at Portland, they've always

23:10used some city resource, particularly

23:13opiate settlement funds, but there could

23:15be other ways of understanding how could

23:18billing for traditional case management

23:20services be integrated into this. Um

23:22what are some other funding that could

23:24come come down the path? Um

23:30so I'll I'll stop there and address any

23:33questions.

23:36>> Um what are some of those scenarios that

23:39would cause the pilot program to fail?

23:43>> Oh goodness. Um thank you for asking

23:45that question. you know, one we can

23:46think of that the the community that

23:49we're serving just is not interested in

23:51this program. That is always, you know,

23:53the nature of this work of taking a risk

23:55that maybe it's something that people

23:57would not be excited to be a part of.

24:00Um, knowing that this is around in

24:03strengthening relationships, meeting

24:05people where they're at and moving them

24:06towards sustainable housing, we would be

24:09engaging with people who are ready for

24:11that. So worst worst case scenario is

24:14nobody's interested in the program.

24:17Um you know the other things that can

24:19happen is that we cannot find any

24:20housing to put people in.

24:23One of the ways that we've tried to look

24:25around that like Portland has done is to

24:27look wider than the sort of Bangor area

24:31for where we can support people to be

24:33housed in an appropriate way that still

24:35allows people to access services that

24:37they need. So to me that would be the

24:39two biggest Oh my goodness. this didn't

24:41go well. I guess the third piece would

24:44be that we can't hire people um because

24:48the workforce is really strained. We

24:50don't know what the pool of candidates

24:51look like. Um we at the city of Bangor,

24:56we have been able to fill case

24:57management and outreach positions um

25:00with very qualified people. So um all of

25:04that is a risk.

25:06>> May I ask a follow-up question? So if if

25:09those are the primary three things that

25:11would like individually cause the pilot

25:13program to fail, um if none of those

25:16three things were to occur,

25:19um is that basically a guarantee that

25:22like per those three things not

25:24occurring, the pilot program would be

25:26deemed successful and we would continue

25:28with the program afterwards? I I would

25:31be nervous to say guarantee, but I would

25:33say there'd be a strong likelihood that

25:35the program would be successful and we'd

25:37want to continue it.

25:38>> Okay. Because the the reason why I asked

25:40that question is uh

25:43I I the the program says sounds really

25:47great. I I you know I I I want to

25:49support the program. I really don't like

25:53the idea of supporting a one-time

25:55program and having it to end. I I would

25:58almost feel better if this pilot program

26:03were to be guaranteed we're going to run

26:05it for like uh two years as opposed to

26:08an initial one because at least that

26:11gives the city more leeway to find its

26:14footing in regards to that. Um,

26:18but yeah, I'm I'm a bit hesitant uh

26:22going forward with a project if it's uh

26:25I if there is a a potential risk of it

26:28just we provide services and then we're

26:31not going to provide services

26:32afterwards. And then even if we do

26:34offshore those uh people that uh take

26:38those services on from us, it it just to

26:41me feels like a lost opportunity and

26:44lost actions that I would rather see you

26:46guys do for something that is more

26:48long-term. So I I guess what I'm trying

26:51to say is I I want to set if we're going

26:52to go forward with this project, I want

26:54to set this up for success. I don't want

26:56this to be a one-time program. I would

26:58want this to be a continuous thing in

27:00the city for as long as we need it.

27:05>> It's everywhere. Council Dean had her

27:07hand up.

27:11>> My question is more on the funding side.

27:14The 126,000 is the entirety of the old

27:17settlement fund that is sitting at

27:20>> and we also have something on this

27:23evening to allocate 7,000 of that

27:26elsewhere. So that would cut it to the

27:28126 that's already on your proposal.

27:32The CDBG amount at 126,000 sounds like

27:36it's a little generous that if we were

27:38to consider that we' probably not want

27:41to do the full amount from CDBG. I think

27:44you would the the recommendation in

27:46talking with CBG is it would be great to

27:48have a 50-50 split just so that there is

27:50still room in CBG to offer support to

27:55projects that fall within that public

27:57service category. So you were feeling

27:59that half of that 126 would be feasible

28:02and the other would come from some sort

28:03of city funding whether it be opiate or

28:06another.

28:07>> And so if we did want to go forward,

28:11wouldn't we have to vote down

28:14what's on the agenda tonight and come up

28:16with a new or would we do a

28:17substitution?

28:18>> You could do you could do an amend by

28:20substitution orally today or if you

28:23wanted to delay another meeting, we

28:26could actually prepare an actual

28:29document for you to do that. One quick

28:32question, how soon do you need to move

28:35these funds? How long do we have to

28:37figure out? By doing it by substitution,

28:39everyone's confused. What is a

28:40substitution? It's almost better to have

28:42something at hand that's more feasible,

28:44but are you in a time crunch at this

28:45point?

28:46>> Um, main housing hasn't said that

28:47there's a particular time that they sort

28:50of give us a deadline. I will say that

28:53as much delay,

28:56there's a lot of startup that needs to

28:57happen in terms of posting, hiring,

29:00getting things in place. So, the delay

29:02is basically delaying the start of the

29:05program. I mean, housing had originally

29:06thought it'd be great to get the project

29:08started by the time that the cold months

29:11start hitting so we can get people moved

29:12into housing. So, it there's no

29:15deadlines that buy main housing. It

29:17would just be delaying the program

29:18start.

29:20>> That's it. Thank you.

29:22>> Thank you. Um just said a couple of

29:25things like I don't I don't disagree

29:26with what councelor Leonard said but

29:28then kind of on the flip side I'm sort

29:31of in a place where like only committing

29:34to a year gives us a chance to see if

29:37it's successful without committing to

29:40multiple years and being sort of stuck

29:43with a program that we have to then

29:45continue to fund if it's not successful.

29:47So that's sort of the flip side. But my

29:51my question is um well actually it it's

29:56a concern and a question like we're

29:58being offered $300,000 in state funding.

30:02If we don't accept this another

30:04community it would go to another

30:06community, right?

