2026-09-28 - City Council Workshop

00:33We are live. My name is Courtney

00:36O'Donnell. I'm the assistant speed

00:38manager. Uh council chair halls could

00:40not make it tonight and so I guess um

00:43entertain motions for um temporary chair

00:47for tonight's workshop.

00:51fish. [laughter]

00:52>> I would like to nominate uh councelor

00:55Carson for workshop.

00:58>> Any other nominations?

01:01>> Any objections?

01:03>> All right, council chair or temporary

01:06[laughter]

01:06chair Carson, take it away.

01:08>> Thank you, Assistant City Manager

01:10O'Donnell. Welcome to the regularly

01:12scheduled city council workshop. Today

01:13is Monday, September 28th, 2026, and it

01:17is 5:45

01:18p.m. around the table. We already have

01:21assistant city manager O'Donnell who

01:23introduced ourselves, councelor Dean, I

01:26am councelor Carson, we have councelor

01:27Walker, councelor Flu, councelor B,

01:30[clears throat] counselor Fish, and

01:31councelor Mau. We have uh three agenda

01:35items and an executive session on the

01:37agenda this evening. And that first item

01:39is job core recognition.

01:43Mer,

01:44>> I'd like to have the executive session

01:46first because it could be lengthy and

01:49I'd rather not miss out and be pushed on

01:52that one.

01:53>> If that's the will of the council, you

01:55can certainly do that. Um, we are um

01:57we've asked people to keep it uh brief

02:00on purpose to make sure that we do have

02:02more than a half hour of time, but

02:03>> if you think that's fine, but usually we

02:06>> we run into issues.

02:10bad updates. Joe, we run out.

02:12>> You can if you say that on the ground

02:16and withdraw.

02:17>> All right. And councelor Leonard is

02:19joining us at the table.

02:24>> The job core recognition.

02:26>> Oh,

02:27>> I believe we have a staff member coming

02:29up for that actually. I apologize.

02:30>> Yes. Share person.

02:35>> Okay.

02:35>> Yeah, if you can. Sorry. I do also have

02:38someone that has um come here to speak

02:42with us um from JobCore. So, I want to

02:44make sure to give them a little bit of

02:45time as well. But my name is Robin

02:48Stanicki. I'm the community development

02:49officer for the city of Bangor. And I

02:52just wanted to explain why I brought

02:55this resolution forward for your

02:57consideration and the meaning that it

02:59has specifically um to me. So 26 years

03:03ago in 1999, I boarded a bus, a

03:07Greyhound bus that stopped here in

03:09Bangor, Maine, so that I could do

03:11something called JobCore. I didn't know

03:14what it was. I needed some direction in

03:16my life and I said, "This looks like a

03:18program that I could use."

03:21When I was at JobCore, I was selected to

03:23participate in a partnership with the

03:25city of Bangor that gave students an

03:27opportunity to work for the city. In

03:292000, the city of Bangor hired me and it

03:32was my first job here.

03:35I don't think that anyone involved in

03:37that program actually understood like

03:39what that was for me um or could have

03:42known where that opportunity would

03:43eventually lead. But Bangor became more

03:47than the place than where I attended

03:49JobCore. It became a community where I

03:51could contribute, where I could build

03:53relationships, and where I could begin

03:55to imagine the future for myself. And

03:58eventually after a career that took me

04:00through public health and military and

04:02federal service um and other work in in

04:05public service, I came back to work for

04:07the city of Bangor. And today I have the

04:09privilege of serving you as our

04:11community development officer. So I

04:14believe that the partnership has value

04:16because it's more than workforce

04:18development.

04:20JobCore students are already members of

04:22our community while they're here. And

04:24the question is whether we continue to

04:26create opportunities for them to feel

04:29like they're members and they contribute

04:31here to serve and to see a future for

04:34themselves here.

04:36So I think of the 19year-old that's

04:40sitting at JobCore right now wondering

04:44how they fit into the city of Bangor and

04:46what their future could look like. So,

04:48I'd like to offer some words from the

04:51workforce development manager, Tyler

04:53Nates, who's here, and I'd like for him

04:55to just talk to you a little bit about

04:57what ourou does and um some of the plans

05:02that we have for the upcoming year and

05:04maybe you could ask him some.

