Lewiston City Council Workshop and Regular Meeting - September 1, 2026
Lewiston City Council Workshop and Regular Meeting - September 1, 2026
A workshop on proposed amendments to the city's ethics policy was held, followed by a regular council meeting covering a cell tower easement sale, airport master plan support, a collective bargaining agreement, a homeland security grant, an update on the solid waste ordinance, and a housing authority report. Public comment included concerns about mass shooting funds, transparency, business climate, and neighborhood issues.
Ethics Policy Workshop
- Councilor Longchamps proposed expanding the ethics policy to cover appointed board and committee members, mirroring a recent Bangor ordinance. The draft added new sections (16-23) on standards of conduct, complaint referral, and council accountability.
- Councilor Martell and Councilor Chitam raised concerns about vague, subjective language (e.g., "professionalism, courtesy, dignity") and the creation of a Board of Ethics, arguing it adds bureaucracy and that the council already has authority to handle complaints. Councilor Martell also noted the definition of "city employee" could conflate elected officials with staff.
- Councilor Harriman suggested removing a paragraph requiring officials to leave the chamber during conflict-of-interest discussions (section 16, second paragraph), which received consensus. Also flagged that the policy applies to school committee members, which may be a charter issue.
- Councilor Nagyen supported an expanded policy but questioned the definition of city employee vs. elected official. Councilor Longchamps agreed to remove school committee references.
- Administrator Kenrath noted the draft had been reviewed by the city attorney. The council agreed to refer several questions to legal counsel, including the school committee applicability, definitions, and the proposed Board of Ethics.
Consent Calendar
- Approved 7-0: Adoption of November meeting schedule, disposition of 12 Fair Street, and order calling for a public hearing on charter amendments.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Amy Sussman (Bar Harbor): Criticized the city for failing to hold nonprofits accountable for mass shooting funds, specifically mentioning the mill museum and a $65,000 grant. Accused the mayor of a conflict of interest as a board member of that mill.
- Amy Smith (Ward 1, Healthy Neighborhoods): Reported removal of over 102 tons of bulky waste since 2019. Announced a new program to recycle old trash carts at a September 11 event.
- Joe Philippon (Ward 1): Described an Art Walk incident where a city employee denied use of plaza outlets, urging a culture of "how can we make this work" rather than "no."
- Ronnie Perity (Ward 6): Called for a public school for recovering teenage substance users (citing a Fort Kent model) and highlighted loneliness as a public health issue.
- Matthew Egrand (Ward 4): Criticized short notice for a special meeting on the moratorium extension, warned of business unfriendly price controls, and urged transparency.
- Andrew Jones (Ward 2): Apologized for an unprofessional gesture at a prior meeting, criticized transparency and the housing committee process, and called for the city attorney's advice on privilege to be made public.
- Lisa Jones (Ward 2): Questioned distribution of mass shooting funds to nonprofits, including Lewiston Housing and Craig Saddlemeyer, and noted two housing committee resignations.
- Jay Rodrick (Ward 6): Spoke against rent control, arguing landlords are fair and that the city drives away businesses. Said taxes are wasted.
Discussion Items
- Item 4 – Cell Tower Easement (532 East Avenue): Deputy Administrator O'Malley presented an agreement with Tower Point IX LLC to take over Verizon's lease, offering $450,000 upfront. The city currently receives ~$3,000/month from T-Mobile and Verizon; after the sale, the city would keep $899.52/month from T-Mobile/USL until that lease ends, and Tower Point would handle Verizon. Councilor Chitam questioned the 99-year term and loss of future revenue. Passed 5-2 (Wards 4,7 opposed).
- Item 5 – Airport Master Plan Support: Director Labonte explained the order commits no new funds but asks the administrator to develop a multi-year funding plan by November 30. Councilor Chitam and Councilor Nagyen expressed concern about long-term financial commitment and potential exit strategy. Passed 5-2 (Wards 4,7 opposed).
- Item 6 – Collective Bargaining Agreement (MSEA): Deputy Administrator O'Malley outlined a 3-year contract (July 2026 – June 2029) with a $2/hour across-the-board raise (retroactive to July 1) and 3% COLAs in years two and three. First-year cost ~$300,000. Passed 7-0.
- Item 7 – Homeland Security Grant ($190,000): Chief Karen reported $140,000 for regional hazmat team and $50,000 for police surveillance equipment (mobile trailer and ExactVision licensing). Passed 7-0.
- Item 8 – Solid Waste Ordinance Update: Directors Gagnier and Connor discussed the transition to cart-to-curb, an ongoing audit of eligible units, and plans to update the ordinance to maximize residential collection, define mixed-use eligibility, and consider market competition. Councilors Nagyen and Harriman raised issues of taxpayer subsidization, encouraging competition, and composting. No vote; further updates expected.
