LEWISTON- After another intense, four-hour meeting, the City Council found itself in familiar territory Tuesday night.
Earlier this year, Councilors asked staff to draft an ordinance to regulate syringe service programs (SSP’s) in Lewiston. Tensions have run high during discussions, with sticking points being a 1-for-1 limit on needle exchanges, how many licenses would be allowed, where SSP’s would be allowed to operate in the city, and whether the city should institute a six-month moratorium to halt any new SSP’s from starting up.
Currently, Spurwink operates the only SSP in Lewiston. Another SSP, the Church of Safe Injection (COSI), was shut down by the city earlier this summer due to code violations. The state has also revoked COSI’s license to practice.
Issues with COSI were a motivating factor in pursuing this ordinance, on top of needle waste in general around the city, and how businesses are being affected.
At a previous meeting on September 16th, the Council spent hours discussing the 1-for-1 needle exchange policy. It ultimately voted 4-3 to remove the 1-for-1 limit from the ordinance. The Council then briefly discussed where SSP’s would be allowed to operate before postponing the ordinance discussion until their next meeting, which was Tuesday.
The Council began the discussion Tuesday with the topic of licensing. Particularly, whether the city would set a limit of licenses issued, and if so, what that limit would be.
Ward One Councilor Joshua Nagine expressed concerns about potential bad actors setting up shop in Lewiston, like what happened with COSI. He emphasized the need for strong communication and cooperation between the city and any SSP that operates here.
“Hoping an organization that comes in here to offer these things, doesn’t mean that we’re going to get that,” Nagine said.
Nagine also stated that he would support a six-month moratorium on issuing a second license. This would allow the city to issue a license to Spurwink, but not approve any other applicants until the moratorium ended.
The city should focus solely on its partnership with its one current SSP “until there is a demonstrable need for a second SSP service,” he said.
Ward Four Councilor Michael Roy said that he largely agreed with Nagine, except that he would prefer a limit of two or three SSP’s as opposed to only one. Roy was concerned that if funding was cut for the one allowable SSP in the city, then services would cease with no other options.
Ward Seven Councilor Tim Gallant questioned the need for a limit altogether, pointing out that if future funding becomes available, then hospitals would not be able to create their own syringe programs despite being solid community partners.
The Council has the ability to alter the ordinance at any time, but Gallant was worried that the ordinance would be a deterrent for anyone thinking about creating a new program in Lewiston.
Ward Three Councilor Scott Harriman said that he felt similar to Roy, also expressing concern about what would happen if Spurwink lost funding.
Ward Five Councilor Eryn Soule-Leclair stated that she did not want the Council to craft the ordinance as a “Spurwink ordinance.” She also expressed support for limiting the city to one SSP license.
“I support one license, for the simple fact that I just don’t trust the [COSI] program,” Soule-Leclair said. “I don’t even trust the CDC [Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention].”
She then said that keeping a limit of one license will protect residents and business owners.
Mayor Carl Sheline stated that he agreed with Roy. “We don’t need fifty, but I think one is a little low,” he said. “Three sounds great, I would be fine with two.”
“We can’t have what happened with COSI happen again,” he added.
Ward Seven Councilor David Chittim said he wouldn’t be opposed to a six-month moratorium on a second SSP, so long as the ordinance is passed and there is a “sunset clause” on the moratorium (meaning that it would not be renewed). He agreed that he does not want a repeat of the COSI situation.
“The reason this ordinance is here in the first place is because COSI abused its position in the city,” Chittim said. “It misled us and treated the city of Lewiston very badly.”
Ward Two Councilor Susan Longchamps expressed support for a limit of one SSP. She said that she would’ve supported a limit of two had the Council agreed to the 1-for-1 needle exchange rule.
Longchamps went on to say that this ordinance is not a “cure-all,” but a way to find a balance.
Gallant then stated, seemingly in reference to Chittim’s comments, that, “This all started because of needle waste. Period.”
Gallant expressed that he could be okay with a limit of licensing two SSP’s, and also was concerned about what would happen if the one provider shut down for any reason.
