Lewiston City Council Meeting Summary – July 7, 2026
Lewiston City Council Meeting – July 7, 2026
The Lewiston City Council held a workshop followed by a regular meeting on July 7, 2026. The workshop focused on the city's rental registration program, exploring expansion and data collection. The regular meeting included public comments on public safety and the syringe service petition, a consent agenda, several public hearings and ordinance passages, a vote to postpone a major development letter of intent, and a discussion on event permits for social service programming. The meeting concluded with council debate over funding an economic development director position.
Workshop: Rental Registration Program Expansion
- City Clerk reported that the current rental registration (for buildings with 3+ units) has a 95% participation rate (approx. 1,000 buildings, 6,500 units). No fee is charged. The program was established in 2019 after an ad hoc committee recommendation.
- Director Connor (Code Enforcement) noted the department is primarily complaint-driven due to staffing constraints. Expanding to duplexes and single-family rentals would require significant additional administrative and code enforcement capacity.
- Council members expressed support for expanding the program to include duplexes (and some for single-family), with a potential fee structure to fund proactive code enforcement. A sliding-scale fee (e.g., Sanford charges $300 for 3+ units, Orono $25/unit) was discussed.
- Councilor Najine advocated for expanding data collection to better understand housing inventory, including group homes and short-term rentals. Councilor Harriman favored expansion with fees. Councilor Roy supported diminishing fees for compliance. Councilor Chittam suggested staff investigate including duplexes and making existing data publicly accessible.
- The council informally agreed to ask staff to research the costs and feasibility of expanding the registry to duplexes and improving data accessibility, with further discussion to follow.
Consent Calendar
- Approved items included: traffic schedule amendments (trash collection parking restrictions, removal of two Bate Street spots), quick claim deed for 38 Larrabee Rd, dispositions of 71 Brigham St, 1 Carver St, and 9 Carris Ave, appointments to the Lewiston-Auburn Transit Committee, and acceptance of forfeiture funds. All passed 7-0.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Several residents expressed frustration with gun violence and called for outside help (federal law enforcement or National Guard). Others strongly opposed that idea, warning of militarization and racial profiling. Speakers emphasized investing in youth, improving schools, and addressing root causes.
- Multiple commenters supported the citizen petition to amend the syringe service program (moving to 1-to-1 exchange). They urged the council to either adopt it or send it to referendum. Council President Chittam noted that adoption on first reading was not an option that night.
- For the Echo Hospitality LOI (Red Shop/hotel expansion), several residents, including the chair of the Planning Board and the tenant of the Red Shop (Lewiston Rowing), opposed the sale. They cited lack of transparency, missing exhibits, and concerns that the city was undervaluing a unique public asset. They advocated for a long-term ground lease instead of sale.
Discussion Items
- Syringe Service Petition (Item 9): The council accepted the clerk's report verifying over 900 signatures (7-0). By a 7-0 vote, they referred the ordinance amendment to the November ballot rather than proceeding with a council reading. Councilor Chittam noted he signed the petition but would vote against it.
- Water Rate Increase (Item 10): Public hearing held; no public comment. The council approved amendments to Policy Manual No. 69, raising water rates to avoid a deficit. The increase is expected to take effect in August after PUC review. Vote 7-0.
- Outdoor Entertainment Permits (Items 11-14): Permits approved for LA Balloon Festival (Aug. 14-23, not July as originally written), Fiddlers Rendezvous (Aug. 9), Arise Lewiston (July 18), and Outreach in the Park (July 25 & Aug. 22). All passed 7-0. Council noted bathroom facilities at Kennedy Park are now operational.
- Rental Registration Ordinance (Items 16-17): First passage of a new ordinance (Chapter 23) to create a residential rental properties ordinance, and removal of rental registration language from the buildings ordinance. Both passed 7-0. Public hearing continued to next meeting.
- Outdoor Entertainment Permit Process (Item 18): First passage to eliminate the requirement for a public hearing for outdoor entertainment permits, authorizing staff to issue them. Passed 7-0.
- Business Licensing Ordinance (Item 19): First passage to remove the list of city parks from the business licensing ordinance. Passed 7-0.
- No Name Pond Conservation Overlay (Item 20): First passage to require soil disturbance within buffers to follow DEP requirements. Passed 7-0. Planning Board chair noted additional language may be brought forward later.
- Martell School Apartments Phase 3 TIF (Item 21): Order authorizing a credit enhancement agreement for 44 senior housing units. The project requires a TIF to close a $754,000 gap. Passed 7-0. Councilor Agrin expressed concern about delays on earlier phases.
- Letter of Intent with Echo Hospitality Consultants (Item 22): Extensive discussion. Councilor concerns included missing exhibits, overly developer-friendly terms (e.g., control of park, permanent infrastructure at developer's discretion), lack of transparency, and the need for community input. Councilor Longchamp and Councilor Harriman raised specific issues. The council voted 4-3 (Wards 1,2,5 opposed; Wards 6,7,3,4 in favor) to postpone the LOI until staff can address concerns and hold a community conversation. The mayor (Council President Chittam) asked for an executive session with the Planning Board on the Red Shop disposition before the July 21 meeting.
- Event Permits for Social Service Programming (Item 23): Councilor Najine proposed requiring permits for groups of 25+ offering financial, medical, food, clothing, or harm reduction services in parks and public spaces. Staff will review the special events policy to incorporate accountability for cleanup and scheduling. No formal action taken.