05:07Thank you for having me. My name is

05:08Tyler Knight. Uh workforce development

05:10manager is one of the titles. career

05:12transition services manager is the

05:14official, but effectively my position at

05:16JobCo is to leverage the opportunities

05:18that we see out in the community amongst

05:21employers and organizations every day

05:22for our young adults age 16 to 24 to be

05:25able to have a future. Our students come

05:28in as Miss Stani described coming in off

05:30of off of a bus or off of one of our

05:32transport vans trying to figure out what

05:34that future looks like. And one of the

05:36biggest challenges that they face beyond

05:38whatever socioeconomic barriers they

05:40have coming in is stereotypes right as

05:42many folks do and and that's part of

05:44what we see a burgeoning partnership or

05:46rather redevelopment of the partnership

05:47with the city of Bangor as being a

05:49benefit of shifting this perception of

05:51job core students being social or

05:53economic outcasts or people who have

05:55done things incorrectly for much of

05:56their lives. instead seeing them as

05:58people who have not only just as much

06:00value as anybody else but potentially

06:02more because we are keeping young people

06:04not only in this community as wonderful

06:05people but as trained uh and and highly

06:08developed individuals who have had

06:10opportunities to lead to learn and to be

06:12able to grow throughout their time at

06:14JobCore. Whether they're there for six

06:16months or they're there for the full

06:18three years up to three years that a

06:20student may have, we want to keep them

06:21in the state of Maine and ideally in

06:23bankment

06:24with the community and with the city

06:26directly to be able to leverage our

06:28students to be able to have growth,

06:30investment and opportunity and also help

06:33the city through an an ondemand

06:35workforce and a a group of young adults

06:37who are really hungry and ready to learn

06:39who we feel can be just incredibly

06:41beneficial and and provide those

06:42brighter futures of ethnic ethnistic

06:45discussing a moment ago. I'm happy to

06:47take any questions. I I didn't come

06:49prepared with a speech or anything. So

06:51any questions, I'm happy to

06:53>> I'm just wondering how many individuals

06:55do you have circling in and out

06:56throughout the year?

06:57>> Sure. So we are we are concurrent

06:59enrollment. We are frequent every day.

07:00Every Tuesday we have new students come

07:02in. As of today, I believe we're at 176.

07:05Um JobCore had the big national pause

07:07last year. Our capacity is 273. While

07:09most centers got down to zero, we

07:11stopped at about 100. We were very very

07:13slow and methodical uh in sending

07:15students home as we waited for the court

07:16cases to resolve. So right now 75 at

07:21present and we typically bring in

07:22anywhere from six to 10 new young adults

07:24either as first-time job core enrolles

07:26or advanced training students who come

07:28in for our advanced baking and pastry or

07:30our oneofone advanced marine pipe

07:32fitting program every single week.

07:34>> Thank you.

07:38>> Um I'm very happy to see job core still

07:41around. uh many eons ago. It was my

07:44first job uh was called Ponobskot

07:46Consortium back then. We were in a

07:48little building, the Isaac Newton

07:49building.

07:51And um my job at the time was working

07:54with the youths that had fallen out of

07:55school for whatever reasons. And uh we

07:58try to get them either back in school,

08:00help them with some training, some

08:01skills. A lot of times it was because

08:03their home environment. And um later as

08:06it progressed I know there's been many

08:08individuals I think my second cousin

08:10from Brockton had unfortunately a tough

08:12lifestyle and came there was a job cor

08:16in Prescal or up in the county somewhere

08:18and does that still exist?

08:21>> Yes. So once he got out of that

08:23environment and he also had some

08:24disabilities, but he was able to be

08:27connected to a trade that he loved and

08:30uh this again was probably 20 years ago

08:32for that individual and he was um loved

08:35that trade and to this day is is

08:37productive member of his his community

08:39back in Massachusetts and has a family

08:42and um I I think job core is great. So,

08:46um, whatever we can do to support those

08:48individuals there and support them to

08:50continue to have training and education,

08:53whatever we can do to be supportive, I'm

08:56all for it.

09:01>> Well, thank you so much. [clears throat]

09:03>> All right,

09:09next on our agenda, we have a discussion

09:11on project.

09:14Yes, I believe. [clears throat]

09:16>> Yeah. Public health uh community

09:19services director Jman.