The current location of Spurwink was not meeting the needs of all the community, Harriman mentioned. He said he would prefer to allow Spurwink to open a second location or operate a mobile service.
Councilor Nagine reiterated his concerns about potential new SSP’s opening in Lewiston. Referencing the Spurwink and the COSI programs, he said, “Batting a .500 average is great for a baseball player, but it’s a coin toss for SSP’s in our community.”
Councilors have overwhelmingly praised Spurwink for its program and cooperation with the city.
Nagine expressed that he didn’t want to set up requirements that allow an organization to “check boxes” as opposed to demonstrating “trustworthiness over time.”
“I know we have a good partner right now that we can support,” he said. “I want the furor to die down and I want good partnerships.”
Roy stated that the city’s problems weren’t with the number of SSP’s, but with the needle waste. More needle disposal boxes (also known as “sharps containers”) could help with waste, he said, adding that effects may be limited since people throw non-needle litter on the ground five feet from trash cans.
Longchamps took issue with Roy’s comparison, stating, “This is not your everyday litter. This is something serious.”
“So you’re saying until we address, or take care of, or conquer paper, we shouldn’t be addressing this type of litter,” she continued. “This is a hazard to the city.”
Off-microphone, Roy indicated that he didn’t say what Longchamps was implying. Longchamps then responded by asking, “Well, then what were you saying?”
At this point, several residents in attendance became disruptive, prompting the Mayor to issue reminders to remain quiet.
Longchamps added that it was “disappointing” to compare the litter problem to needle waste.
Soule-Leclair didn’t think the city needed any more disposal boxes, commenting that users have demonstrated they are “incapable of putting needles in sharps containers.”
Nagine pointed out that the community is “divided” over the issue of needle exchanges. He stated his preference for just supporting the SSP that is already providing services, rather than expand services in the city.
In an attempt to move the issue forward, Nagine suggested a compromise he felt the Council could get behind.
“I’m asking for a compromise to allow for a many-for-1 model” (as opposed to a 1-for-1), Nagine said.
Discussion continued, with Gallant stating that Spurwink could be overwhelmed by demand if they are the only SSP operating under a six-month moratorium.
Catherine Ryder, Senior Director of Strategic Initiatives for Spurwink, was in attendance and confirmed that Spurwink has been the sole operator in Lewiston for about half a year (COSI became defunct several months before being officially shut down by the city) and that they have not been overwhelmed.
Nagine said he was fine with a “sunset clause” on a potential moratorium, and was fine with Chittim’s suggestion that the moratorium would be on issuing licenses; organizations would still be able to submit applications during the moratorium.
Harriman said he was fine with only one license issued by the city, but he wanted the provider to not be tied to one single location.
Mayor Sheline stated his disagreement with a potential moratorium.
The Council held a straw poll to see how many Councilors would be open to a moratorium, which would require preparation by staff and legal counsel. Only Nagine and Chittim expressed that they were open, so the idea was scrapped.
Longchamps stated that if there is no 1-for-1 cap on needle exchanges, she wants to limit the number of SSP’s in the city to one. Soule-Leclair agreed, saying she could’ve supported two SSP’s had the 1-for-1 limit been kept in.
With the meeting dragging on and nothing having been decided, Nagine again expressed his desire for fellow councilors to compromise. Since they were refusing to do so, he said he would support a limit of only one SSP license, and made a motion to do so, which was seconded by Soule-Leclair.
Things then became more heated on the dais.
Harriman questioned the connection between limiting the number of licenses issued and limiting the number of syringes exchanged. The number of SSP’s doesn’t affect the demand for those services, he implied, questioning why some councilors wanted to limit the number.
Gallant bluntly responded that the only reason some councilors wanted the limit on SSP’s was because, “It’s what they want, and they’re councilors, and they get to ask for what they want.”
He continued, “They just want it, and that’s why we’re debating it.”
Soule-Leclair responded directly to her Ward Three colleague by saying, “It’s about trust, Councilor Harriman.” She then stated that she trusted Spurwink, but was unsure about any new applicants.
Chittim took umbrage with the comments, taking them to mean that there was no trust in the Council and city inspections.