30:07>> It could it would not come to us,

30:09>> right? And so

30:12is there a risk if we start saying no to

30:16funds like this that they stop coming to

30:19us with it? Because I mean I I feel like

30:22we've constantly been saying we we need

30:25more help from the state. Um why is the

30:28state not helping us? Then we get this

30:30offer of $300,000 which is not nothing.

30:34Um, and you know, if we start saying no

30:36to these things for various reasons,

30:38when do they stop asking or will they

30:40stop asking?

30:42>> Yeah, I may not know.

30:44>> You may not know the answer.

30:45>> I think from the other side of it is

30:47that we're using all the tools that we

30:49can at the on the ground right now and

30:51it's still not enough. And what I've

30:53heard from our partners is that a

30:56program like this that could really

30:58offer all the benefits in terms of

31:00smaller case loads, being able to work

31:02with someone from living outside through

31:04stable housing, offering some

31:07discretionary funds to get them set up

31:08for success is another tool that we

31:11could be leveraging that we don't have

31:12right now.

31:16>> Okay. Council Fish, then council Carson,

31:19Council Mer, Council

31:23Um

31:25my concern is um you know it's great

31:27that we can get grants and help several

31:30more people get into housing but um my

31:33concern is about our own you know health

31:35and community um

31:38you know your your department and your

31:41spread thing. Is this going to be

31:42another program that will involve your

31:45attention and your time and your

31:46coordination? Because it just seems like

31:48we have a, you know, a lot that's

31:50pulling on on you and uh and if I

31:53recall, you said that this program will

31:55also perhaps bring landlords from

31:57outside the community to try to help

31:59people stay within their community,

32:00which I know I've been the biggest one

32:02saying, you know, why are other

32:03communities participating? But it's so

32:06fast and furious that I also concern

32:09about um the individual that may be

32:11unhoused and need those wraparound

32:13services and if they're out in, you

32:15know, some rural community, you find the

32:17landlord, but then they're removed from

32:20the services that they've been used to

32:21in town and that would take up more of

32:23your time. And my concern is for our

32:26Bangor area, you know, our poverty level

32:29people, our seniors that really also

32:31depend on our department of of community

32:33health services. So, um, and I just

32:37think a little here and a little there

32:38is pulling a lot on your department and,

32:41um, you know, we do have the homeless

32:43committee now and it just seems, my

32:46observation is a chunk here and a chunk

32:48here. if we put all of that all of that

32:51into one kettle and we had a more

32:54significant amount of money, if we could

32:56establish a more permanent a bigger um

32:59you know resource center or you know I

33:01don't know we got the homeless committee

33:03for that part. I just you know to see

33:05this using your time we don't know how p

33:08you know how successful it's going to be

33:10yet. I see another thing on your plate

33:13and um I don't know that we always have

33:15to say yes to everything. I I just still

33:18have a lot of questions and concerns.

33:20>> It's not a bad thing.

33:21>> Yeah. No, I absolutely appreciate you

33:23thinking of of our department and the

33:25workforce and making sure that we are,

33:27you know, providing high quality and not

33:29spreading ourselves too thin. I'll just

33:31mention a couple of things with that.

33:33First of all, it's not just us. It would

33:35also be Bangor Area Homeless Shelter,

33:38Hope House, and Shaw House getting a

33:40case manager. And because the money

33:43would be coming to the city of Bangor

33:45gives us sort of the leverage to be able

33:48to provide that coordination and

33:50collaboration among all the entities. So

33:52it would not just be all on us. It's

33:55shared with those other organizations

33:57that would also have a case manager.

34:00Our work is very challenging. I think

34:03one of the things that we're seeing

34:04right now is we're doing everything that

34:05we can with the tools that we have and

34:08it's still falling short in some ways.

34:12This would provide us with a tool to

34:15help move things further along in

34:17somebody's journey. And I would have to

34:19say with all the people that I've ever

34:21worked with inside of our department or

34:22outside of our department, we would

34:24never have somebody where they could not

34:26leverage their resources. That would be

34:29something that would fly in the face of

34:30everything the success we would want set

34:32to set someone up.

34:34>> Thank you.

34:38>> Oh, I forgot. Um I am wondering so at

34:43the in um in the event that this pilot

34:48program is not carried forward. So, you

34:50mentioned earlier that there would be

34:52warm transfers to other services like

34:54case management and whatnot.

34:57Of those, are you aware of any that are

35:00right now like so strapped or at their

35:03limit with people that that a transition

35:06like that

35:08>> in terms of case managers?

35:11>> Um, I think it depends upon the

35:13organization that you talk to and case

35:14management can sometimes eb and flow.

35:16There is usually a high demand, but even

35:19if the program was to come to an end, we

35:22have between our street outreach person

35:24and our homeless response coordinator

35:26and our housing stabilization person

35:28other people that we could leverage that

35:30warming up.

35:35>> Oh, wait. Can I follow up real quick? Um

35:38I just this is a comment actually for

35:40all of us which would be that I think if

35:42we if we move forward on this it would

35:44be great for the homeless committee to

35:46be able to keep tabs you know as as we

35:49have success as people are moving into

35:51housing in the event that this comes to

35:53an end they would need to be able to

35:55include those people in their

35:58stabilization and their

36:00response plans

36:05>> just a few questions um regard first

36:08regarding CDBG funds. In the memo, it

36:10talks about uh there needing to be an

36:14amendment with the annual action plan uh

36:17and knowing that you know to come up

36:19with that action plan. It was, you know,

36:21pretty extensive community outreach

36:22program getting feedback from all kinds

36:24of folks. And if we, you know, and

36:26council just approved that plan and I

36:29guess I'm

36:32concerned about, you know, because if

36:33we're amending the plan, I mean, by

36:35saying yes to this, we're saying no to

36:37something else. And I don't know what

36:38we're saying no to. uh and also in the

36:41how did that swear with the community

36:44feedback who worked, you know, showed up

36:46and told us what they wanted and had a

36:48plan and we we agreed the plan. I I just

36:51I don't think the CDBG funds is is the

36:53the place for this after we just did a

36:55plan. This is something that I think

36:56would be a discussion for next year's

36:58plan maybe. Um so I'm definitely not in

37:01favor of using CDBG funds here for this.