09:25>> Hi, Jen Henderman, director of Bangor

09:27Public Health Community Services. Coming

09:29back with some of the other things that

09:31you um had sort of sent forth to have me

09:34take a look at or do. So, one of them

09:36was bringing this in front of the

09:37homeless advisory committee. I did do

09:39that last week. We had conversation

09:41about the program and they are in full

09:44support of the program with a 50-50

09:47split between opiate settlement funds

09:48and community development block grant

09:50funds. The other thing that I did was

09:53have um a conversation with Robin um

09:56around I think the conversation we had

09:58last time was concerns about its

10:00alignment with the consolidated plan and

10:02it is in alignment um I believe it's

10:04goal four and I have that with me this

10:07evening and

10:10the resolve in your packet for the

10:14council meeting later today is with the

10:1750/50 split. So I believe the write up

10:21um might be the same one that we've been

10:23using but in the packet the resolve has

10:26actually been changed to the 50.

10:28>> You will need to amend by substitution

10:30if you wish to use CDBG for the funding

10:33source.

10:34>> So that would be available if you wanted

10:35to go in that direction.

10:38>> I'll go back.

10:39>> So this is the this is for two years of

10:42the program that we're doing tonight. So

10:44what would happen is those community

10:46development block grant funds would be

10:49available for the two years split that

10:5163,000 the first year 63,000 the second

10:54year it would be available for that

10:56we're not making a commitment for two

10:58years we're just saying we would have

11:00those funds available for that second

11:02year

11:03>> okay um because I guess my question is

11:05you if we wanted to we could do all CPG

11:08[clears throat] funds the first year see

11:10how it goes and then talk about whether

11:12we want to do opioid the the second year

11:15>> that would be an option. Again, one of

11:17the concerns with going down that route

11:20is that it then reduces the amount of

11:23the public service dollars available in

11:25community development block grant to be

11:27able to use for other purposes,

11:30>> right? I I guess what I'm saying is if

11:31we're splitting it 50/50, you know, that

11:33to me sounds like we're doing for two

11:34years. Year one would be CDBG, year two

11:37would be uh I mean, this is where I

11:39guess I'm getting confused. The amount

11:41of money we're approving tonight, is it

11:42for one year of the program or is it for

11:44two years program?

11:45>> At this point, it's just one year.

11:46>> That is one year,

11:46>> but but CBDG would make a commitment to

11:48have the 63,000 for the second year.

11:53>> Yes, it's just one year that we're

11:55committing to. That's all that main

11:56housing has proposed to us at this time.

12:02>> I can just a follow up for for the body

12:04here. Uh I know I was against both pots

12:07of money when we previously spoke. uh in

12:10that time, you know, I've had some

12:11conversation about CDBG funds and and it

12:14does make sense, but I'm still stuck on

12:16the opioid opioid settlement claims just

12:19because, you know, the community wanted

12:21just a really open and transparent

12:23process and a say in how the money is

12:25spent and we had just recuperated some

12:29of that money previously that the public

12:31didn't really get a say on. And so I'm

12:35I'm okay with CDBG funds. I'm not okay

12:38with with the opioid settlement fund. I

12:40I haven't pledged on that piece. So, I

12:42just wanted to share with the body where

12:43I'm I've landed on that. Councelor

12:46Leonard and Councelor Dean,

12:47>> I just want to concur that I I do really

12:50like the program and I think we should

12:52give it a shot. It makes sense to me on

12:55paper. I do have similar concerns with

12:57counselor Beck regarding using opioid

13:00settlement funds for this. I'm

13:01completely open to uh figuring out what

13:05other diversified funding sources are

13:08100%. Um I think this is a project

13:11that's absolutely worthwhile pursuing.

13:14I do think that there will be a lot of

13:17push back if we were to use opioid

13:20solvent funds for this particular

13:23program in of itself. So whether it is

13:26going more all in on CDBG or if we

13:29wanted to dip into the unassigned fund

13:31balance like I I'm open to all those

13:33conversations but I think it's going to

13:35have to be a hard note for me when it

13:37comes for opioid solment fund usage.

13:41>> Can I just respond to that just I just

13:42want to mention I I hear absolutely what

13:44you're saying but I just want to sort of

13:47point out that this money is shifting

13:50from intensive case management for HIV.

13:53This project hope is intensive case

13:55management around homelessness. So when

13:57the money was allocated for intensive

13:59case management to support the HIV

14:01outbreak and people who are associated,

14:04we're almost doing the same exact model

14:07with the funds but with a different

14:11issue at the center of it. Someone

14:13doesn't have to have HIV. So I just

14:15wanted to kind of make that association

14:18between the funds.

14:21>> May I just respond to that really quick?