The proposed ordinance provided “infinitely more oversight than we have today over SSP’s,” he said. He then stated that it took an “open door” for the city to get into COSI due to a lack of regulations.
Longchamps responded to Chittim by saying that when the city shut down COSI, it wasn’t the first issue with them, and that “we were sharing (what was going on) with you [Chittim] all along.”
Nagine spoke again to say he had concerns with issuing a license to an “unknown entity,” and that the city should go with “the trusted thing.”
The Mayor then opened the floor for public comments. Several residents shared their thoughts, many of them dissatisfied with the Council’s slow progress on the issue and ordinance.
Former School Committee member Ronnie Paradis emphasized that the Council needed to pass something, and that this was only the first read and that there would be a second read before the ordinance could be approved.
Paradis also stated that the needle waste is a completely separate issue from the licensing, and that the Council was delaying things.
Following public comments, the motion to limit the number of licenses to one failed by a 2-5 vote (only Nagine and Soule-Leclair supported the change).
Nagine then said that if the Council was unwilling to compromise on limiting the number of SSP’s, then he was no longer in favor of a many-for-1 model of needle exchanges, which was contingent.
Nagine voted in favor of a many-for-1 model at the previous meeting, which only passed 4-3.
At Tuesday’s meeting, Nagine then made a motion to reconsider that previous vote, which passed 4-3 (Harriman, Roy, and Chittim voted against). This meant that the 1-for-1 question was back in the proposed ordinance, without any other decisions on the topic having been made.
A motion was made to amend the ordinance by setting a maximum of ten needles to be exchanged daily (25 on Fridays, since Spurwink’s program doesn’t operate over the weekend). This motion failed 3-4, with Nagine, Harriman, Roy, and Chittim voting against.
With that motion having failed, the reconsidered motion was brought back into focus.
Harriman stated that he was opposed to a one-license limit because he believed the ordinance did not allow the licensed operator to have additional locations or mobile services. He would be okay with only one provider, he said, but wants to allow more locations to reach more people in the city.
Jon Connor, Director of Planning and Code Enforcement, confirmed that a new license and inspection would be required for additional locations. As the ordinance is written, he said, mobile SSP operations are not allowed as they would also need to be licensed. This ordinance only addresses “brick and mortar” locations.
Creating regulations for mobile services is very technical and requires a substantial amount of planning. Connor stated that his department has plans to develop such an ordinance, but was focused on the one at-hand.
By this point, the meeting had been going on for almost four hours.
Chittim motioned to table the discussion until the next meeting, which passed by a 4-3 vote (voting against were Longchamps, Soule-Leclair, and Gallant).
Discussion then ended, with no progress made, and a decision at a previous meeting having been rescinded.
Although the agenda item was now officially done, the issue came up again during the slot when councilors can ask for items to be added to future agendas.
In order for an item to be placed on a City Council meeting agenda, it must be approved by the Mayor, the Council President (Chittim), and the City Administrator (Bryan Kaenrath) during their Agenda Meetings, which take place the week prior to the Council meeting.
During future agenda items, Soule-Leclair asked for the Council to have a workshop to hash out their disagreements over the SSP ordinance before proceeding to a regular meeting to actually vote.
A visibly frustrated Soule-Leclair then said that she’s asked for such a workshop several times, but has been “denied every time I’ve asked.”
Verbally agreeing with her suggestion were Gallant, Nagine, and Longchamps, meaning that a majority of the Council wanted the workshop.
Also seeming frustrated, the Mayor noted that the Council has held multiple workshops on the issue already and that, “The reason we’re here is because people keep changing their minds.”
Soule-Leclair responded off-microphone with, “I never once changed my mind.”
With no confirmation of the workshop by the Mayor, Council President, or the Administrator, Nagine noted that four councilors wanted it, so hopefully it happens. He said the workshop shouldn’t be on the same day as the vote, so that councilors can have a different type of discussion than at meetings.
Kaenrath stated that a special meeting could be held on October 14th at 6pm.
Longchamps then pressed the Mayor for confirmation that the workshop would actually happen. Sheline confirmed it, followed by Kaenrath and Chittim.