LEWISTON- On Tuesday night, the City Council removed the 1-for-1 needle exchange requirement from a proposed ordinance, then ultimately postponed discussion until the next meeting on October 7th.
The ordinance is being drafted by Director of Code Enforcement Jon Connor to create rules for syringe service programs (SSP’s), a topic of much council debate over the past several months.
Mayor Carl Sheline began discussions by stating he wanted to go straight to public comment instead of going first to the Council. Normal procedure is for councilors to have the first opportunity to speak amongst themselves, then public comment is allowed, then councilors get another round to speak and debate.
Councilor Tim Gallant disagreed with the Mayor, indicating that possible council amendments should be brought up before the public can comment on them. Councilor David Chittim said he felt the same as Gallant, and the Mayor agreed to go to the Council first.
Chittim submitted an amendment to remove all mentions of 1-to-1 needle exchange rules from the proposed ordinance.
The ratio for exchanging needles has been a point of debate for the Council. Removing the ratio limit would mean that the number of needles SSP’s can provide would be at their discretion.
Several councilors pointed to statements made by medical professionals that a 1-for-1 needle exchange would lead to worse health outcomes for the community.
Councilor Michael Roy stated that doctors and professionals say that infectious diseases will rise as a result of a 1-for-1 limit, and that more people will end up using dirty needles.
Some considered a possible compromise, or what an ideal solution may be.
Gallant said he supports a 1-for-1 model, and that he does want a limit.
Individuals addicted to fentanyl may use around ten needles each day, more than users of other substances.
Gallant said he would like to see a daily limit of ten needles dispensed, with twenty dispensed for weekends (the only SSP in Lewiston does not operate over the weekend).
Overall, Gallant said he believes that the proposed ordinance is “not perfect, but a starting point.”
Chittim, at one point showing frustration with the process, stated that the 1-for-1 restriction is “a bunch of lay people on the City Council contravening what has been a flood of best practices, medical evidence,” that multiple needles are needed for harm reduction.
Councilor Scott Harriman pointed out that one of the biggest goals of SSP’s is to make as much contact with patients as possible, which increases the likelihood of those patients to agree to seeking long term assistance.
If individuals do not have any needles to bring in for exchange, then less contacts will be made, Harriman said.
Harriman also mentioned that all future business licenses for SSP’s will have to be approved by the City Council, meaning the Council would “have control over who gets a license.”
Some councilors, including Eryn Soule-Leclair, voiced displeasure with removing the 1-for-1 requirement.
In response to the notion that since people are going to use needles for drugs, society might as well make the process as safe as possible, Soule-Leclair stated that clean needles don’t prevent overdoses.
“There’s nothing safe about it,” she said.
Councilor Susan Longchamps also voiced opposition to removing the 1-for-1 requirement.
“I think since the beginning of handing out needles, Lewiston has been affected negatively,” Longchamps said. She stated that the ordinance wasn’t perfect, but it was a good start.
Downtown businesses have been vocal about their complaints regarding needle waste and drug use in the area. Several businesses have either closed or moved their locations, with some pointing to safety and cleanliness as a major reason why.
Councilor Joshua Nagine stated that he preferred to postpone the 1-for-1 limit until the city could go over some other “high-level pieces.”
Those pieces, he said, will determine whether he supports a 1-for-1 or a many-for-1 model.
Nagine emphasized the importance of strong partnerships and ensuring that operators will be good partners for the city.
Not giving out needles won’t stop the drug use, Nagine also mentioned.
While individuals may receive needles from the one SSP in Lewiston, needles are also sold at local pharmacies. Some point to this fact when SSP’s are blamed entirely for needle litter.
The city’s sole SSP, Spurwink, received general praise from councilors regarding its operation.
Another SSP that has been defunct for a while but was only recently shut down by the city for violations, the Church of Safe Injection (COSI) has long been criticized by neighbors and city officials. The state recently revoked its license to operate.
COSI was often blamed for heavy needle litter around its premises on Main Street.
Needle litter was discussed by the Council, with multiple councilors suggesting that opioid settlement funds that the city received could be used for clean up efforts.
Soule-Leclair stated that removing the 1-for-1 requirement would mean a stronger likelihood for needle litter.
Harriman responded by saying that there is no evidence that giving out needles actually increases syringe litter. He suggested increasing the number of “sharps boxes” (boxes for storing used needles) in the city and using opioid settlement funding for litter clean-ups.
Gallant stated that he cares more about getting people help than he does about needle litter. While he believes that addressing waste is still important, he also said “We’re wrapped up around needle waste and not wrapped up around saving individuals.”
Gallant also stated that the state is not doing its part to help.
SSP locations are limited in Maine, which means that service center communities like Lewiston are actually serving the wider region instead of just the city. This typically results in more service calls for first responders and a greater need for public works services to address cleanliness, with local taxpayers typically footing the bill for those expenses.
Added to the already negative impact on local businesses, many residents have called for the city to regulate SSP’s in the hope that improvements can be made and a balance can be achieved.
Sheline said that while the city does need an ordinance to address SSP’s, the 1-for-1 requirement is “a step backwards.”
“I have a real problem getting into the weeds and telling SSP’s how to operate,” he said.
When the vote was called on the amendment to remove the 1-for-1 requirement, it passed by a 4-3 vote (Longchamps, Soule-Leclair and Gallant voted against).
The next discussion centered on where future SSP’s would be allowed to operate.
The proposed map showing allowable locations limits options to just a few pockets in the community. All allowable locations are located away from the Downtown Business District.
Sheline stated that the proposed zoning was a “slight bit too restrictive.”
Roy called the proposal “counterproductive” and said that it “pushes everything away.”
Harriman concurred, indicating a need for guidelines but implying that the proposal is too restrictive.
Some councilors brought up the possibility of mobile operations. Connor said there were already plans to workshop the idea with the Council at a later date, but under the current ordinance proposal those operations would not be allowed.
The meeting went on for about four hours in total. At several points during debate, councilors and the Mayor seemed agitated at the slow pace of the discussions.
While debating the proposed zoning, Soule-Leclair motioned to end debate, which lost in a 3-4 vote (Nagine, Harriman, Roy and Chittim voted against).
Not long after, Sheline asked for a motion to table the ordinance proposal to the next regular meeting on October 7th. Chittim made the motion, which passed in a 4-3 vote (Longchamps, Soule-Leclair and Gallant voted against).