14:22I I I completely hear you. I really

14:24really do. I I am recalling though that

14:29even when we did pass uh the funds for

14:33the HIV program, that was already a very

14:36contentious um uh vote that we did. It

14:40it had a lot of public push back. I

14:42think it was the right decision at the

14:43end of the day and went through the

14:45process. [clears throat]

14:46But I think that's the issue that I have

14:48right now is that because it is a very

14:51similar program and like I'm not trying

14:54to again like the I like the program is

14:57completely

14:59a viable thing for me to I think for all

15:01of us to vote on. I I I truly do believe

15:03that the process though of the

15:06utilization of both development funds

15:09it's not really there though because it

15:12it just isn't. And if we [clears throat]

15:15wanted to go the route of using opioids

15:18only funds, I think we do have to

15:21respect the uh citizens in that we need

15:25to be really open and transparent with

15:28how we use those funds. I I just feel

15:31like using these funds uh for this is

15:34just going to open up a can of worms

15:37that none of us really want to engage

15:39with right now regarding uh um using

15:42those funds for this particular any

15:44project without going to the public. But

15:48that's just where I'm at. I like I

15:51completely understand that it's the same

15:53sort of services that were being used

15:56prior, but my concerns are still there.

15:59Council B.

16:00>> Uh, yes. Thank you. I can appreciate

16:02both of your your viewpoints and I'm

16:05very comfortable with the CBG

16:09funds.

16:11Um, the opioid I'm I'm on the fence with

16:13that one. I am definitely not in favor

16:15of getting it signed fund balance for

16:19the reason that that is taxpayer money.

16:21And if you think we're getting any push

16:24back now, we're going to get a lot of

16:25push back if we try to use taxpayer

16:27money to fund this project. So, we need

16:30to find a way to fund it that does not

16:32impact the taxpayer, which the opioid

16:35settlement and the CDBG does not really

16:38impact the taxpayer. So, I'm more

16:41inclined to go with that than I would be

16:43any other funding. But I would be open

16:45to looking for other sources because I

16:48would really hate to give up the 300,000

16:51for main housing. I mean, that's a

16:53that's a big gift and I think this could

16:55be very useful. Are there any other pots

16:58that we have not looked into?

17:02So, for me, the two that are currently

17:04being discussed would be

17:06more my favor.

17:16questions.

17:18>> Go ahead, Council.

17:19>> As far as those that would or could be

17:21housed,

17:23are they all

17:26people that are currently unhoused or

17:28are some of them possibly be on the

17:30brink of

17:31>> This is specifically for people who are

17:33unhoused. We have a housing navigation

17:36program that you all funded with city

17:38dollars that's more eviction prevention.

17:40Someone who's on the cusp of eviction

17:42can work with one of our staff members

17:44to understand what their options are or

17:46if there's like some resolution in some

17:48landlord engagement that can happen. So

17:50these are people who are unhoused

17:52>> and of these unhoused

17:54[clears throat]

17:54>> followup of these unhoused and I know

17:57it's a guess but what percentage would

17:59you guess would be

18:02using illegal substances?

18:06>> I don't know. I mean what I I wouldn't

18:09know that answer. All I can say is look

18:10at the research and the research says

18:12that people are experiencing

18:13homelessness have a higher likelihood of

18:15complex mental health and substance use

18:17disorder issues. Other

18:23questions, comments,

18:29>> yes, I I'm curious the CBGD funds, if we

18:33use it for this, what other group are we

18:36taking them away from?

18:42>> Sure.

18:42>> Yeah. I don't Robin, are you able to

18:44speak to CDBG funding and how that

18:47funding is allocated? Do you mind coming

18:49to the table?

18:58>> Yeah. So with this type of project,

19:00because it is services rather than

19:03funding, you know, something that's a a

19:05building or or that type of project,

19:07we're limited to using 15% of the amount

19:11of money that we get in a year. So for

19:13this year, our cap is $164,000.

19:17Now, we did approve one public service

19:20project this year in our general budget,

19:22which was only for $25,000 for PCHC to

19:25do a healthcare services project. That

19:28leaves the rest of that cap unused. I

19:31left it in an unassigned fund balance.

19:34If you may recall, if we used the 63 out

19:38of it this year, we could hold on to the

19:41remaining for throughout the year if

19:44there's another project or another need.

19:47We could use the entire piece. You could

19:49elect to to go to the full 164, but we

19:53would just then need to know that from

19:55now until June, we're kind of locked up

19:57with that. So, but it is an option. This

20:00was just one way that Jen and I

20:01discussed we could split the the risk

20:04down the middle with CDBG and still have

20:06money left over to be responsive to

20:09something that we don't know is coming

20:11around yet.