37:04Um, and then the the other piece I'm

37:07having with this is, you know, lots been

37:10raised about the the how, you know, the

37:12homelessness committee and, you know,

37:14we're asking them to come up with a

37:15strategy and, you know, one of the

37:19things that I keep getting told is we're

37:20not going to case manage our way out of

37:22this. You know, it's resources where

37:24really bad. And I guess before I would

37:26feel comfortable even considering this,

37:29I mean, I landed on the spot of I'd like

37:32to see a referral go to that committee

37:34and see what they think of this because

37:36I think the feedback that we may end up

37:38getting is, you know, hey, maybe let's

37:40look at our resources first as opposed

37:43to going into this this program. And if

37:46the money does go elsewhere, you know, I

37:49I question whether they'd be in the same

37:51boat we would be. Like one of the things

37:52we talk about often is while we can't

37:53always guarantee it'll be Bangor first

37:55people you know with these other whoever

37:57ends up getting the money would they be

37:59taking some of our folks you know that

38:01are a good fit um you know could the

38:03money still work elsewhere while we're

38:05still kind of getting our ducks in a row

38:07with all the issues we're facing. Uh, so

38:09I just I just I have a lot of questions

38:11that about this that I think I'd rather

38:13see the the homelessness committee sort

38:15through before I'm feeling confident

38:16about moving forward with this and

38:19that's common question.

38:24Well, I agree with council back on this

38:26one for change, [laughter]

38:29but I'm concerned about we're we're

38:32going to be taking on services for

38:36hub 7

38:38potentially.

38:40>> So, we would be providing us as well as

38:42the three emergency shelter providers

38:44would be providing intensive case

38:46management.

38:48>> Oh, how so? Well, it would be based out

38:51of people who are homeless who are

38:54living outside in Bangor right now.

38:58>> So, if per chance uh Newport decided or

39:02some other area because I don't know

39:04who'd qualify to take decided to do this

39:06and we didn't, they would be only

39:08servicing the people in their area.

39:11>> I don't know.

39:12You know, I find it we take on any

39:15program and because it's Bango, we seem

39:18to accumulate everyone from all of

39:21Piscatus, Ponobscot, Hancock, all of hub

39:257. And you know, I'm getting tired of

39:27servicing everyone and not having anyone

39:31service us. We don't seem to get service

39:34as readily as I'd like to think we're

39:36going to. So, I would I agree with

39:41councelor Beck that uh there's still a

39:44lot of questions to answer and I think

39:46the homeless committee should be

39:47involved before we make this decision.

39:52>> I'm sorry, I have a question

39:54>> regarding the opioid settlement money. I

39:56think

39:58councelor Haw and councelor Leonard were

40:00the only two on the original committee

40:02for the allocation of the opioid

40:04settlements from this. Correct.

40:07Were you on it or I

40:09>> I was covering for um another counselor

40:12who wasn't there. I was not in favor of

40:16using opioid funds for that vote at the

40:17time.

40:19>> And wasn't there something about not

40:22expending more than 50,000 per? Was

40:25there something about $50,000? Because

40:27some allocations are larger than others,

40:29but we made some exception and some

40:31people did get more than 50

40:33>> or not. It has it been set at 50. The

40:3550,000 criteria was the criteria that

40:38the committee chose to implement for

40:42purposes of the grant application

40:44process.

40:46>> Okay?

40:46>> So it doesn't really have to do with

40:47what we have in the settlement fund. So

40:49if we wanted to leave 126, it isn't

40:51going against that 50,000.

40:53>> So the the settlement fund does not

40:58limit the amount that we use for any one

41:00project.

41:01>> Okay. That was something that the

41:03committee had.

41:05>> All right. Thanks for the clarification.

41:08>> Yes.

41:11>> Yeah.

41:11>> I just um so I just wanted to remind the

41:14context of this main housing came to us

41:19because this was a successful program in

41:21Portland and has seen the good work that

41:24we are doing here collaboratively in

41:26Bangalore.

41:27This is a tool that we don't have right

41:31now that could be helpful to move people

41:33into housing.

41:36Main housing is willing to support this

41:39with by 70% and us come up with 30%.

41:44And so I just wanted to like try and do

41:47a little bit of advocacy with with

41:50understanding what your concerns are. I

41:53understand needing to go in front of the

41:55homeless advisory committee. They are

41:57wonderful people with incredible

41:59competency and skill. I also want to

42:02remind you that you have a department of

42:04public health and community services

42:06with hundreds of years of accumulative

42:08experience working in this field. And so

42:11I just want that to be part of your

42:12thought as you think about a decision on

42:15this on this program. So thank you for

42:17listening and for your questions and for

42:19your interest in in the community. I

42:23think we have one more council.

42:25>> Um,

42:25>> is there a hard timeline that um that

42:31you are that that we have to basically

42:34go forward with this project in order to

42:36get the 70% share of funding.

42:39>> I'll have to check in with Main Housing.

42:40They've been I've been keeping them

42:41updated on this vote and I think we're

42:43waiting to see where things go tonight

42:45and then have a conversation with them

42:47on what they would like to do next.

42:48>> Okay. because if um if I may follow up

42:51um if if there are more questions

42:54because it it sounds like there's a lot

42:55of like uh funding questions related to

42:59the project how we want to like match uh

43:02do our 30% match and I I know we talked

43:06about for example using unassigned fund

43:08balances uh for uh that match as well

43:11but for me the question is more so about

43:13the the project itself and just making

43:16sure it's successful that's really

43:19my area of questions which might be a

43:20bit easier to answer at the end of the

43:22day or maybe not. But uh would that be

43:25more suitable to maybe

43:29unless you hear differently? like would

43:31it be more acceptable to put this off

43:34again at council tonight just so that we

43:37can provide you with uh the questions

43:40that you need in order to uh respond

43:44back with the answers that we need to

43:46hear in order for us to make the most

43:49informed decision possible. Would that

43:51be helpful to the council to you?

43:54>> I think I would just need clarity on

43:55what your remaining questions are.