- Item 9 – Lewiston Housing Authority Update: Director Kilmurry reported on the Bates Building (leasing Oct 2026), Park Street (Dec 2026), Martel 1-3 (senior housing), Soleil 1-2 (family housing), a direct rental assistance program (60 participants/year), an older adult home modification program, and demolition of Lafayette Terrace and Maple Knoll. Councilor Longchamps asked about security at Wedgewood; Councilor Nagyen clarified the direct assistance program details.
Key Outcomes
- Ethics Policy: Consensus to remove the second paragraph of section 16 (mandatory removal from chamber). Referred to city attorney: definitions of city employee/elected official, applicability to school committee, creation of a Board of Ethics (4-3 thumbs up for direction, but no formal vote), and removal term for committee members (consensus to limit to remainder of council term).
- Item 4 (Cell Tower): Approved 5-2. Wards 4 and 7 opposed.
- Item 5 (Airport): Approved 5-2. Wards 4 and 7 opposed.
- Item 6 (MSEA Contract): Approved 7-0.
- Item 7 (Homeland Security Grant): Approved 7-0.
- Executive Session (Item 13): Motion to enter executive session failed 4-3 (needed 5 votes). Wards 4,7,2 voted no. Councilor Martell argued against excessive use of closed sessions.
- Adjournment: Approved 7-0.
Meeting Transcript
Hello and welcome to our uh there we go. Hello and welcome to our Tuesday evening workshop. We're here to uh discuss uh the ethics policy and uh yeah that's what we'll be doing. Uh questions, comments from counselors uh counselor long champs, did you have something? Or uh administrator Kenrath, did you have something? Well I was gonna ask Mr. Mayor. I don't know if you wanted me to start us off with just sort of a summary um of what's before the council and the request from Councilor Longchamps, if that's helpful or not. Uh yeah, sure. Take it away. Okay, so uh Councilor Longshamps did request to us to take a look at the city's current ethics policy. Um she was really interested in modeling some new language after the recently enacted ordinance in Bangor. Um just in our research, there are a number of main communities, particularly the larger cities that do have um an ethics uh policy ordinance and um an ethics committee or board that reviews ethics complaints, uh including uh cities including Bangor, Portland, uh Brewer, Auburn, Waterville, uh, and a number of others. Uh and so there are a number of examples out there to look at, but this um uh draft before us is largely mirrored after the recent uh Bangor ordinance that they enacted uh a couple of months ago. So with the policy uh in front of you, uh sections one to fifteen are really what's in existence now uh for the city that's unchanged. Um sections 16 through 21 are new and really address standards of conduct. Um sections 22 and 23 really get into referral uh and review of complaints, and then finally uh sections um 23.7 and 20 through 23.9 really deal with the council resolution and accountability piece. And so um this proposal, it was um council long champs said a few particular points of interest. Um, but this really does leave a lot of discretion still in the council's uh purview. For example, the ethics complaint when it's filed, it doesn't go right to the ethics committee, it goes to the council, and the council can decide if they would like to refute um refer that complaint to the ethics committee. Once the ethics committee um takes it up, they have 90 days to uh basically adjudicate the complaint and they provide back an advisory uh opinion and is advisory back to the council. Um and then we have 30 days to put it on a council agenda for the council to take it up and decide what they would like to do with that. So really there's two major points of council action in there, whether to even refer it to the ethics committee as a council decision, and then once the advisory opinion comes back from the board, the ethics committee board, the council can then decide whether to take the recommendation, uh pursue a totally different course of action or dismiss it. So um it really leaves a lot of purview still um with the council. Some other areas I've heard some uh just comments about the in this draft the ethics uh board is uh appointed by the city council. Uh there could be other ways, as you know, for appointing uh a border committee. We have a couple of different uh examples there. Um so that's uh I think in a nutshell where uh it lies, you know, Councilor Longchamps can speak to more of of her goals, but our task was to um really take our existing ethics policy, which again is really sections one through 15, and then add on to it um really um actions and language that mirrored the recent uh Bangor ordinance uh put into effect. Thank you. Uh administrator Ken Rath. Counselor Longchamps, did you want to uh go second here? Yes, uh thank you, Mayor. Um exactly as our city administrator has shared. Um I wanted to mirror as much as we could um the Bangor ordinance that they have for their ethics policy. Um really tonight is just to get feedback from other counselors. Um I've already reviewed this. I like the way it's written. Um thank you to our city administrator for doing a great job. Um but it's really just to hear what the council uh likes or dislikes. Thank you. Questions, comments from counselors. Uh counselor Chitam, yes. Thank you, uh Mr. Mayor. Um I yeah, I guess I'd like to have an idea on why this is coming before the council, why policy changes are recommended or are being contemplated. I've got a number of questions, but that's the first and foremost one. Would anyone like to speak to that? Uh Counselor Longchamps, yes. I just want to make sure I'm not answering something that is your question, why did this come about? Is that your question?
openpublica.com