20:13>> Thank you.

20:15>> And one of those could I just add one of

20:16those considerations is the main housing

20:19has not released information on warming

20:21shelter funding.

20:27>> Thank you. neighbor council me.

20:29>> So that means that potentially the money

20:32that's in the CBG could be used for

20:34warming shelters that's being held this

20:3815% or can't that be used for warming

20:40shelters?

20:41>> I believe it could be.

20:44>> Okay. And I have an issue with using any

20:47CBG money. I think we don't know what

20:50the future is going to bring to us the

20:52near future.

20:54And I'm not in favor of project hope.

21:01>> Other questions?

21:03We start director Gund council back.

21:05>> Yeah. So do we have to give all withund

21:09>> 26 to give to all up front? Like there

21:11is no here's year one and then they come

21:13back all up front. So there is no

21:15opportunity for a second conversation on

21:17on the

21:18>> Okay.

21:22Right. Any other questions for director

21:23Gunderman?

21:25Is there any other council game?

21:28>> If we do not

21:31match this 30%. This will not go through

21:35>> without a city match. I'd have to go

21:37back to the group that I've been working

21:39with of emer of the um sorry of the ehop

21:45uh shelters and and have a conversation.

21:48But I don't know how.

21:50Um,

21:52yeah,

21:54at this time I don't have a resolution.

21:56>> Can I bring up one other?

21:59My mind keeps going back to that 50,000

22:02that was thrown about or no more than

22:0550,000 being allocated for an opioid

22:07settlement, which is was really not

22:09anything official. But would those that

22:11are opposed to using 63 of opioid be

22:15more in line to using the 50 and then

22:19perhaps a little bit more for CDG

22:22or is it just using opioids opioid

22:25settlement in general that is the

22:27problem?

22:28>> Councelor Beck.

22:29>> Sure. From my part you know as this body

22:32knows I was opposed to allowing that

22:34committee to lapse. I wanted it renewed

22:37and this is exactly the scenario I

22:39envisioned why I wanted it renewed. Um

22:43I appreciate that our our committee on

22:45homelessness likes the program. I agree

22:47the program I don't have a problem with

22:49the program. It's just

22:52it seems like [clears throat]

22:55it doesn't feel like opioid settlement

22:59funds or I should say it doesn't feel

23:02like substance use disorder was on the

23:04forefront of this proposal. That's my

23:08problem when when we as the body discuss

23:11in Gov Ops. I mean I was the first one

23:14to bring up substance use disorder and I

23:16feel like that should have been the lead

23:17off with this. And so I I don't want to

23:20turn around and tell this recovery

23:21community once again we've we've

23:23invested money into something because we

23:27assumed uh substance use disorder is

23:29with it rather than giving an open and

23:31transparent process like they did with

23:33the opioid settlement committee where is

23:36if if they had weighed in on say you

23:37know yeah this is great like they did

23:39with the HIV case management and that to

23:41me was an easy connection to make is

23:43it's you know using shared needles is

23:45the number one way that viruses spread.

23:48So, it just the connection is just

23:50there. And yes, there's a connection

23:51with homelessness, but it's homelessness

23:54first and then substance use disorder if

23:57they happen to be in that bucket as

23:58well. And I just to me that's not the

24:01spirit of that money. And I I guess I

24:03would have liked more input from the

24:04recovery community on that. The recover

24:06the the feedback I've received from the

24:08recovery community is don't use your

24:10settlement funds for this. Like go back

24:12to the table, let us have a say in this.

24:14let's figure out a process which I know

24:16staff is in in the process of coming up

24:19whatever that process is when we had the

24:20other conversations. So that's just

24:23that's where my push back is on those

24:25funds.

24:31>> I probably have a different perspective.

24:33>> Um I think we missed the boat uh the

24:37first time around. I mean, hindsight's

24:392020, but we had a good pot of money

24:42from the opioid settlement money when we

24:45had, you know, sat down and tried to

24:47figure out how to disperse it. And now

24:49looking at the problem we have in our

24:50community, I wonder if we couldn't have

24:54thought more about a, you know, out of

24:56the box with a better solution. It might

24:59have used more of that money, but the

25:01$50,000 increments I don't think was

25:04sufficient enough. They made little

25:06impacts, but you know, we really need a

25:09type of rehab and recovery center. And

25:12that money, I think, could have been a

25:14great, you know, a great base for

25:16something bigger. And this is to me is

25:18another way that we're just taking a

25:20little bit more money again and putting

25:22another band-aid there and really not

25:25hitting the issue of recovery and rehab

25:28for those that are on our street. Yes,

25:30they are homeless, but we really need to

25:32get these people into recovery and

25:34rehabilitation. And I think that's what

25:36the opioid money was originally intended

25:38for. So again, we're taking another

25:40piece out of the pocket and and you know

25:43and we had a chance I think and we did

25:46the best we could at the time but now

25:47that I look back I you know hindsight's

25:49always really funny.