43:57>> Yes, 100%. council

44:00fish. Um, you know, it seems I know our

44:04residents feel like uh we're getting a

44:08lot of help and which we should the

44:10unhoused issue is is crisis, but at the

44:13same time when we have fuel at $6, you

44:15know, a gallon and we have a lot of

44:18seniors, I think we have a serious uh

44:21just as serious issue uh with our

44:23seniors who are just they're a different

44:26generation where they're not visual, you

44:29know, they're not optical, they're

44:30they're in a home or they're in their

44:32car and they're not asking for help. And

44:36I know of three or four stories just in

44:38the past month or so that there's a lot

44:41of seniors and people on, you know,

44:43fixed incomes of less than $1,400 a

44:46month. Um, and you know, we don't have

44:50anything coming from the state or

44:51anything that's looking at that crisis

44:54that's right on the threshold. And um

44:57you know we have a lot of unhoused and

44:59at least half of them or a little more

45:01are bangors but I also know that we have

45:04a great deal of a population of the

45:06elderly which is the majority of our

45:07population that is right on the

45:10threshold of having not not be able to

45:12get their medicine not put fuel in their

45:15in their houses. And um it's and I'm

45:19excited to see a lot of things every

45:20week coming in, but I'm also

45:22disappointed that we've totally sort of

45:26lost our seniors and our elderly and and

45:29where we're at right now with them. So I

45:31hope from your p perspective, you're

45:34seeing something being offered for

45:37what's what's coming for them this

45:39winter as well. You see anything from

45:42the state coming down the pipeline or

45:44anything

45:52Yes.

45:52>> I'm still confused because there's no

45:54way we can vote on this out of the

45:56opioid settlement fund that doesn't have

45:59126,000

46:00currently in it. So, how would we even

46:03vote? I think we'd only be looking for

46:06you to approve the first year at this

46:08point if you were going to move forward.

46:11>> So, half of the 126.

46:13>> Okay.

46:13>> Okay. I mean, I really think that any

46:15subsequent conversations would be in my

46:19mind, I think we'd want to see the

46:21success of the program and then make any

46:23subsequent decisions.

46:30[clears throat]

46:35>> Thank you.

46:37Next, we have the homeless advisory

46:40committee. Thereation

46:44I'm wondering if we should skip this and

46:46delay it in the next meeting. I want to

46:48make sure that we have a solid 30

46:49minutes for our executive session. And I

46:51think that we've also delayed the ethics

46:54board decision for several meetings. So

46:56I'm wondering if we should tackle that

46:58delay

47:00the latest one and

47:03go from there.

47:05>> You want to do the other?

47:06>> Yes.

47:08if that's okay with council and maybe if

47:11it's quicker than I expected we can

47:12return to the advis

47:26for decision

47:29city subject

47:32>> the subject city solicitor um this as

47:35you recall uh has come back from the

47:39ethics board that gave its advisory

47:42opinion on the uh um the comments

47:47councelor Malor made on March 31st uh

47:50captured on live mic during a a break

47:53for executive session of the ethics

47:55board. Um, and I would just um uh

48:00summarize real quick that they found the

48:02ethics board found that uh uh councelor

48:05Maler had violated uh section 33-1 of

48:08the ethics code which requires that city

48:11councilors uh act in a fair and

48:13impartial manner and maintain a standard

48:15of conduct that will require public

48:16competence in the integrity of the

48:17city's government. He also found that

48:20councelor Malor violated section 33-5.1

48:22of the ethics code um which requires

48:25counselor to conduct themselves in a

48:27manner that does not discriminate

48:28unlawfully against any person because of

48:30race national origin or cultural group.

48:34The coun the the board found they were

48:36given four questions. They found two

48:39violations. uh they found that councelor

48:42Maler did not violate section 33-13.1

48:45of the ethics code as the board found

48:48that the comments did not suggest he was

48:50uh councelor Maler was speaking on

48:52behalf of the city in any official

48:54capacity uh and that there was no

48:56ambiguity regarding the capacity in

48:58which he was speaking so there was no

49:00that that's the code provision that

49:02talks about use of titles and

49:03disclaimers so there was no no violation

49:06there and finally the board declined to

49:08make any further findings as to whether

49:09counselor mal violated any other

49:12provisions of the ethics code. So staff

49:14would recommend that that that not go

49:18forward at at all. It was a catch-all

49:20provision. So tonight we there are I see

49:24four sections of things that the council

49:26needs to get through at the workshop

49:28tonight. The first two I think should be

49:30very quick. Um

49:34the first one would be that the council

49:37should first

49:40uh note uh not necessarily by a formal

49:43vote but just get confirmation that the

49:46council does not feel that any matters

49:49need to be discussed in executive

49:51session other than that with what was

49:53already discussed in executive session

49:55on this item.

50:00[snorts]

50:01Oh, sorry.

50:05Am

50:08I being that that everybody's in

50:09agreement that there's no no further

50:11executive session and this is not

50:13required but it would probably be

50:15prudent to just confirm with council m

50:18anything else in executive sil

50:23>> I guess not I don't know what you're

50:24going to discuss so it's hard to say

50:29but assuming you know this has dragged

50:32on far too long should have been

50:35resolved months ago. We've just delayed,

50:37delayed, delayed. So, let's finish it

50:39off.

50:41Um, so I I take it we're past that first

50:44item. The second item would be also I

50:46think will be quick and that would be to

50:48deliberate and vote on whether the

50:51council wishes to conduct its own

50:52investigation outside of the

50:54investigation that the ethics board

50:56conducted. Now, having said that, the

50:58ethics board didn't need to conduct much

51:00of investigation. These were comments

51:01that were captured on live mic. um they

51:03could be heard on the video. Um the the

51:07the link to the video was provided in

51:08your memo. Um the the places in the

51:12video, the specific places where the

51:15comments occurred were also noted in the

51:17video. And um so uh if you could just

51:22take a vote that there's no further that

51:24you don't want to do any additional

51:26investigation to what the ethics board

51:27already did. Madam Chair, I move that we

51:30accept the investigation conducted by

51:32the board of ethics.

