Disclaimer: The views I express here are my own and should NOT be construed as speaking for the City of Bangor or the City Council of Bangor.
Finance Committee
Click here for the meeting agenda.
Item: Executive Session: 1 M.R.S.A. § 405(6)(A) – Personnel Matter
Timestamp: 00:01:23
Outcome: Approved unanimously to enter Executive Session.
Item: Cumberland Street Sewer Separation – Engineering – Lou Silver, Inc. – $2,803,618 (local share $1,309,432.25)
Timestamp: 00:22:32
Outcome: Approved unanimously
Item: Towable Air Start Unit – Airport – TLD America – $305,280
Timestamp: 00:28:20
Outcome: Approved unanimously
Item: Waive Bid Process – ADA Sidewalk Self-Evaluation – ADA Committee – $100,000
Timestamp: 00:29:48
Outcome: Approved unanimously
Item: Assessor Update on 2026 Revaluation
Timestamp: 00:43:52
Outcome: No vote taken (Informational update)
Preliminary values for residential properties (single-family, multi-residence, vacant land, and mobile homes) are complete. These properties represent approximately 8,500 accounts and successfully meet the metric of being at roughly 97% of market value with an accuracy quality rating (COD) between 5 and 10. The assessor’s team will conduct field reviews to ensure data entry consistency before the upcoming June 10th budget meeting.
Commercial Properties: Work on commercial, industrial, and special-use properties is significantly delayed and will not meet the early June deadlines. These make up roughly 2,500 properties but account for about 50% of the city’s assessed value. This delay also impacts the finalization of downtown omnibus TIF district and Bangor Center Development District values.
Timeline Adjustments: Due to the commercial assessment delays, the original timeline will need to be extended. The final project completion date will likely stretch at least two weeks past the original July 24th deadline into mid-August. The mailing of impact notices to property owners, initially scheduled for June 22nd, will be pushed to the first week of July at the earliest.
Tax Rate Clarification: The assessor clarified for the public that if overall property values come in higher, the city does not automatically collect more money. Instead, the mill rate will decrease proportionately based on the approved city budget. The ultimate goal of the revaluation is precision, tax equity, and bringing assessed values close to current market values.
Business & Economic Development
Click here to read the meeting agenda.
Voting Members Present
- Councilor Leonard (Chair)
- Councilor Beck (Appointed by Chair under §9-8(B))
- Councilor Fish
- Councilor Faloon
- Councilor Mallar
Item: Proposed Code Amendments A. Historic Preservation Process
- Timestamp: 00:02:02
- Outcome: Approved 3-2, Councilors Fish and Mallar opposed.
- Staff presented amendments aimed at resolving problematic ordinance issues, including adding a definition for “character-defining features,” maintaining commercial communication devices as needing a certificate of appropriateness, and making the delay of demolition optional.
- Staff argued that the updated language regarding replacement materials—specifying they should match when “technically and economically feasible”—actually provides more flexibility than the original requirement and adheres to Secretary of Interior guidelines necessary for maintaining Certified Local Government status.
- A local general contractor and property owner, Rick Violet, spoke during public comment, arguing the changes fail to provide clarity for historic property owners and make the process more subjective. He noted the difficulty in defining “economically feasible” and “character-defining features” without forcing owners into a hardship application process.
- Councilor Fish expressed a desire to table the item to allow more time to digest the materials and compare the amendments against prior stakeholder suggestions.
- Chair Leonard pushed to advance the amendments immediately to solve pressing bureaucratic issues—such as the committee struggling to meet the four-member quorum required to approve certificates—while acknowledging that further refinements could be handled in a future round of updates.
Item: Presentation of Solar Feasibility Report
- Timestamp: 00:30:16
- Outcome: No vote taken.
Item: Possible Acceptance of Open Space in a Subdivision known as Roseledge
- Timestamp: 00:53:11
- Outcome: Approved unanimously.
Item: Downtown Bangor Partnership – Annual Report and Budget Discussion
- Timestamp: 00:57:29
- Outcome: Approved unanimously.
Item: Discussion of Possible Moratorium on Certain Uses: Needle Exchange and Chemical Dependency Clinics
- Timestamp: 01:16:12
- Outcome: Failed 2-3, Councilors Leonard, Faloon, and Beck opposed.
- Councilor Fish proposed a 180-day moratorium on new syringe exchange programs and methadone clinics to halt expansion while the city reviews policies, demands more transparency from nonprofits, and pressures the state and neighboring municipalities to share the burden of providing these services. She cited severe public concerns regarding discarded needles in public spaces.
- Councilor Faloon presented research indicating that syringe service programs (SSPs) reduce disease transmission without increasing neighborhood crime. They also recalled a 2016 instance where Bangor faced a federal lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act for discriminating against a methadone clinic, warning against repeating that mistake.
- The Director of Public Health and Mr. Hurley from Needlepoint Sanctuary emphasized that SSPs are critical tools during an HIV outbreak. They clarified that state certification for SSPs is already a rigorous process without economic incentives, meaning an influx of new, out-of-town providers is highly unlikely.
- Chair Leonard and Councilor Beck strongly opposed the moratorium, citing significant legal risks (specifically ADA violations) and ethical concerns with restricting public health access. While both acknowledged the needle waste issue, they favored addressing it through broader legislative committee discussions or targeted workshops rather than a blanket moratorium.