25:51>> Director I just add that another really

25:53important piece I think sometimes gets

25:55left out of the conversation is

25:56prevention.

25:58There's recovery, rehabilitation,

26:00treatment, but there's also prevention.

26:02And what we know in the research is that

26:04homelessness is both a result of and a

26:07risk factor for substance use disorder

26:09and home and and an opiate use disorder.

26:12So not only is this a possibility of

26:14getting somebody who is struggling right

26:16now with addiction going through a

26:18process or someone is intensively

26:20helping them through to get housing to

26:23remain stable in that for people who

26:25aren't struggling with addiction right

26:27now. This is also a prevention strategy.

26:29So I also want to be mindful that yes

26:32recovery rehabilitation is is absolutely

26:35important pillars. I also from a public

26:37health perspective we can't lose sight

26:39that prevention is really important to

26:41this equation as well.

26:44>> Awesome.

26:45>> Thank you. Um, I like this program and I

26:48just feel like we are missing a real

26:50opportunity if we say no to this and

26:53it's going to end up going to another

26:55community and you know we're still going

26:58to be paying as taxpayers. So like

27:00either way, you know, and so and also I

27:05want to say that like we're going into

27:07winter and we have the potential to

27:10house up to 45 people this winter. we

27:13don't have to wait for something to be

27:15built. And I will just throw out another

27:18potential um option for financing is

27:21that we've got three buckets of money we

27:23can be taking from. We can divide it up

27:26and we're not taking a huge dent in

27:28either bucket of money and that and then

27:31we could move this forward this year.

27:33Just a thought.

27:35>> Council Leonard,

27:36>> I just wanted to clarify. Are you

27:38suggesting um hope set funds unassigned

27:41fund balance and CDBG?

27:43>> Yeah, if we just split it between all

27:46three of them, that way we're not sort

27:47of wiping out any one bucket of money or

27:51I mean, you know, that that amount isn't

27:53going to have any real impact on

27:56property taxpayers.

28:00Sir,

28:02>> I still would like to what effect is it

28:04going to have on the warming shelters

28:06that we're going to have to become

28:08involved with? Are we preventing

28:11us giving money to warming shelters by

28:13having this program? I'm more concerned

28:16about the warming shelter than I am this

28:18program. And I think we've got to

28:20consider that because that's going to be

28:22facing us very soon.

28:25>> I'm going to call on myself. I think

28:27that's an [clears throat] important

28:28point. I will say that I believe and

28:32maybe other people heard this but

28:33together place reported that they had

28:35already secured funding for their

28:37warming shelter. No,

28:38>> no.

28:38>> I thought that that was part of the

28:40conversation with me.

28:42>> No, they have submitted an application

28:44along with the brick church, Bangor area

28:47homeless shelter and the mansion to main

28:49housing that was due a couple of weeks

28:51ago and they're waiting on what that

28:53funding. Okay. So, their funding that

28:55they had secured was to kind of open

28:56their doors um for their drop in space

28:58and some other programming.

29:00>> So, they were in that process. Great.

29:03>> Other questions?

29:06So, would that give us time to consider

29:10if we how soon are they going to get the

29:12word on who receives the

29:14>> I don't know. We're waiting patiently.

29:17>> I just don't want to see us get in a fix

29:20and have to cough up more money for a

29:23warming shelter. I might consider the

29:26program if we wait until we determine

29:29there are going to be sufficient warming

29:31shelters.

29:37Any other questions,

29:39comments?

29:41Councelor Flo,

29:42>> thank you. It doesn't seem like we

29:45really have a consensus here. I'm

29:47wondering if we shouldn't uh postpone

29:50this again.

29:54What information would you like me to

29:55provide to you that would help you with

29:58any further conversation?