51:34>> Second move and seconded that we accept

51:38the investigation conducted by the

51:40board.

51:42>> Any further discussion, questions,

51:45comments?

51:48>> No objection.

51:49>> No connection.

51:50>> All right. So then we go to the third

51:52and fourth sections of what we need to

51:54get through tonight. Um so uh the

51:57council should deliberate on and direct

51:59staff as to the type of proposed council

52:01order the council wishes to consider at

52:03the next regular council meeting. The

52:05proposed council order should make

52:07findings with respect to any violations

52:09of the ethics code provisions in

52:11question and if applicable with respect

52:13to any penalty the council wishes to

52:15consider imposing for the violations.

52:17Um, specifically, the council should

52:20deliberate on and direct staff to

52:22prepare a proposed council order on

52:24whether councelor Mallerie's comments in

52:25question violated one or more of the

52:28following sections of the ethics code.

52:30Section 33-1,

52:32section 33-5.1,

52:35and section 33-13.1.

52:38and in conducting these deliberations um

52:42per the uh procedures that are in the

52:45ethics code now uh councelor Malik

52:49should not participate in the

52:50deliberations or vote but should be

52:53given an opportunity to to speak on his

52:56own behalf and provide a defense to the

52:59allegations

53:01um at the time of well

53:05tonight and at the time of the the

53:07council order

53:08uh prepared and in front of the council

53:11at regular meeting.

53:16>> So you already stated that 33-1

53:19and 33-5.1

53:21they did find was violated.

53:24>> Correct. But there are the the ethics

53:27board's uh findings are advisory in

53:30nature only. They're only advisory. It's

53:33the city council that makes the ultimate

53:34decision on whether there are any

53:36violations.

53:38So, [clears throat]

53:39you know, the city council should

53:41deliberate and direct staff as to what

53:44kind of a council order to prepare for

53:46you to then to deliberate on and vote at

53:49the next regular council meeting.

53:52>> Immediately after the comments, council

53:55did provide an order that stated that

53:57they did not agree with the comments and

53:59that it would not affect any um budget

54:02concerns regarding the school committee.

54:05Does that not suffice for how council

54:07felt about the comments? Do we still

54:09have to go through each one and then

54:12vote on those as well?

54:13>> We need to we need direction, staff

54:17needs direction on on what type of

54:19council order to for you to deliberate

54:22on at the next council meeting. And that

54:25would be a council order that would say

54:28uh you know, we find that this was or

54:31wasn't a violation. This was or wasn't a

54:33violation. this. So, one, two, three of

54:36the three three of the four questions

54:38that were given to the uh ethics board,

54:41the council should address uh whether

54:45the board wants a a council or a

54:48proposed council order prepared that

54:50says there was or wasn't a violation

54:53with respect to each of those three

54:55ethics code provisions.

55:02You you can you can follow the findings

55:06of the ethics board or you can not you

55:10can choose not to

55:12and that would be uh something that you

55:14would ultimately decide on at the next

55:17council meeting but there needs to be a

55:18council order a proposed council order

55:20in front of you then

55:25be

55:27I guess I'll just get us started.

55:29we can discuss, but I would propose a

55:31council order that accepts the findings

55:34of the board of ethics and which

55:38references the council order that we had

55:41already passed addressing the remarks

55:43after and then which concludes

55:47with no more action

55:50because councelor Malor is already

55:53undergoing

55:55legal

55:57training.

56:00>> [snorts]

56:03>> That's okay.

56:03>> Just a clarification. So the legal

56:05training for this particular issue.

56:07>> No, the legal training was this is a

56:10second set of

56:12alleged violations that we're dealing

56:14with now. The training had to do with

56:16the first set of alleged violations that

56:19had to do with actions that were taken

56:21during the historic preservation

56:22commission.

56:25>> Council fish. But wouldn't the legal

56:28training include both or why why

56:33wouldn't it?

56:33>> The the training in that instance was

56:37supposed to be on use of titles and

56:40disclaimers.

56:42That is not something that is an issue

56:45here because the ethics board in this

56:46case found that that provision was not

56:48violated

56:53>> unless [snorts] the council funds

56:55differently.

56:57I don't know if I can even ask this

56:59question since it's about the other one.

57:00But has that training occurred?

57:07>> It is not

57:07>> from from the last one.

57:10>> But I would just clarify that the

57:14whatever the council decides in terms of

57:16a proposed penalty, if any, should be

57:20separate from the other the other one.

57:22The other one is is the other one. And

57:24one of the options, we didn't get to the

57:26penalty part yet because that would be

57:28section four. If the council were to

57:31direct staff to prepare a council order

57:33that involves

57:35one or more violations of an ethics code

57:38provision, then the council needs to uh

57:42also direct staff on what to put in for

57:45a an appropriate penalty. But one of the

57:47options is that no penalty be imposed

57:51accompanied by a written statement of

57:53the council's reasoning. So considering

57:56the penalty is fourth section.

58:00The third section is is how do you want

58:03to direct staff to prepare a proposed

58:06order regarding

58:09whether violations occurred.

58:21for uh the order. Can we actually make

58:26it so that there's an order for each uh

58:30addressed violation to separate them out

58:32or do we have to address both violations

58:34in the same order?

58:37you you you could do it either way, but

58:40I would inquire as to why it would want

58:43to be separated into separate orders.

58:46>> For me, the way I'm looking at it is one

58:50of the violations is something that uh

58:53is trainable

58:55and the other one

58:59not so much if that makes any sense. And

59:02that's and that's why I asked the

59:03question is if we wanted to for example

59:05make the first one

59:07um if we wanted to incur a penalty to

59:11say like it's additional training for

59:13for counselor Malor could we have that

59:16be a first order for that and then

59:19whatever we want to have the other order

59:22be if if any order that can be its own

59:25separate one that that's why I bring

59:27that up. I I would suggest that the

59:31different violations or nonviolations

59:34could be addressed all in one order. It

59:37it just has more than one part to it. So

59:40if let's say there there were,

59:42>> you know, one or two violations,

59:46then the penalty could be separated out

59:48for each

59:50>> violation all in one order, but but

59:52separate parts of the of the same order.