Item: Executive Session: Acquisition of real property or economic development 1 M.R.S.A. § 405(6)(C) 1 item
- Timestamp: 02:02:37
- Outcome: Approved unanimously to enter Executive Session.
Item: Possible Actions on Executive Session Items
- Timestamp: 02:15:52
- Motion: “Accept staff recommendation and move to full Council for the restructure of a community development loan”
- Outcome: Approved unanimously.
Government Operations
Click here for the meeting agenda.
Item: Public Bathrooms Discussion — 00:00:58
Outcome: No vote taken; general consensus to request staff scenarios and cost options.
- Staff (Parks & Rec Director and City Manager) reported that of the four deployed public restrooms, two (at Broad Street/Abbot Square and Harlow Street Square) account for the bulk of problems, while the units at Cascade Park and Cole Park have functioned well. CityClickFix logged 9 complaints (uncleanliness, illicit use, occupancy issues); police responded to 29 calls since January (~6/month), concentrated at the two problem locations, though the chief noted those calls are logged to nearby street addresses since the units themselves don’t have discrete addresses, so some calls may not be bathroom-specific.
- No usage data exists (no attendant or counter), so the committee has no way to measure how many legitimate users versus problem incidents occur at each unit.
- Two additional units remain in storage (never deployed); staff previously floated Essex Woods or the City Forest as possible locations.
- Discussion ranged widely: one councilor raised whether a future sanctioned homeless encampment would need attached restrooms with running water (staff noted the Public Health Director’s views running water as a health/safety necessity for any encampment); another suggested consolidating to fewer, better-maintained units or exploring mobile bathroom trailers (which would require permanent water/sewer/electrical hookups); another worried that removing units from downtown would push unhoused users into neighborhood parks near children.
- A councilor also connected the issue to the upcoming Committee on Homelessness mission change (Item 5), suggesting the restroom problem be referred to that committee for input.
- Consensus: staff will bring back a follow-up memo (expected June 8–10) with specific scenarios (e.g., removing units, maintaining status quo, increasing cleaning frequency, redeploying the two stored units), associated costs, and — per one councilor’s request — the anticipated strategic outcome/tradeoffs of each option, not just dollar figures.
Item: Council Referral — HUD Rental Assistance Grant ($685,221) — 00:23:45
Outcome: Approved unanimously (5-0).
- This is one year of HUD funding supporting the Bangor Rental Assistance Program, retroactive to April 1. It’s a ratification (after the fact) because the contract was delayed and then had to be processed quickly once received — staff confirmed they’d only had the signed contract in hand a couple of weeks despite the April 1 start date.
- Notably, the renewed contract came in at a higher funding level than before. Staff noted a separate resolve for additional HUD funding (received in August) will come to committee soon, and a new HUD Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) expected in June will clarify HUD’s future direction for the program.
Item: Council Referral — Maine Cancer Foundation Alcohol Reset Grant ($41,328) — 00:26:13
Outcome: Approved unanimously (5-0).
- Funds cover materials, incentives, and website/program costs (not staffing, which is already covered under existing work plans) for a month-long “30-Day Alcohol Reset Challenge,” modeled on a “Movember”-style program that Public Health piloted internally in October.
- The program will be offered to worksites across Penobscot and Piscataquis counties, with employers registering through the health promotion team.
Item: Community Learning & Listening Sessions on Homelessness — 00:28:18
Outcome: No vote taken; general consensus to proceed.
- Proposed learning and listening sessions aimed at addressing public frustration by pairing a “learning” segment (a ~30-minute plain-language overview of how coordinated entry, vouchers, and homelessness services actually work) with a “listening” segment — a facilitated structured input session (referencing frameworks like SWOT or SOAR) rather than an open-mic format, since public comment at council meetings doesn’t allow back-and-forth dialogue.
- Plan: one in-person evening session in June, one virtual session in July, open to the general public, facilitated by Public Health staff (not the Homelessness Advisory Committee itself, though committee members are welcome to attend/help). Input gathered would feed both the advisory committee and council.
- Councilors were broadly supportive but raised several cautions: concern that the sessions could be “hijacked” by vocal actors at the expense of the volunteer committee’s limited time; concern about whether there’d be enough time to accommodate turnout; and a notable concern from one councilor that framing the session as “education” risks people feeling talked at rather than heard, given how frustrated/angry many downtown residents and business owners currently are.
Item: Ordinance Amending Code — Committee on Homelessness Mission — 00:37:16
Outcome: Approved unanimously (5-0), referred to full Council.
- Formalizes what had been discussed informally: expands the committee’s mission to include developing a stabilization plan for immediate/short-term issues, plus a standing catch-all clause allowing Council to refer any issue to the committee for immediate attention without needing further ordinance amendments each time.
Item: Ordinance Amending Code — City Manager Grant Application Authority — 00:38:53
Outcome: Approved unanimously (5-0), referred to full Council.
- Stemming from efficiency recommendations, this lets department heads apply for grants without prior Council approval — Council approval would still be required at the acceptance/appropriation stage, preserving oversight where funds are actually accepted.
- Rationale: grant application windows are often too tight for the current process, and staff report they already self-filter to only bring forward grants likely to have Council support. The acting city manager confirmed she was unaware of any instance in her ~11 months where Council had declined to let a department apply for a grant; other department heads present indicated the same. One councilor noted the real oversight concern is whether an accepted grant creates new ongoing programs/obligations (as with some ARPA-funded initiatives) — which remains addressed at the acceptance stage.