30:02I don't think it's necessarily so much

30:04information. I think it's more so

30:06because again I think I think there is a

30:10majority consensus that we we

30:12[clears throat] like the program. Um I

30:14think really the uh vision strategy that

30:18we need to figure out is what are the uh

30:22matching funding resources going to come

30:24from at the end of the day. And there

30:26are differing opinions uh regarding like

30:29how people feel about certain funding

30:30sources. And so I I think what we really

30:34need to figure out is uh like like I do

30:39want this program

30:42and there's going to have to be it looks

30:44like some sort of compromise uh in

30:47regards to how we go forward with that.

30:49what what that effectively is. I don't

30:50know. Maybe it is eventually going to

30:53have to come down to like uh uh well,

30:58I'm not going to get ahead of myself,

31:00but that's really what it comes down to.

31:02It's not necessarilyformational on the

31:04program itself. It's more so what do we

31:07as counselors feel comfortable with in

31:09terms of uh uh finding the matching

31:13funding sources? And for for me, that's

31:16CDBG and non assigned fund balance. But

31:19again, that's just um

31:24>> All right.

31:25>> Yeah.

31:25>> Thank you for So, first, as councelor

31:28Flynn said, it's we're sort of at an

31:30impass here.

31:32No consensus. So, I don't know whoever

31:35has that order on the council this

31:37evening. I don't know, somebody may want

31:38to consider postponing that, adding some

31:42future discussion at a workshop

31:43somewhere so that we could further

31:46debate the the various pots of money.

31:49>> All right. Um, anything else on that

31:51before we move on

31:54of assistant city manager updates next?

31:58>> Yeah, I'll keep this brief. I just have

31:59a few. Um, the first is a quick plug for

32:02evaluations for clerk and assessor due

32:04by the end of the week. Um, and then I

32:07did meet with the Office of New

32:08Americans. You guys may have seen that

32:10they released a recent report um, on the

32:14economic impact of immigrants in the

32:16state. Um, and as part of that, they're

32:17actually meeting in different regions

32:19across the state to make sure that their

32:21work plan sort of aligns with the needs

32:23on the ground. And so they are coming to

32:26this area in Bangor specifically to meet

32:28with different stakeholder groups. So

32:30they intend to meet directly with uh,

32:32the immigrant community. Um they're um

32:35also hoping to have a business actually

32:38host um a business specific meeting and

32:41then there's going to be a broader

32:42meeting uh with various stakeholders

32:45which uh they have asked for

32:47recommendations of what those

32:48stakeholders should and could look like.

32:50So if you guys have ideas, please email

32:52them to me. Um and I am going I am

32:54taking this as well to the acre

32:56committee tomorrow night for their

32:57suggestions as well on folks they think

33:00may need to be invited to that. And then

33:02there is also opportunity for a

33:04municipalbased public meeting around

33:06this subject as well. Uh she said that

33:08looks different in different

33:10communities. Some decide to have um a

33:12very specific meeting in their city hall

33:14uh with their elected officials about

33:16it. Um others have elected to just

33:18participate in that broader uh

33:20stakeholder meeting. And so I guess I'm

33:22just looking to you all to kind of tell

33:24me uh what your desire might be um

33:27around conversations um related to that

33:30report and the office of new Americans

33:32and sort of the work plan that they're

33:33looking to do to support immigrants in

33:35in our area and across the state.

33:38>> Very great.

33:41>> Councelor Fish

33:43when I glanced at I didn't see dates. Do

33:45we have dates

33:47>> dates for when these meetings will

33:48occur? They're looking to do them this

33:50fall. Okay.

33:51>> And to be fair, I just met with them

33:53last week, so I wasn't sitting on it. I

33:54promise.

33:55>> I just didn't see the dates.

33:57>> Yeah. And so, we'll need to work through

33:58that. My first uh the first ask was just

34:01whether or not we wanted to have a

34:02municipal specific meeting or if you're

34:04okay participating in that broader um

34:07discussion and then you have like maybe

34:09a week to 10 days if you have

34:10suggestions on stakeholders and things

34:12that you'd like to make sure that they

34:14receive an invite for. Okay.

34:19with the acre meeting tomorrow. Can we

34:21ask their opinion?

34:23>> Oh, that's my intent.

34:24>> Yeah. So, yeah, when you bring that up

34:25to them, I guess you could see what they

34:26think about municipality, you know,

34:28having one of their own.