59:54>> Okay, that that clarifies. Thank you.

59:57Council,

59:59>> I would suggest that we go down through

1:00:00the violations and vote on those

1:00:03violations. And if we're in agreement

1:00:04that they were all

1:00:06violation that the ethics board had

1:00:08found as the violation, then that would

1:00:10go in one order and we could vote on

1:00:13what that order would be and then move

1:00:15on to the penalty section, if at all.

1:00:19Would actually not be in favor of the

1:00:20penalty.

1:00:29I would agree with that. You know, I

1:00:30mean, let's we vote on each finding uh

1:00:34that they found uh a violation of and

1:00:37whether or not we agree. And at least

1:00:38that takes care of part three and then

1:00:40we can move on to part four of if

1:00:42there's a penalty or not.

1:00:49>> Could you remind me of the two bindings

1:00:52again, the two numbers? chair. The first

1:00:55one would be uh section 33-1

1:01:01and

1:01:04uh 33-1 requires that city council be

1:01:07fair, impartial, and responsive to the

1:01:09needs of the people and maintain a

1:01:11standard of conduct and to maintain a

1:01:13standard of conduct that will inquire

1:01:15public confidence in the integrity of

1:01:16the city's government.

1:01:18>> Okay. I make a motion uh that the

1:01:21council find councelor Malor did violate

1:01:25331 in agreement with the order of

1:01:28ethnics finding

1:01:29>> second

1:01:32moved and seconded

1:01:35any further discussion on that piece

1:01:48the Second one.

1:01:49>> Uh so the second one would be uh a

1:01:52violation of section 33-5.1

1:01:56of the ethics code which uh requires

1:02:00that city council conduct themselves in

1:02:01a manner that does not discriminate

1:02:03unlawfully against any person because of

1:02:05race, national origin or cultural group

1:02:08among other factors.

1:02:13I'd make a motion that the council find

1:02:14the counter mailer violated 33-5.1

1:02:19uh in agreement with the board of ethics

1:02:21finding the same.

1:02:23>> So second been moved and seconded.

1:02:26Is there any discussion further

1:02:29discussion on that violation?

1:02:34See none.

1:02:37The third one would be uh uh section

1:02:4133-13.1

1:02:44um B2C which prohibits city council from

1:02:49using their title unless the official

1:02:51makes it clear and unambiguous that the

1:02:53official is speaking in his individual

1:02:55capacity and not on behalf of the city,

1:02:57a board, commission or committee.

1:03:02>> Okay.

1:03:03>> And and they found that that was not

1:03:04violated. Correct.

1:03:06>> All right. Um, I'm making this motion in

1:03:08the affirmative under Republic's rules,

1:03:10but you would vote no. Um, so I would

1:03:14vote or I would make a motion that

1:03:16councilor Malor violated 33-13.1

1:03:19B2C.

1:03:22>> Second,

1:03:24just to make clear,

1:03:27a yes vote means you're finding contrary

1:03:32to what the ethics board found. A no

1:03:33vote means

1:03:34>> you agree with

1:03:35>> you agree with the ethics. Y and st.

1:03:45>> No. Council Carson.

1:03:46>> No.

1:03:47>> Council Walker.

1:03:48>> No.

1:03:49>> Council Clint.

1:03:50>> No.

1:03:50>> Council B.

1:03:51>> No.

1:03:51>> Council money.

1:03:52>> No.

1:03:54>> Council fish.

1:03:55>> No. and I'll be

1:04:00[clears throat]

1:04:01>> just for um there actually um a couple

1:04:06of different sections. I I actually uh

1:04:09cited a particular section, but it would

1:04:11also include section 33-13.1C,

1:04:14which places an affirmative duty on the

1:04:16city council to make a disclaimer that

1:04:18they are speaking in their individual

1:04:19capacity when it's when there's

1:04:21ambiguity. So I will take it that your

1:04:24motion included that as well.

1:04:28>> Okay.

1:04:31>> And I would recommend that the council

1:04:34take no further action with regard to

1:04:36any other violation.

1:04:39>> Great.

1:04:41>> Okay.

1:04:41>> Their consensus for that one.

1:04:43>> No further action.

1:04:45>> Okay. So that would bring us to this

1:04:47four fourth section. Um, actually, uh,

1:04:52councelor Mor is going to be able to

1:04:54have an opportunity to provide a

1:04:57statement on his own defense and when

1:05:01you do that at tonight's meeting is up

1:05:04up to you.

1:05:06But,

1:05:07um, you know, I don't know if you want

1:05:09to do that now or after they talk about

1:05:11the penalty section.

1:05:17being inclined. Do you want to give a a

1:05:20defense?

1:05:21>> Not right now.

1:05:22>> Not right now. Okay. Council,

1:05:24>> I was gonna say it's probably actually

1:05:25best for him to hear the penalties

1:05:27before uh he makes his defense.

1:05:30>> Shouldn't agree on a hanging.

1:05:33>> Okay. So you've directed staff to

1:05:36prepare a counselor that would indicate

1:05:38two violations and in that case uh uh

1:05:42you need to also direct staff uh and you

1:05:45could you should deliberate and direct

1:05:47staff with regard to uh preparing as

1:05:50part of the proposed council order an

1:05:52appropriate penalty or penalties for

1:05:53other violations. Um, under section

1:05:5633-23b3 of the ethics code, uh, it sets

1:06:00forth, uh, how you can vote on that. Uh,

1:06:04there's six different possibilities that

1:06:06the that the code of provision lists.

1:06:08One, that no penalty be imposed

1:06:10accompanied by a written statement of

1:06:11the council's reasoning. So, if you find

1:06:14that you find that you want to have

1:06:16findings of violations, but no penalty,

1:06:18you need to include a written statement

1:06:20of the council's reasoning why there's

1:06:22no penalty.

1:06:24Second choice uh impose a formal censure

1:06:27with written findings entered into the

1:06:29public record.