Key Outcomes
- Votes (all 7-0 unless noted):
- Consent agenda approved (8 items)
- Syringe service petition accepted and referred to November ballot (7-0)
- Water rate increase approved (7-0)
- Four outdoor entertainment permits approved (7-0 each)
- First passage of ordinances: rental registration (new and removal), outdoor permit process, business licensing parks list, No Name Pond overlay (all 7-0)
- Martell Phase 3 TIF credit enhancement agreement approved (7-0)
- Postponed: The Letter of Intent with Echo Hospitality Consultants was tabled (4-3) until staff addresses concerns (missing exhibits, park infrastructure terms, community input). A community conversation will be scheduled, and the Planning Board will have an executive session on the Red Shop disposition before the July 21 council meeting.
- Directive to Staff: Review the special events policy to include permitting for social service activities in parks, with potential fees for cleanup.
- Policy Reaffirmation: Council President Chittam agreed to stop pursuing additional funding for an economic development director position after council members Noble, Martell, and Longchamp criticized the effort as undermining a previous council vote.
Meeting Transcript
Council President. Um, right now, but if there was several communities that run rental registration programs also attach uh a fee uh to the rental registration in order to help fund code enforcement to be more proactive so that people are actually living in we know that there's a challenge with affordable housing, obviously. There's also a challenge with safe housing. Uh and that's that's clear in our community. And so, like, how do we look at the ways we're collecting data in order to decide in the future whether or not we are going to um take proactive steps as opposed to being reactive in the city. I would also say too that all of the land banking models that currently operate in the state run on uh a rental registry. Um, so land banking is a model in which we encourage development uh on underutilized properties and address uh blight in our community. Um, it's also um for instance, right now we have no idea how many vacant properties we have in the community, and we also don't know what we can do in order to encourage people. I think about models where, for instance, we get a lead grant, right? Um, and we don't necessarily know how many homes out there that are being rented that need a lead lead of bait, and it's a it's a it's a process in which people come to us. And so these are data points that we can collect. Um if we ever decided to say, hey, we have a grant out there that we want to apply to a particular type of housing or in order to encourage a particular type of type type of housing. If we don't have that database to work from, um we just don't know what's uh who we're reaching out to, right? Like targeted to targeted action in order to both incentivize an investment and then again uh to address both blight um and uh and uh unsafe living conditions. Uh I think those are those are points in this. Currently, our system does not permit us to collect uh the types of information that that I'm suggesting that we would get. Um, and so um I don't know if uh possibly we could have uh um both. I'm gonna ask for for you for you to give some feedback and then I'll uh also uh director Connor. Sure. So um and I'll apologize to Councilor Najene. He reached out at the end of May and asked if we could sit down and meet, and I said no, because we had the election coming up, and then we just we had a situation in my office that you're aware of. So I said I just don't have the time now, so I do apologize, Councilor Natine. I wasn't able to sit down with you ahead of time to answer your questions. On the rental registration application, we do ask questions about lead abatement. So we do have that data and that information. Just to back up and give you a little bit of background. In 2017, the city had an ad hoc committee to review the possible establishment of a rental registration program and other housing issues in the city. One of their recommendations was to establish a rental registration program. What they recommended in the report and what the city council at the time adopted in an ordinance is not the same. It's sort of a uh a watered down version, if you will, of what the ad hoc committee had recommended, but we did create one of the first rental registration programs in the state for long-term rentals, not short-term rentals for Airbnbs, but long-term year-round rentals. So that ordinance was established in 2019, and as part of our questions, we do ask questions such as sprinkler system led abatement, but the purpose of it was to capture information because it was created as a result of all the fires that were happening downtown several years prior to that, when the city realized several apartment buildings are owned by out of state landlords. We don't have a local contact for a local property manager, and a lot of the buildings were owned by an LLC, which was owned by another LLC, which was owned by another LLC, some of them five deep, so we really had to drill down to find out who the owner was. So that was another one of the reasons really a public safety matter for the fire department and others to know who actually owns the building and who a local contact is. You know, to be able to enforce um the paperwork filing. So we have a pretty good rate. I would say over 95% participation rate, which is really um really good for this program, but we did a while ago check around to uh various towns and several other communities do it the same way we do, no fee, um, and just basically information gathering, but then others, like you said, counselor and agene do charge a fee. For example, Sanford, it's on a sliding scale, but it's like $300 for every three unit and up properties. Orno charges $25 per unit. So they're kind of all over the place. Um, a lot of the towns that just do it for information gathering only, it's actually administered by their fire department because the fire department needs this contact information to be able to go in and do safety inspections, so they want the landlord contact information. Um but so some of those data points you said we we are collecting, but it is for three units and over. So I know that you had said, is it possible to add uh single family homes? I don't know how we would determine what single family homes are for rent within the city unless we're constantly scouring the classifieds and online. I don't know how we would determine that information. We can certainly get information from the assessing department regarding how many duplexes we have in the city because those are not included yet because it's three or more. Um I know you brought up some other categories as well. The ordinance specifically excludes dormitories and nursing homes, and I can't remember sort of the other categories. It's really just your traditional apartment building that would be participating in this program. Okay, that makes sense. Out of curiosity, how accessible is that information to like let's say the public, for instance, if they wanted to determine anyone can submit a FOA request and we would provide that information to them.
openpublica.com