34:30>> Oh, yeah. I mean, the the state the

34:32broader stakeholder one would actually

34:34be a good one for like a representative

34:35from that committee to attend is my

34:37understanding. the municipal specific

34:39one really is like to to get the

34:41perspective of elected officials and

34:43city staff and whatnot specific to

34:45municipalities and what we're seeing and

34:47managing any challenges things that

34:49we're seeing. Um and again different

34:51communities have decided that that

34:53they're okay participating in that

34:54broader one and others want to have that

34:56specific meeting. It's really up to you

34:59guys. Um they needed relatively soon. So

35:02I guess um um I can if you guys don't

35:06have strong feelings um I can air on the

35:09side of caution but then come

35:13>> I mean as long as it doesn't uh um

35:16interfere or burden staff schedule. Uh

35:20but that's really my only concern. Other

35:22than that it it sounds like a good u

35:25usage of time. But again like as long as

35:28it uh you know doesn't give you guys any

35:34fish

35:35>> um I think it would be interesting to

35:38have you know the city staff or you know

35:40councils or whatever to be able to also

35:42participate with the stakeholders. It'd

35:44be interesting to see what they have to

35:45say and maybe um things we could add

35:48might help um the stakeholders as well

35:51understand something or see something

35:52from a different perspective. So, it

35:54might be good we have that jointly is my

35:57thoughts.

35:59>> I know that I'm okay with that. Um, I

36:02just want to make sure if you guys were

36:03really wanted to have that meeting, um,

36:06you know, in a in a room like this in a

36:08public meeting session, we could do

36:09that. But, um, I definitely agree. I

36:11think there's value to staff hearing

36:13what other stakeholders have to say, um,

36:15and hearing that feedback as well and

36:17also participating in that. So, is that

36:20ever okay with everyone?

36:23All right, I'm going to take that as

36:24consensus. And then just uh one other uh

36:27quick or well one very quick thing. Um

36:30I've gotten some inquiries on the

36:31homelessness crisis policy. I just want

36:33to make sure you all knew that that was

36:35actually scheduled to come before gov

36:37ops on October 5th. Um and so we'll make

36:39sure you guys get lots of information in

36:41time for that meeting. And then I just

36:43real quick um you guys may remember um

36:46the plan was originally or always to

36:49actually create a a historic timeline on

36:51that back wall here in Chambers around

36:53Bangor's history. And so I've been

36:55working with the Bangor Historical

36:56Society pretty closely and we're we're

37:00getting close to kind of um um

37:02finalizing the design. So, it will have

37:05information, photos, and artifacts as

37:08well, as well as QR codes that will

37:09actually lead to more information online

37:11in case they're curious because can't

37:13everything on the wall that we would

37:14like to. Um, and we are working with a

37:16number of different groups including

37:18Ponovskot Nation, the Bangor Chinese

37:19School, um the the library and others to

37:22to try to make it as robust as possible.

37:25Um, and also keep in mind that um,

37:28especially like the end will be like

37:29kind of more current day and so we'd

37:31like to be able to swap out photos and

37:32keep it fresh and people interested in

37:34in what that looks like. So I will send

37:36along those plans once we um, get closer

37:39to finalizing them. That is another

37:41thing I've asked to take a look at to

37:42make sure we're not missing anything

37:44big. Um, but certainly when I send the

37:45design plan along um, if you know you

37:48have a big red flag, you just let me

37:49know and and we'll figure out um, how to

37:51incorporate that. So that's it. That's

37:53all I have. All right. Any questions or

37:56comments about that? Councelor Beck,

37:58>> just a comment of just Yeah, I know you

38:00put a lot of work into that and we're

38:02all excited to see it. So, thank you for

38:04all your efforts on that.

38:05>> Yeah, that'll be good.

38:08>> Anything else?

38:10If not, I'm looking for a motion.

38:18I move that we go into executive session

38:21MRSA 4056E

38:24consultation with legal council

38:25concerning Bangor

38:26>> law

38:30second. Is there any doubt?

38:33>> Roll call vote.

38:35>> You want a roll call vote?

38:36>> We'll for executive session have to.

38:38>> All right. Councelor Beck.

38:39>> Yes.

38:39>> Councelor Fish.

38:40>> Yes.

38:41>> Counselor Mer.

38:41>> Yes.

38:42>> Councelor Leonard. Yes. Councelor Dean.

38:43>> Yes.

38:44>> Councelor Walker.

38:45>> Yes.

38:45>> Counselor Fu? Yes. And I will be a yes

38:47executive session.

55:36Yeah,

1:00:48We are we are live

1:00:52still.

1:00:58>> Right. We've just come back from

1:01:00executive session. Anybody have any more

1:01:03business for the council workshop?

1:01:07Seeing nothing with that it is 6:45 p.m.

1:01:10and we are adjourned.