1:06:31Third possibility uh uh make penalty on

1:06:36whether to remove uh the official from

1:06:38one or more committees or board

1:06:39assignments for a specified period of

1:06:41time not to exceed the remainder of the

1:06:43current council here. Um, fourth item,

1:06:47uh, whether to impose a civil fine as

1:06:50authorized by section 33-3 of the ethics

1:06:52code and section 9-26 of the city code.

1:06:55Uh, fifth, whether to, uh, require that

1:06:58the official complete specified training

1:07:00as a condition of continued service in

1:07:02assigned roles and or sixth is a

1:07:05catchall to take other lawful action the

1:07:07council deems appropriate and

1:07:09proportionate to the nature of the

1:07:10violation.

1:07:11So I would suggest that you deliberate

1:07:14on any of those items.

1:07:22>> I think it's appropriate to um add that

1:07:26um councelor Mal should go under

1:07:29training for um uh uh what was it 33.1

1:07:34or 33-1. Um, I I I I think that's

1:07:38appropriate at the end of the day. Um,

1:07:40for for that one. Um, but that's how I

1:07:42feel about just 33-1. Well,

1:07:48>> thank you. I would agree with that.

1:07:49However, I think that we need to put

1:07:51some kind of date of completion because

1:07:53we could require a training, but if

1:07:56there's no requirement that it actually

1:07:57has to happen, then it's kind of

1:07:58senseless.

1:08:00[snorts]

1:08:03I personally don't have a problem with

1:08:05the training, but I think if we're going

1:08:07to do it, it's got to be formalized

1:08:09training and it's got to be something

1:08:11that would last because if we had to use

1:08:13it again, we can't have training that's

1:08:16up and down and up and down and up and

1:08:18down. It's going to have to be

1:08:19standardized, something that's

1:08:21reasonable that could be used again. Uh

1:08:27because that's the only way it's going

1:08:28to be fair.

1:08:30And there'll be other things that come

1:08:31up that people might need extra

1:08:34training.

1:08:35>> Yes.

1:08:36>> I wonder if there are some like MMA

1:08:38trainings that we can access.

1:08:42>> It's a possibility.

1:08:44>> I could look into it.

1:08:44>> Oh, I thought you were [laughter] saying

1:08:46no.

1:08:47>> You know, I I I don't know of any MMA

1:08:49training that I sit here. Yeah.

1:08:51>> Um, and again, we're talking about two

1:08:53different [laughter]

1:08:55provisions, both of which are

1:08:58in our ethics code. You know, I don't

1:09:01know how many other municipalities

1:09:03ethics codes they are in. So, I'm not

1:09:06aware of any MMA training on would be

1:09:09generalized.

1:09:10Okay.

1:09:11Um, and I know we have ethics training

1:09:14um, the beginning for the new

1:09:16counselors, but I wondered I know with

1:09:19um, realtors we have uh, ethics training

1:09:23sometimes for different articles, but

1:09:24that you know of there's no specific

1:09:27segmented ethic training for these

1:09:30articles.

1:09:31>> The the the training on the previous

1:09:34one, for example, was specifically on

1:09:38the use of titles and disclaimers. The

1:09:40standardization of that would be the

1:09:44items that are in the ethics code

1:09:46>> going over those items and what they

1:09:48require. So in that sense it is

1:09:51formalized and it is uh something that's

1:09:55on paper that can be repeated. Um and in

1:09:59this case we have two different

1:10:00provisions but they are of course in the

1:10:02ethics code and what they require um

1:10:05could also be training could be provided

1:10:09about Um,

1:10:11these these aren't as

1:10:15simple as the other one because like

1:10:19section 33-1 is kind of more of a kind

1:10:24of a generalized

1:10:26uh ethics code provision and then the

1:10:29other one is sort of generalized as

1:10:31well.

1:10:36If the items are in our ethics code,

1:10:39then a review of the ethics code and

1:10:42some questions and discussions is just

1:10:45much as much of a training that would be

1:10:48beneficial to someone who had to have

1:10:51extra training in that

1:10:53than going to the outside. I mean after

1:10:56all it is the ethics scope of the city

1:10:59and that's what we're concerned with

1:11:01more than MMA stuff.

1:11:05>> Yes. I think we would also have to

1:11:07figure out who best would be the one to

1:11:08do that training and the one that would

1:11:10be, you know, most responsive

1:11:13to the training. Whether that be an

1:11:16outside source or someone from here,

1:11:18whether it be the chair or the city

1:11:20manager or solicitor, you know, it has

1:11:21to be someone that is going to respond

1:11:25well to

1:11:27who they are discussing with. then that

1:11:30person also needs to respond back to

1:11:32who's doing the training or it's

1:11:34pointless to do.

1:11:37>> That's okay.

1:11:37>> Is this something we could reach out to

1:11:39the advisory commun racial equity,

1:11:41inclusion, human rights on to get their

1:11:43opinion on a good source for this.

1:11:52If this were to go in front of council

1:11:57um at the next meeting

1:12:00um I don't know what the schedule of

1:12:02that when they meet next.

1:12:04>> I mean I think we would need to delay it

1:12:07and not have it go council at the next

1:12:09meeting

1:12:10>> that accommodate the schedule. I think

1:12:13that would

1:12:15be the dates. Yeah, I think their next

1:12:17meeting would be in October.

1:12:20>> Yes. Hasn't the solicitor in the past

1:12:23two or three years been the one to do

1:12:25the ethics training?

1:12:27>> So why wouldn't we just be proactive and

1:12:30say

1:12:31>> our city solicitor?

1:12:33>> They're the ones that you know have the

1:12:37know the laws and the rules and the

1:12:38ethics the best. Why wouldn't we

1:12:41just make that decision? Unless

1:12:44councelor Beck has some other ideas he

1:12:46was thinking of might be more effective.

1:12:50I would just say just because of the

1:12:52sensitive nature of this particular

1:12:53topic even because of the group that was

1:12:58spoken about that you know they would

1:13:02maybe get a little deeper training on

1:13:04that issue you know because

1:13:07talking about children you know another

1:13:10nationality and

1:13:13I'm sensitive to that.

1:13:18It's so much.

1:13:19>> Yes.

1:13:20>> I was just going to say like I I I would

1:13:22agree with like I I know he's been

1:13:24putting this off and I apologize for

1:13:26that, but I I think it is important if

1:13:28we're going to really tackle this in the

1:13:31best approach possible where there is

1:13:34going to be some sort of

1:13:38goodnatured healing going forward. I

1:13:40think we do have to include the acre

1:13:42committee on this. So I I'm

1:13:43[clears throat]

1:13:44completely supportive of putting this

1:13:46off to include them in their guidance on

1:13:49this

1:13:51[clears throat] on the appropriate

1:13:52training

1:13:53>> 100%. Yes. Yeah.

1:13:56>> Any other comments?

1:14:00Are you okay with that?

1:14:03>> Just so so I'm clear. So it the the idea

1:14:06would be maybe a motion to uh

1:14:10>> refer

1:14:11>> refer to the uh to the acre committee

1:14:14the on the issue of training appropriate

1:14:16training.

1:14:17>> Y

1:14:19>> I would make that motion to refer to the

1:14:22acre committee on u uh further training

1:14:26for uh uh council to engage with.

1:14:30>> Second.

1:14:33Uh if this motion passes, I just want to

1:14:35make sure we're specific in our

1:14:36instruction to them that they're

1:14:38strictly talking about just the

1:14:39training, not the actual issues or the

1:14:41anything else. Like all we want to know

1:14:42is what's a recommendation for training.

1:14:44That's it.

1:14:52>> Everybody okay with that?

1:14:54>> Okay, I have a question. So would that

1:14:55come back to us to discuss before an

1:14:58order is drafted for the council? And we

1:15:00would discuss this in another

1:15:02[clears throat]

1:15:02>> it would it would do whatever you want

1:15:05it to do. Do you want it to come back

1:15:06here to workshop after the acre

1:15:10committee?

1:15:13>> I think so.

1:15:14>> I just need some clarification. So just

1:15:17to make sure I understand we're not

1:15:20asking them to consider councelor Malor

1:15:23and this question. We're asking the

1:15:25question about if we wanted to train on

1:15:28section 35-1, what would that training

1:15:31look like? Is that

1:15:33>> right? Okay. Um because my concern was

1:15:35that we were making a referral about

1:15:38counselor conduct and I was just about

1:15:40to wonder the city

1:15:43in its whole history. But that's not

1:15:45what we're talking about. Okay. I was

1:15:47over here terrified for no reason.

1:15:50>> And

1:15:52thank you. I was going to say if if we

1:15:54were going to move forward with the

1:15:55order without coming back, I would just

1:15:57suggest that we put some some parameters

1:15:59in there or like maybe a a deadline by

1:16:02which the training should be completed

1:16:07something like that just to you know so

1:16:10we're sort of like not just saying yeah

1:16:13there should be training and then

1:16:14there's never any followup and never any

1:16:16deadline for that training.

1:16:18>> I agree.

1:16:20>> That's a question. Um well they're going

1:16:24to come back with a recommendation and

1:16:25because we have no idea what this

1:16:27recommendation might be um you know a

1:16:30deadline would be great but you know if

1:16:32there's certain programs there know of

1:16:34at the university or wherever they might

1:16:36suggest uh would have to drive with that

1:16:40schedule and that opportunity. So if we

1:16:42I just don't want us to set a deadline

1:16:44that they have an idea and that

1:16:46particular class or training won't be

1:16:48available. So, and also I'd kind of like

1:16:51to see what they recommend, make sure

1:16:53we're, you know, I'm sure it would be

1:16:56something we would be in agreement with,

1:16:57but I would like to propose that it

1:17:01come. It's a recommendation that comes

1:17:03back to council.

1:17:06And then the timing be in line it being

1:17:09uh possible to do.

1:17:14>> I just want to make sure that I'm clear.

1:17:15If there's a a motion to refer it to the

1:17:19acre committee for recommended training,

1:17:23we're talking about recommended training

1:17:26for

1:17:30a violation of the two

1:17:33ethics code provisions.

1:17:38Well, it would specifically be um the

1:17:413351

1:17:43of the discrimination. Uh you know,

1:17:45we're looking for a recommendation of

1:17:47the appropriate training for that

1:17:48specific provision. So again, not having

1:17:50them discuss anything about the findings

1:17:53itself or council me or anything just

1:17:55strictly what do you recommend is the

1:17:57best training regarding discrimination

1:18:00specifically 335.1

1:18:02and adhering to to that. What about

1:18:0533-1?

1:18:07Is does that not going to be included on

1:18:10the referral?

1:18:11>> I in my opinion, I think not. I think

1:18:14that's more of a preamble of just being

1:18:16fair and impartial where I think really

1:18:17it's about the discrimination piece.

1:18:21Should

1:18:24[clears throat]

1:18:27councelor Maller be provided an

1:18:28opportunity to make his own statement

1:18:31about what's happened or happening here

1:18:33tonight?

1:18:34>> No, I'm not ready to make a statement

1:18:36about that.

1:18:37>> Okay.

1:18:38>> Next next time

1:18:40>> when we after we've had the order seen

1:18:42it.

1:18:42>> So is the motion uh I didn't see if

1:18:46there was any doubtful to

1:18:50referral

1:18:51to acre committee for recommendation of

1:18:54appropriate training with respect to uh

1:18:58section 33-5.1.

1:19:01>> There were no doubts. It was just I

1:19:03wanted to be clear that it just

1:19:07>> all right.

1:19:10We need a motion to go into executive

1:19:12session. Thank you.

1:19:18Madam chair, pursuing to 1 NRSA456A,

1:19:23uh I would move we go into executive

1:19:25session for a personal matter regarding

1:19:28two things.

1:19:29>> Second.

1:19:30>> Okay.

1:19:35Yes.

1:19:39>> Yes.

1:19:40>> Yes.

1:19:42>> Yes.

1:19:43>> Yes.

1:19:43>> Council me.

1:19:45>> Yes.

1:19:45>> Council Fish.

1:19:46>> Yes.

```*